Wow! That is one dramatic transformation-at first one does not believe they are the same image. Gives a new meaning to Ansel's saying that the "negative represents the score and the print the performance" Well done. Pat

Wonderful example of layering.

Most email servers at ISPs such as Verizon and Comcast restrict the file size on attachments so you either need to downsize the file or use a service designed to share larger files such as dropbox.

Thanks Bob, That makes absolute sense to me. Back when the adage was expose for the shadows/develop for the highlights with film I understood and used that process. Now with digital we hear ETTR (expose to the right) which places the emphasis on the higher values just short of clipping so the shift with digital is higher in the zones regardless. It also explains to me why RAW images SOOC seem flatter in contrast than the corresponding JPEGs before we use our PP programs. Thanks so much for the clarity on this topic. Pat

Hi Bob, I have enjoyed your digital b&w work. I have not followed b&w into the digital realm but back in the day (film) it was generally accepted that the tonal range of b&w exceeded that of color negatives and slide film had an even lesser range. As I recall there were 9-10 distinct zones in b&w, 7-8 for color negatives and 5-6 for slides and, of course, it was a continuum so there were 1/2 zones, etc. Has digital altered that in any way in your experience?

Thx Pat

Wow, is that over the top! I would not know how to begin there but I do trust in Peterson's photo experience relative to exposure. When I had a darkroom I worked mostly in black & white and studied Ansel, Weston and Fred Picker in using the Zone System and others delved into things like gamma which is the base density of b&w unexposed film processed normally. Theoretically that is the starting point of densitometry and some photographers tried to apply that in analyzing negatives and true "zone" values. It got real crazy and I am not sure how practical it would be in actual photo applications. Interesting though, thanks for the research Andy.

Pat

If one follows Bryan Peterson we find that average caucasian skin approximates 18% grey so simply meter your open hand. That said do it at the same reflectance angle as your scene as previously noted. It is also only a starting point, especially in a bright snow or beach scene. Chimp your LCD screen to confirm and I would highly recommend a Hoodman hood for your screen to see what you have un any brightness condition. Many times auto ISO works well but check it and as tradio noted keep it relatively low. Snow is especially notorious for pick up light color and overcast conditions generally favor cool blues. While it is true that shooting RAW will allow great latitude in adjusting WB why not get as close as you can in camera. Good luck or better, experiment.

Mike, From my perspective I did not "go after you". You appeared to defend and agree with Bipod's posts. If we disagree that's fine but my last post I thought was both informative and somewhat conciliatory. I did not "attack" anyone. Bipod has not posted a single photo of his own and virtually every one of his posts are critical and negative toward anything that has been produced in recent history. I'm done with this thread as there seems nothing that can be said that will be construed in any positive light. Pat

Mike, here is what I am responding to; it appears you are supporting the posts of Bipod-did you indeed read all of them? He ranted claim after claim that had no basis in fact. Suggesting the resale value of a D850 at $100, stating that mirrorless is not new technologically, suggesting that pinhole cameras produce images on a par with modern cameras. Are Canon and Nikon late to the game? Yes! Are they expensive? Yes! Aren't all new high end releases. I perhaps, inappropriately, painted you with Bipod's brush and for that I will apologize. I am simply tired of folks bashing the Nikon Z6&7 with misinformation, not that you did that, but I reject that these cameras with their new lens systems are merely marketing hype. I believe time will be on my side and prove my purchase decision sound in the long haul. I am making some of the best images of my hobby career presently and not that I credit that solely to my use of the Z7 but the camera lens combo (24-70 F4.0) is amazing. I have handheld a local stream to show water motion at 1/2 second braced against a tree and thew stationary rocks are tack sharp. One of the images I posted was the Baltimore skyline over which I layered the moon in photoshop. You can read building signage in the extreme corners at 24mm. I did take a look at your posts and appreciate your closeup work with flora. We can agree to disagree but I cannot accept your support of Bipod who, indeed, is trolling this site and to my view has posted nothing of value. Thx Pat

You missed my point entirely and make my point with your second sentence. Any camera, all cameras are a tool to create what your particular vision can express. A camera does nothing "for us" but only that what we allow it to do. The Z6-7 expand certain photo possibilities and limit others just as any photo instrument does. The single sharpest image I ever created was with a Crown Graphic 4X5 and an Ektar 127mm in Compur shutter. My recent images (check out recent posts) rival that sharpness and exceed the color fidelity and range. Those of you who always criticize the posts of others never post any images of your own to support your viewpoint. A favorite mentor of mine Fred Picker always stated he would go with "those who can hang them on the wall"!!! Show me yours. Pat

There are a lot of very technical answers and some solutions offered but the single most difficult problem you had was the direction of lighting and your position relative to it. Even though the sky was overcast your scene was backlit. The sky and the amount of it included, even if by reflection off of the water, was the primary cause of your difficulty. In such cases, if you cannot reposition yourself at least get in as close as you can to your subject either physically or with longer lenses or a teleconverter and take your meter reading. If close enough fill flash can help. Pat

I was finally successful in adding a moon to my Baltimore skyline where it would never naturally appear because the view over our harbor faces north. Finally figured out how to use layers in photoshop and the CC version's eraser tool works like a charm to make the background black sky transparent and show the dusky deep blue of the skyline photo. Next clear night of a full or nearly full moon I plan to compile a series of moons with 105mm and 300mm lenses in various positions in the frame to keep in a "moons" folder for later incorporation into other photos. From there I will do the same with various moon phases so that I have considerable flexibility. Fun to come. Pat

Very nice job!

Look at it from my perspective and the kind of photography I do. That single zoom covered three of my four primes 24,35,50 and 85 with a 24-70 that is only one stop slower and tack sharp at all apertures to the edges of the frame-so far I have posted two photos that show it's capability. I also moved from 36 to 45 megapixels and better low light capability. Nikon has just scratched the surface with new mount lenses and has more stabilization capability than any lens with IBIS. I got this for only $500 out of pocket and carry 14 lbs less weight. From my viewpoint it's a win. Pat

Here is content: In Sept I traded in my D810 and four prime lenses that weighed in aggregate 18.5 lbs at my local Nikon Dealer (who also sells Canon, Sony, Pentax, Fuji, Panasonic, Leica, Hasselblad +) and got $3,700 in credit toward my new Z7, 24-70 F4.0 and FTZ adapter which in total weigh 3.2 lbs for only $500 out of pocket. This covers all of my previous focal length except an 85mm which I will get this year and my new total weight will be just over 4lbs. Here is a 45 megapizel image shot at 24mm ISO 100 for 1/6sec at F8.0. Methinks I will keep it a long time. Pat

(Download)