Dynamic Range??
Oct 25, 2020 06:39:00 #
kymarto wrote:
Because the eye rarely sees a shadow without some ... (show quote)
Hi kymarto - yes, I definitely prefer the hint of detail and color you have enabled in the clump of reeds. Not so sure with the reduced color overall. However, there are monitors and monitors. My printer gives a good rendition of what I see on my laptop, which I appreciate is no measure - my version looking to be brighter and more vibrant, save for the clump of reeds. Stay safe, Del
Oct 25, 2020 06:43:07 #
pithydoug wrote:
I have to disagree. I stuffed the pic into LR and there is detail in the area. I'm not saying that it should be done but that it can. Just kick the shadows up depending on how much detail you want but yet still maintain the sidelight. Like food season to taste.
Yes - I see two considerations - importance of the detail and how the deep shadow affects the overall pic.
Oct 25, 2020 07:45:04 #
Delderby wrote:
Attached is a pic I shot a couple of days ago – there is a dark corner (bottom left) would you leave it or PP lighten it?
You could flip a coin, but I'd leave it dark. That's how Nature designed it.
Oct 25, 2020 07:59:47 #
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
Delderby wrote:
I feel less needful of extra dynamic range than so... (show quote)
The Dynamic range of the human eye is something approaching 14 to 15 stops. There are no know current camera's that has shown that range, yet.
Oct 25, 2020 08:05:38 #
tcthome
Loc: NJ
A nice photo either way. Go ahead & do the extra post. You can always make a couple of copies & play around with them. If you don't like how the copies come out, just delete them.
Oct 25, 2020 08:46:32 #
gvarner
Loc: Central Oregon Coast
My thought is to define your subject before taking the shot and use the light to emphasize the subject. In your example there are two subjects, the fall colors and the water body. Adding detail to the dark lower left corner wouldn’t do much to enhance the subjects. Some judicious cropping might be in order.
Oct 25, 2020 08:59:34 #
Always keep in mind that our eye has an extremely wide range of sensitivity to light. It is a trillion to one ratio. No camera can capture that ratio. This is a driving reason to do post processing to extend the dynamic rage of your image capture.
That said, I also believe that if you are very happy with the image you see up on your computer, then you should do nothing further with it.
That said, I also believe that if you are very happy with the image you see up on your computer, then you should do nothing further with it.
Oct 25, 2020 09:29:19 #
Oct 25, 2020 09:42:02 #
billnikon wrote:
The Dynamic range of the human eye is something approaching 14 to 15 stops. There are no know current camera's that has shown that range, yet.
Correct.
Also the human eye isn't relegated to one image to process...it is constantly updating the image.
If we were looking at the posted image in real time with our eye...that dark corner would be well lit.
Oct 25, 2020 10:00:25 #
Canisdirus wrote:
Correct.
Also the human eye isn't relegated to one image to process...it is constantly updating the image.
If we were looking at the posted image in real time with our eye...that dark corner would be well lit.
Also the human eye isn't relegated to one image to process...it is constantly updating the image.
If we were looking at the posted image in real time with our eye...that dark corner would be well lit.
Yes - but if I point the camera (set to auto) at the dark corner, I get the detail. If a point at the sun-lit foliage I also get the detail. What the eye gets is a movie. We have cameras for that too - when and if we want them.
Oct 25, 2020 10:08:53 #
Delderby wrote:
I feel less needful of extra dynamic range than so... (show quote)
The inky thing does not sit comfortably within the rest of the scene.
My own fix would involve reducing its contrast, plus color tinting it to sort of camouflage it vis a vis its surroundings. Might slightly soften its very hard outer edge as well. A more ambitious editing practitioner might even clone over the whole problem.
Edit: I notice kymarto took a similar approach. I would further soften both contrast and detail resolution just a bit more ... but very clearly, “great minds think alike” (lol).
Oct 25, 2020 10:18:33 #
User ID wrote:
The inky thing does not sit comfortably within the rest of the scene.
My own fix would involve reducing its contrast, plus color tinting it to slightly camouflage it vis a vis its surroundings. Might possibly soften its very hard outer edge as well. A more ambitious editing practitioner might even clone over it.
My own fix would involve reducing its contrast, plus color tinting it to slightly camouflage it vis a vis its surroundings. Might possibly soften its very hard outer edge as well. A more ambitious editing practitioner might even clone over it.
Yes - two solutions - I did wonder about the inky thing - hence this topic.
Oct 25, 2020 10:19:00 #
Delderby wrote:
Yes - but if I point the camera (set to auto) at the dark corner, I get the detail. If a point at the sun-lit foliage I also get the detail. What the eye gets is a movie. We have cameras for that too - when and if we want them.
The human eye still is better than video.
Of course, we are talking here about photography.
There isn't a contest which is better.
Oct 25, 2020 10:20:31 #
Canisdirus wrote:
The human eye still is better than video.
Of course, we are talking here about photography.
There isn't a contest which is better.
Of course, we are talking here about photography.
There isn't a contest which is better.
Oct 25, 2020 11:33:38 #
Delderby wrote:
I feel less needful of extra dynamic range than so... (show quote)
I believe the shadow is fine as it is . The reason is acts as a lead in into the composition and creates an effect of spatial distancing .This also leads to an expanded feeling of depth ,as if stepping into the image . On Dynamic range My camera A Nikon D810 is reported to be 14.8 with the newest Sony at 15..The eye reported by most Experts in the field place in the 20's when not accompanied by blinding light .In other words our eyes have more dynamic range when closer to our base normal range I would compare this in my mind as our base ISO same as the camera where our Cameras greatest Dynamic range is at base ISO ....when our eyes have acclimated to the scene . It is the same as why a pirate wore a eye patch at night . When the eye was uncovered he could see better with that eye because it wasn't blinded by lantern light. It is also why red light is used in boats at sea when navigating at night .https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/21579/how-does-the-dynamic-range-of-the-human-eye-compare-to-that-of-digital-cameras
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.