Niced shot Herb and great post work. I sometimes think I sound a bit too preachy about the benefits of shooting RAW, but I think it's a shame that some are missing out on this technology when it's right at their fingertips. I haven't tried multiple exposure yet, but I will when a situation presents itself. Looks like fun. Paul
> i too have found that the default conversion in Photoshop CS based on what > the camera delivers can lose an entire stop worth of highlights. put it > another way, the JPEG that looks completely burned out can be pulled back, > if shot in RAW instead, to reveal lots of highlight detail. all this is > assuming proper exposure for the mid-tones. one can reach into the shadows > too with the Shadow/Highlight tool and pull out much more than can appear in > a JPEG version of the same scene. on top of this, with the proper tools or > some patience with layer masks, one can blend multiple exposures spaced at > one stop intervals to go 4 or 5 stops either way from correct mid-tone > exposures. this is an example where there is more than 14 stops of dynamic > range recorded http://users.bestweb.net/~hchong/Random/DSCN1201.jpg. it's > the result of blending 6 exposures. i took this series with a Nikon Coolpix > 5000, a camera that has virtually no highlight headroom even in RAW. > > Herb... > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 11:58 AM > Subject: Re: Hmm.. ist DS competition? > > > > The big limitation in shooting jpegs is that you don't have the exposure > > control that you get when converting RAW in PSCS. There is no comparison > > between jpeg and RAW. It's like night and day. Here's a shot I did > > yesterday to test the 28/3.5 for another member. It includes snow in > > bright sun and heavy shadow under a bench. You'll find detail in the snow > > and plenty of information in the sahdow. It was shot in RAW, and processed > > in PSCS. A bit of additional adjustment was done with the Shadow/Highlight > > tool in PS after conversion. There isn't a slide film in the world that > > can give you that much latitude, and I would guess that you'd have to scan > > a negative film and post-process to get a comparable result. But that's my > > opinion. Others may differ. Here's the shot, which is quite ugly by the > > way :-). > >
