artd Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
Re: Dynamic Range | |
AGeoJO wrote:
There is a lot of truth in this but at the same time, it challenges the photographer\'s skill more so, which is not a bad thing. But at the same time, I could detect that there is a hint of \"the grass looks greener from this side\" feeling in there . True that a better sensor will be more forgiving but still it is not like if you shoot with a better sensor you don\'t have to do similar careful process of exposing and post processing to get the desired results.
I\'m less worried about my skill being challenged, and more about my time being challenged A better sensor does not mean I will shoot with less care or be sloppy in my exposures or my processing. Rather it means my workflow will be faster and more efficient.
People like dhphoto have accused me of being \"lazy\" for not wanting to take the time to \"properly light\" a scene. The photoshoot I referenced above, there was a window of one day that the architect had available for me to shoot the entire facility. I was on site at dawn and left late in the evening. Combined with my drive to the site and then the drive home, that was about around a 16-hour shooting day (with about a 20 minute pause for a sandwich). And that of course there are al lthe hours of processing the photos afterward. Sorry, I don\'t buy the \"lazy\" argument.
So would I want a better sensor that would let me expedite my work flow both on site and on my computer? Would I like to save time by setting up fewer lights, taking fewer multiple exposures for blending, spending less time creating masks for noise reduction in Photoshop? Hell yes. \"Grass is greener?\" No. The shadows are cleaner! That much is not an illusion.
|