As for shooting black cats-I compensate for the black of course and you end up with a black blob with eyes instead of a gray blob with eyes. In this I do miss the dynamic range of film. I'll try to set up a slave for the highlights in the fur, but then, cats tend to move around!
Edited by jaapv on Jun 22, 2004 at 03:02 PM GMT (Reason: grammar)
ohenry,
Regarding shooting one image and pulling both the highlights and shadows from the RAW image...RAW doesn't really afford that much room for adjustment. Though the sensor may be able handle 5-8 stops in dynamic range, the RAW image can only recover maybe a stop of highlights and 2 stops of shadow. And even then noise can become a real problem. So that really only gives you 3 stops max of play in post processing. At least that has always been my understanding. Hopefully someone will correct me if I'm wrong.
ohenry wrote:
Ben, if you're shooting in RAW, why not just expose one image for the highlights and one for the shadows from the one RAW image rather than taking separate images? (Assuming you're not looking at a tonal range around 8 zones or so)
You can do this to a certain extent.... It'll work if you only want to correct for a stop or so of exposure difference. However, when you're dealing with a 2 or 3 stop difference in exposure, it's very difficult to contain both good highlight detail and good shadow detail in the same RAW file. You'd have to expose mostly for the highlights..... then open up the shadows using the RAW conversion. You can only push the shadows so far before they fall apart. If you are going to bridge 2 or 3 stops between the foreground and the sky, it's best to take separate exposures.
RobertMcDonald wrote:
I remember one of the uses of a polarizer (besides reducing reflections) is to make skies appear "bluer." Is that just because it's darkening it? Would an ND filter have done the same thing?
I think what I'll do on my day off is to go out to those bluffs again with my tripod and see what I can do with it. Those cliffs face south-west so I might even be able to get some kind of sunset kind of thing with it, too. Maybe.
Both a polarizer and a ND filter will cut the total amount of light reaching the sensor. However, the polarizer will also have an affect on the reflected light in a scene. It will allow you to see the reflected light only from certain directions. This will affect the sky, as well as reflections on water, glass, and similar surfaces. The sky at a 90 degree angle from the sun will be greatest affected by a polarizer. This means that the Northern sky will be greatest affected here in the Northern Hemisphere. When you're using a wide angle lens, this can at times be unattractive because there will be a dark area in part of the sky, then the rest of the sky will be light. This was evident in the shot you posted. Just for reference, the polarizer will cut about 2 stops of light, so it can also serve as a ND filter when needed.
Ben Horne wrote:
Both a polarizer and a ND filter will cut the total amount of light reaching the sensor. However, the polarizer will also have an affect on the reflected light in a scene. It will allow you to see the reflected light only from certain directions. This will affect the sky, as well as reflections on water, glass, and similar surfaces. The sky at a 90 degree angle from the sun will be greatest affected by a polarizer. This means that the Northern sky will be greatest affected here in the Northern Hemisphere.
Interesting. BTW, is it possible that I'm seeing less effect with my polarizer on my new lens than I saw on my old camera? Because I swear it's doing less "polarizing" now when I rotate it.
Ben Horne wrote:
When you're using a wide angle lens, this can at times be unattractive because there will be a dark area in part of the sky, then the rest of the sky will be light. This was evident in the shot you posted.
In this I do miss the dynamic range of film. I'll try to set up a slave for the highlights in the fur, but then, cats tend to move around! 