Re: Utility of dynamic range beyond a certain point
Daran wrote:
By using masks you introduce discontinuities into your processing. Which if overdone …
The words “which if overdone” are pulling a whole lot of weight in that post!
That strikes me as the logical equivalent of saying that some people make espresso poorly, therefore espresso is bad. ;-)
Your point is not an indictment of using masks. It is an indictment of using masks poorly.
Skillfully applied, masks themselves are invisible to most viewers, even many sophisticated cate viewers unless they stop to carefully analyze how an effect was created. In fact, skillfully applied masks have an effect that is quite similar to how our visual system operates.
It is a misconception that extensive use of post processing techniques intrinsically causes poor results. In fact, some of the very best photographs that you/I see result from extensive post-processing work, but work done so skillfully and with such aesthetic sophistication that it doesn’t draw attention to itself.
I am reminded of a conversation I had with a friend who is a pretty highly-regarded landscape photographer and expert printer about HDR some years back. I was complaining about the prevalence of “HDR effect” photographs — which were a “thing” for a while a few years back. He pointed out to me that the problem was not HDR techniques themselves, but lead-footed applications of them in a gross manner… and that we presumed that HDR was bad because bad HDR got our attention… while all of the photographs using the same techniques in subtle, appropriate ways just… looked good.
- - -
aCuria wrote:
I think when the eye looks at the darker part of scene on screen, it’s possible for the eye to adapt if the monitor is on the larger side.
When comparing the same raw file on a HDR and SDR monitor, its quite clear to me that I can appreciate dynamic range beyond what the SDR IPS monitor can display. The difference is not small
Either the eye's instantaneous dynamic range exceeds the SDR monitor, or the eye is able to adapt to different parts of the image being bright and dark as the eye moves around the image.
I think the zone system is still relevant for the digital medium. Even if a SDR monitor can display 10 stops, the detail in the dimmest 2 stops is not fantastic. If we put the darkest important detail at zone 3, then the monitor only has 7 stops of DR left for the rest of the image.
So, if the eye is “adapting as it moves around the image” on the HDR monitor, thus perceptually darkening the lightest tones and lightening the dark areas…
… what is the advantage over a monitor image where your eyes don’t do that?
The concepts underlying the zone system are still relevant (critical even!) while the actual zone system is not particularly so anymore. When we look at a scene and recognize that highlights might be blown out and that decreasing exposure to maintain highlight detail and then bringing up the values in darkest areas in post will get the result we want… we are applying the approach of the zone system.
- - -
Since I’m here, a contribution to the sun-in-the-frame-with-older-camera thread:
This is, obviously, a single exposure. Exposure settings were chosen to a) deal with moving birds, b) avoid blowing out the sun entirely, c) keep barely enough shadow detail to get the effect I wanted in post. And, yes, this photograph required some sophisticated work in post, as I knew it would when I made the exposure. (Single exposure using a Canon 5DsR.)
Re: Utility of dynamic range beyond a certain point
Daran wrote:
By using masks you introduce discontinuities into your processing. Which if overdone …
The words “which if overdone” are pulling a whole lot of weight in that post!
That strikes me as the logical equivalent of saying that some people make espresso poorly, therefore espresso is bad. ;-)
Your point is not an indictment of using masks. It is an indictment of using masks poorly.
Skillfully applied, masks themselves are invisible to most viewers, even many sophisticated cate viewers unless they stop to carefully analyze how an effect was created. In fact, skillfully applied masks have an effect that is quite similar to how our visual system operates.
It is a misconception that extensive use of post processing techniques intrinsically causes poor results. In fact, some of the very best photographs that you/I see result from extensive post-processing work, but work done so skillfully and with such aesthetic sophistication that it doesn’t draw attention to itself.
I am reminded of a conversation I had with a friend who is a pretty highly-regarded landscape photographer and expert printer about HDR some years back. I was complaining about the prevalence of “HDR effect” photographs — which were a “thing” for a while a few years back. He pointed out to me that the problem was not HDR techniques themselves, but lead-footed applications of them in a gross manner… and that we presumed that HDR was bad because bad HDR got our attention… while all of the photographs using the same techniques in subtle, appropriate ways just… looked good.
- - -
Since I’m here, a contribution to the sun-in-the-frame-with-older-camera thread:
