tsdevine wrote:
I love waterfall photography.....and I'd love the extra DR to lift shadows. Water is "hot" even in low contrast situations like a cloudy day. I can lift the shadows fairly acceptably on the 5D II given the right conditions, but I'd love the flexibility of another stop or two. I don't do HDR....
-Tim
Yeh I know what you mean. Photographing waterfalls in the Columbia Gorge is really challenging in trying to keep the water from blowing out and the shadows from going dark. Multiple exposures is also quite challenging as there is always a breeze in the Gorge which moves the vegetation between images. Yes, another two stops of DR would really be used in those situations.
Clearly it won't work with a very large area or over a large distance, but I would always use fill if I could
I shoot people/events and usually have 3-5 seconds. My motives do not wait for me. 5 Minutes is a different kind of freedom.
I always use a fill if I have to. But I prefere not to have.
Ralph Conway wrote:
I shoot people/events and usually have 3-5 seconds. My motives do not wait for me. 5 Minutes is a different kind of freedom.
I always use a fill if I have to. But I prefere not to have.
Then use AV and dial your FEC down to -1 2/3rd or -2 stops or similar while raising your Exp Comp by 1/3 or 2/3rds depending on the subjects tonality.
Better still shoot in M and dial in as much negative FEC as you need.
Well executed fill-flash is almost or completely un-noticeable and grossly manipulating a file is the very last thing I want to do.
Get it right in-camera if you can is always the best policy IMO.
You're welcome to disagree. I know many do. You'll notice that I didn't say fill flash was the worst choice all of the time but for my work I use it as a last resort.
In many of the cases where I've discussed this with people in the past, shots have come forward and I've pointed out the little things that people don't seem to notice, so firstly it depends if you have the time or environment to get it totally right and, if you don't, which is the better compromise - fill flash which you can see is fill flash or a pushed exposure.
Ill give one example by the way. A wedding photographer friend of mine sent me a shot during a fill flash discussion claiming you couldn't see. I pointed out the little specs of light in the eye and the unnatural shine on the skin. He retorted that he liked those and I said, that's fine, but don't tell me you can't tell. At that point it's personal taste. And for me to like fill flash it has to be as good or better than the original ambient light.
Weddings are a special case for these kinds of things since you don't have the time to setup a perfect shot for everything you might want, especially with a documentary style.
On the get it right in camera point, I agree to a level - the level being where it costs me more time to get it right before post than after.
PhilDrinkwater wrote:
You're welcome to disagree. I know many do. You'll notice that I didn't say fill flash was the worst choice all of the time but for my work I use it as a last resort.
In many of the cases where I've discussed this with people in the past, shots have come forward and I've pointed out the little things that people don't seem to notice, so firstly it depends if you have the time or environment to get it totally right and, if you don't, which is the better compromise - fill flash which you can see is fill flash or a pushed exposure.
Ill give one example by the way. A wedding photographer friend of mine sent me a shot during a fill flash discussion claiming you couldn't see. I pointed out the little specs of light in the eye and the unnatural shine on the skin. He retorted that he liked those and I said, that's fine, but don't tell me you can't tell. At they point it's personal taste.
Weddings are a special case for these kinds of things since you don't have the time to setup a perfect shot for everything you might want, especially with a documentary style.
On the get it right in camera point, I agree to a level - the level being where it costs me more time to get it right before post than after.
I'm not suggesting what you do is wrong, it's just not what I would probably do - but then in over thirty years of pro work I have never and would never shoot a wedding, I've been asked dozens of times but it's not what I do.
Certainly with film I would always have used fill as to get details in a black suit and a white dress without flash would simply not be possible.
chez wrote:
Yeh I know what you mean. Photographing waterfalls in the Columbia Gorge is really challenging in trying to keep the water from blowing out and the shadows from going dark. Multiple exposures is also quite challenging as there is always a breeze in the Gorge which moves the vegetation between images. Yes, another two stops of DR would really be used in those situations.
That would be a particularly good example case for more dr..
dhphoto wrote:
I'm not suggesting what you do is wrong, it's just not what I would probably do - but then in over thirty years of pro work I have never and would never shoot a wedding, I've been asked dozens of times but it's not what I do.
Certainly with film I would always have used fill as to get details in a black suit and a white dress without flash would simply not be possible.
What works for you works for you.
Indeed. For my studio work I'm all over flash so I know lighting very well (www.phildrinkwater.co.uk if you're interested).
Ill also often bounce multiple flashes off a back wall if doing indoor groups to keep ISO low and balance with the outdoors. Ill even use colour gels to match the outdoor temperature.
But adding a flash into an outdoor scene - without it being the key light - is a particular dislike of mine. I've hardly ever seen a quickly / simply done effect which I like. Not never, but not often.
It's a personal choice. People buy what they like.
I like your shots Phil, I worked in a Bond Street studio doing hair and beauty as an assistant about a hundred years ago and we did very similar stuff.
You got it, I almost always hear the "just do HDR" comeback....but I'm lucky to get one shot where the foliage is fairly still. Many of the falls I shoot seem to produce their own breeze. Occasionally you'll get a brief calm, but it's tough. Lighting also can change depending on how cloudy it is.
I want it in one shot and I work hard to get the exposure perfect. Even so....just one more stop (or two) would be extremely helpful.
-Tim
chez wrote:
Yeh I know what you mean. Photographing waterfalls in the Columbia Gorge is really challenging in trying to keep the water from blowing out and the shadows from going dark. Multiple exposures is also quite challenging as there is always a breeze in the Gorge which moves the vegetation between images. Yes, another two stops of DR would really be used in those situations.
chez wrote:
Yeh I know what you mean. Photographing waterfalls in the Columbia Gorge is really challenging in trying to keep the water from blowing out and the shadows from going dark. Multiple exposures is also quite challenging as there is always a breeze in the Gorge which moves the vegetation between images. Yes, another two stops of DR would really be used in those situations.
well, with a d800 you can expose after the high lights and develop two or more copies, one after the high lights and one after the shadows (low read out noise, free from banding and patter noise) and mix them together in PS, or make 3 copies one for shadows, one for middle tones and one for high lights.
That is the advantage with 14 stops DR compared to 11 stops Canon DR who are also including noise/pattern noise. And you do not need any tripod or static motive , one free hand exposure is usually sufficient with D800 compared to Canon.
Yup..Nikon does seem to have the upper hand when it comes to DR. I have too much $$$ invested in EF mount glass to switch though. Hopefully Canon will be able to play a little catch up over the next couple of years. (Or sooner would be great.)
-Tim
macrobild wrote:
well, with a d800 you can expose after the high lights and develop two or more copies, one after the high lights and one after the shadows (low read out noise, free from banding and patter noise) and mix them together in PS, or make 3 copies one for shadows, one for middle tones and one for high lights.
That is the advantage with 14 stops DR compared to 11 stops Canon DR who are also including noise/pattern noise. And you do not need any tripod or static motive , one free hand exposure is usually sufficient with D800 compared to Canon....Show more →
The sensor from Canon is almost good as from Sony/Toshiba etc. Canon are little bit behind in QE with 50% compare to the best Toshiba 65% Sony 56%.
The DR problem starts when Canon reads out the signal from the sensor , here Canon have long analog signal path way. And this shows at base iso with high read out noise, pattern noise banding and therefore 11-11,7 stops DR compared to others like Sony with 14 stops and even little more.
More Mp-when?
To use the latest APS line and make a 24x36mm sensor with the same structure as the 18Mp sensor in 7d will be expensive and time consuming because APS line will be occupied, Canon has no steppers, lenses to expose a 24x36mm area in one time with smaller geometry/scale as its needs for a new sensor tech as Sony, Toshiba, Panasonic with for example column wise ADC on-board the chip. Canon can stitch the sensors but also that is time consuming and costly
Canon has neither the whole assembly in house, the turn themeselves to Fujitsu
Compared to Sony who has 5-7 lines and down to 90nm (and even smaller) Canon has two older lines.
It is no coincidence that Canon tell us that it is enough with 20-22Mp, Canon has no equipment to go down in the scale/ geometry which is required if they are going to compete with new tech and higher resolution in larger sensors
I rarely shoot at ISO numbers higher than 1600, so the high DR issues with Canon's sensors is not such a big deal for me. But I took some high ISO shots (ISO 3200-6400) in the past where I could definitely see banding patterns in the photos, especially in dark red areas.
I would probably profit more from better low ISO behavior than from a much more improved high ISO behavior than it currently already is.
macrobild wrote:
It is no coincidence that Canon tell us that it is enough with 20-22Mp, Canon has no equipment to go down in the scale/ geometry which is required if they are going to compete with new tech and higher resolution in larger sensors
But ... It is for the vast majority of users?
Now there may be a difference between need and want, but 22, or even 18, or 24 - they are more than enough for most. Now please don't come back and say "yes but this type of photography needs more" because I know there's landscape, pro fashion and beauty, pro architecture etc... where more is needed but a fair number of my friends are now dumping their d800s since its too much res a) to process quickly and b) to put all of the effort into to get a steady and sharp shot.
Unless you want to print at more than, say, 24", 22 is fine.
It may be that canon are only saying that as they don't have the tech, but it also happens to be true *for the majority*.
While I'd happily take a camera with more dr, I would unhappily take a camera with significantly more mp and I said that in my feedback to canon. I don't want to burn the disk space, card space and have to improve my technique for something ill never need in my work.
macrobild wrote:
well, with a d800 you can expose after the high lights and develop two or more copies, one after the high lights and one after the shadows (low read out noise, free from banding and patter noise) and mix them together in PS, or make 3 copies one for shadows, one for middle tones and one for high lights.
That is the advantage with 14 stops DR compared to 11 stops Canon DR who are also including noise/pattern noise. And you do not need any tripod or static motive , one free hand exposure is usually sufficient with D800 compared to Canon....Show more →
Why bother with all that, when you can just open the image up in a proper Raw converter like Capture One 7 or Lightroom 4.2, and do all the tone-mapping you need using just the highlight/shadow recovery sliders? It looks more natural and takes seconds.
PhilDrinkwater wrote:
But ... It is for the vast majority of users?
Now there may be a difference between need and want, but 22, or even 18, or 24 - they are more than enough for most. Now please don't come back and say "yes but this type of photography needs more" because I know there's landscape, pro fashion and beauty, pro architecture etc... where more is needed but a fair number of my friends are now dumping their d800s since its too much res a) to process quickly and b) to put all of the effort into to get a steady and sharp shot.
Unless you want to print at more than, say, 24", 22 is fine.
It may be that canon are only saying that as they don't have the tech, but it also happens to be true *for the majority*.
While I'd happily take a camera with more dr, I would unhappily take a camera with significantly more mp and I said that in my feedback to canon. I don't want to burn the disk space, card space and have to improve my technique for something ill never need in my work.
