As a teacher of the Physics of Light, Sound, and Electricity, "Dynamic Range" is a hot topic, first in the world of sound, then in the world of human visual physiology.

The reason why everyone enjoys listening to music performed at a concert is that we experience the full dynamic range of the music performance. When the performers/composers intend for the music to be soft, they play it soft, and we hear it soft. And when they intend it to be performed loud, we experience it loud. Think: canons in Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture. When it is recorded and played back for listeners, that -full dynamic range- cannot be realized. In fact, what many of my students are marveled to learn is that all the music they are listening to on their mp3 players are seriously compressed. Why? To fit a gazillion pieces of music on the players memory chip. A major advantage of compact disc is that it almost captures the full dynamic range of what our hearing can handle, hence a more accurate playback source.

Same thing with photography. Even today's best full size sensor cannot capture the full dynamic visual range of what our eyes can capture. So what we see framed on the wall can be very beautiful, but it is not showing what we saw with our naked eye.

The world of HDR (High Dynamic Range) addresses exactly that handicap. Consider this only as an example. Even without processing for HDR, one can go into Photoshop, Lightroom, Paint Shop Pro, and select an object and dodge it or burn it, just as Ansel Adams did in his darkroom. Another capability I love is the ability to selectively blur a section of the image. I've been trying to capture a 'perfect image' (whatever that really is) of a Red Panda here at the St. Louis Zoo. I've wanted to capture her looking me right in the eye. I've taken more than 150 RAW images. Finally I captured it two days ago. Now, in a zoo you cannot get real close to pandas. And with my 100-400 L lens, I was able to capture a beautifully framed and focused image of her, but set at 300 mm on the lense, everything is in focus, almost, and it's distracting. The leaves on the tree stump she's behind is as focused as she is. I want my guest to focus on her, not the leaves around her. Easy solution. In PP, I just use a blur tool and soften the leaves around her. Oh, one more thing. I was able to use the Sharpen tool to add sparkle to her eyes. Now framed, my guest comment that she seems to stare back, even follow them as they pass the print. I could not have accomplished this without post production. And I must add, this is the second dimension in the photographic process, not possible to this degree before digital darkroom.

In conclusion, what our eyes sees is not exactly what the camera sees. It's up to you, afterwards in your own digital darkroom, to add your own artistic touch, perhaps if nothing else than to bring it closer to what you actually saw with your own eyes.

As a teacher of the Physics of Light, Sound, and Electricity, "Dynamic Range" is a hot topic, first in the world of sound, then in the world of human visual physiology.

The reason why everyone enjoys listening to music performed at a concert is that we experience the full dynamic range of the music performance. When the performers/composers intend for the music to be soft, they play it soft, and we hear it soft. And when they intend it to be performed loud, we experience it loud. Think: canons in Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture. When it is recorded and played back for listeners, that -full dynamic range- cannot be realized. In fact, what many of my students are marveled to learn is that all the music they are listening to on their mp3 players are seriously compressed. Why? To fit a gazillion pieces of music on the players memory chip. A major advantage of compact disc is that it almost captures the full dynamic range of what our hearing can handle, hence a more accurate playback source.

Same thing with photography. Even today's best full size sensor cannot capture the full dynamic visual range of what our eyes can capture. So what we see framed on the wall can be very beautiful, but it is not showing what we saw with our naked eye.

The world of HDR (High Dynamic Range) addresses exactly that handicap. Consider this only as an example. Even without processing for HDR, one can go into Photoshop, Lightroom, Paint Shop Pro, and select an object and dodge it or burn it, just as Ansel Adams did in his darkroom. Another capability I love is the ability to selectively blur a section of the image. I've been trying to capture a 'perfect image' (whatever that really is) of a Red Panda here at the St. Louis Zoo. I've wanted to capture her looking me right in the eye. I've taken more than 150 RAW images. Finally I captured it two days ago. Now, in a zoo you cannot get real close to pandas. And with my 100-400 L lens, I was able to capture a beautifully framed and focused image of her, but set at 300 mm on the lense, everything is in focus, almost, and it's distracting. The leaves on the tree stump she's behind is as focused as she is. I want my guest to focus on her, not the leaves around her. Easy solution. In PP, I just use a blur tool and soften the leaves around her. Oh, one more thing. I was able to use the Sharpen tool to add sparkle to her eyes. Now framed, my guest comment that she seems to stare back, even follow them as they pass the print. I could not have accomplished this without post production. And I must add, this is the second dimension in the photographic process, not possible to this degree before digital darkroom.

In conclusion, what our eyes sees is not exactly what the camera sees. It's up to you, afterwards in your own digital darkroom, to add your own artistic touch, perhaps if nothing else than to bring it closer to what you actually saw with your own eyes.