Blair Shaw Jr Loc: Dunnellon,Florida

Thanks for the heads up on those filters. I didn't realize how many are out there and this article does a nice job of sorting them out. I need to seriously reconsider my interpretation of them all over again as I think I may have taken them for granted somewhat.

I need to practice my skills more and pay more attention to what I am doing rather than waiting for the camera to do it for me. I have just gotten lazy and dismissive in my old age......time to wake up again.

Thanks Paul

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

You indicated snow in your example. If you are at 5000' or higher, then a UV filter will help. The higher you go, the more it will affect the image, but it still will not be as much affect as in the film days. Below 5000', there is very little affect if any at all. A UV filter will lessen the affect of any light source that generates UV light (black light, welding, etc.). Not likely it will help you with your contrast.

Bipod

For most digital cameras, a UV filter will not have any effet
(except as you mention to protect the lens from scratches and splashes--
which is very important, so you are wise to use one).

Many newer lenses use an optical cement that absorbs UV.
Also, most digital sensors have a filter on them that stops most UV.
(but a few actually pass quite a bit of UV A--longer wave UV light).
So it depends a bit on your equipment.

Even with film cameras and lenses cemented with Canada balsalm,
UV rarely was a significant portion of thet total light except in
overcast days--which of course are low contrast. But UV filters
worked great to reduce haze.

Global contrast is defined as the difference in EV value between
the brightest highlight and the darkest shadow in the frame,
as measured by a real spotmeter (not a camera, especially not
a camera with interchangable lenses or one with a zoom lens).
Angle-of-view changes when you change lenses or change
the focal length of a zoom lens,, but a spotmeter will always
give you a 2 degree spot or whatever angle its designed to measure.)

A neutral density fiter will not reduce global contrast, because it affects
highlights and shadows equally. It simply reduces the EV, which means
the camera must compensate: longer shutter time or wider aperture.

Flare can reduce global contrast. Flare occurs when a bright light
enters the lens -- even when the light is outside in the angle-of-view!
Visible flare is a familar phoenomon -- but not all flare is visible.

Tiffen makes flare reducing filters that create invisible "micro-flare".
These filters are extremely useful for film cinematography (and
actually won a Technical Advancement Award from the Academy
of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences).
https://tiffen.com/collections/contrast

B&W film has vast dynamic range, but dark "blocked up" negatives are
difficult (sometimes impossible) to print. With digital (or digitally
scanned film negatives) you can print more of those dark tones. But no
color digital sensor has the dynamic range of the best B&W film--
despite csonumer camera manufacturer claims to the contrary.

Tiffen contrast-reduction filters are still useful with digital cameras,
but you can sometimes get the same effect by simply using a zoom lens
without a hood, provided the sun is shining on the front element but
is not in the frame. Lazy photographers who only use a zoom and never
use a lens hood are reducing contrast without even knowing it. We see a
lot of reduced-contrast images posted on UHH.

Global contrast becomes a problem when it exceeds the dyanmic range
of the sensor or film. But EVFs and displays on the backs of digital
cameras (if they are not OLED) have much lower dyanmic range than
the cameras's image sensor. And the human eye has a difficult time
distinguishing very dark shades. So "what you see" is not "what you get".

Shadows that appear pure black on the EVF or LCD screen -- or even
displayed on your computer monitor if its not OLED -- often contain
detail that can be recovered in processing and printed.

But highlights that look blown are blown, and cannot be fixed.
Information the sensor didn't capture is gone forever. So in extreme
contrast scene, if you're not able to reduce the contrast with a contrast-
reduction filter or by taking advantage of invisible flare, it's a choice
between blown highlights and inky-looking shadows. Go for the latter.

What you don't see can hurt you in photography. That's always
been true. Film photographers didn't evaluate negatives by looking
at them with the naked eye--they used a loope or even a densiometer.

What looks good in your camera's back screen, EVF, or your
computer monitor is relevant only if that is how you plan to display
the photo. Othewise, what matters is how the final image will look.

As in film and optical printing, inkjet prints have much less dynamic
range than the camera's sensor. How much DR they have depends
on the reflectivity of the paper and the ink. If its a cartridge that has
black ink, then some blacks are blacker than others.
the camera's sensor.

Photography has always been a guessing game---digital didn't change
that. But a lot of people think it did (and then they wonder why
their photographs don't look like Ansel Adams'....).

dione961

Hi Bipod - long time!! Thanks for your post - it's much appreciated. I don't understand some of the terms but I can easily look them up - that's something digital (the internet anyhow) did change (thank goodness). I had been researching online to try to learn why my Iditarod images suffered such dramatic contrast & I found an article that seem to clearly show how some UV filters produce stronger contrast. But it's the only one - everyone else says no - they don't & your post helps.

I don't know how I can manage the problem better yet except to say that I will be looking for scenes where the same conditions exist, and without the pressure of shooting an actual event, I will sit there & experiment & see what I can learn. Thanks for your help - always great to hear from you.

Any good tips for managing contrasty scenes are most welcome (from anyone). I have a D7200, UV's, CPL's, a range of lenses & a great desire to learn.

Regards, D.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

There is only one other suggestion that I can think of. Rent a medium format camera and digital back. Because of the larger pixels, medium format tends to have the largest dynamic range. I believe the latest Hasselblad back is 15 stops of dynamic range, 100mp, and 16 bit color.

User ID

Usually provided improvement for my
work. You could be using it wrong.

.

Bipod

Dealing with very contrasty scenes:

* Know your camera: back-screens and EVFs almost always have less dynamic range then
the image sensor. Therefore, the image may turn out better or worse than it appears in the display.

* If the camera can display a histogram in live view, rely on it (not the screen or EVF display)
to estimate the contrast: the wider the histogram, the greater the contrast (or "tonal range")

* Use a Tiffen contrast-reducing filter (if you have one with you)

* Wait for less-contrasty late afternoon light

* Try a zoom without a lens hood (with a sun hitting the lens but not in the frame)
If you don't get visible flare, invisible flare may reduce the contrast.

* Try shooting the subject from a different direction, to reduce the brightest highlighs
and darkest shadows

* Use a reflector to lighten shadows (always matches color temperature)

* If the subject is within flash range, try fill flash to lighten shadows

* Reduce the exposure (e.g., with exposure compensation in auto-exposure modes)
Pure white highlights are not recoverable; inky shadows sometimes are.

* Know the dynamic range of whatever device (LCD/LED) or paper/ink you plan to
use to display the final image.

In processing (e.g., PhotoShop):

* Know your monitor: almost certainly it has much less dyanmic range than the
camera sensor, and much more than paper/ink does. So what-you-see is not what-you-get.

* Reduce the overall contrast until the iimage is printable on the chosen ink/paper or
displayable on the intended device.

Any detail that isn't captured by the sensor is gone forever. But what looks pure black
isn't always devoid of detail. It's always been true in photography: what-you-see
isn't necessarily what-you-get, and the final image is what matters.

The final image is what matters--not what you see on other devices (back-screens,
EVFs, computer monitors (that are not the intended displa).

There are a wide range of display devices and print media with vastly different
dynamic ranges:, so it really matters. If you and I are looking at the same image,
and you are using an OLED monitor and I am using an LCD/LED montior, you
may see detail in shadows that look solid black to me.

This is one reason there are so many arguments on UHH about images.

A pilot flying IFR has to trust his instruments, not his perceptions. The
same goes for a photographer: trust your spotmeter not your eye.
The human eye can only see about 10 stops of contrast at one time:
color image sensors can capture more, monochrome sensors (e.g.,
Leical M9 Monochrome or security cameras) much more, and B&W
film much, much more.

It's always been true (and always will be true) in photography that what-you-see
isn't necessarily what-you-get, and that what matters is the final image.