pgk Posted December 21, 2009 Share #1 Posted December 21, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) In the very heart of the Snowdonia National Park today. M8, 24/2.8, ISO 160, uncropped. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 21, 2009 Posted December 21, 2009 Hi pgk, Take a look here Snowdonia snow. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
leicamann Posted December 21, 2009 Share #2 Posted December 21, 2009 Very nice , unfortunately as I have been trying to impress people about the "weakness of digital"...there is a glaring white hole in the upper left in the clouds. This is where the light intensity is too much for the sensor and you have a burn out or ballooning of the pixels, a good Kodak 160 NC would not have done that. Now have faith, there IS a way around this, but you will need a tripod. You take two exposures, one for the "correct" cloud exposure and one for your "correct "landscape and foreground exposure, you drag one into Photoshop and then the other, using layers you adjust the opacity of one on the other and then when you are happy with the result, voila, you "merge" the layers. So M9, M10, M25... they will all do the same, its important to pay attention to this, otherwise you end up with alot of pictures that look like they have had holes burned in them. Cheers, JRM Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbo035 Posted December 21, 2009 Share #3 Posted December 21, 2009 a very nice image, but a shame about "the glaring white hole" Hopefully Paul has Photoshop and will take a tripod in future ...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted December 21, 2009 Author Share #4 Posted December 21, 2009 The 'glaring white hole' is way beyond HDR, Photoshop layers or anything else - it was extremely bright relative to the rest of the image (actually 5 stops 'underexposure failed to gain reasonable detail in this area - ie 1/8000s) and I simply chose to accept that this is a limitation of digital (film reproduces such highlight tonality incorrectly but we have learned to accept it). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pauledell Posted December 22, 2009 Share #5 Posted December 22, 2009 Paul, A very nice photograph despite the white hole of the clouds. Paul Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elansprint72 Posted December 22, 2009 Share #6 Posted December 22, 2009 Like this? http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/landscape-travel/110240-section-44-a.html Try Nikon D700. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicamann Posted December 23, 2009 Share #7 Posted December 23, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) haha..very funny... but you'll be eating crow if this was bet on money.. like I said..the original is fine...so don't try to get my goat via falsehoods... If his original is fine, which I doubt..then its the same issue..compression..and your left with a ridiculous postage stamp facsimile of the drop dead gorgeous original Cheers, JRM Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted December 23, 2009 Author Share #8 Posted December 23, 2009 The original is well blown! Interestingly, I find that non-photographers accept the blown highlight for what it is - an extremely bright part of the scene (and believe me it really was, I couldn't have looked directly into the bright area of sky when I took the shot) - and it doesn't seem to worry them as much. My wife for instance, was more concerned with the effect of the path on the composition but had to be prompted to consider the burnt out area which even then didn't particularly bother her. Perhaps we, as photographers, are overly concerned with some 'technical' aspects of images which are less significant to more general viewers? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted December 24, 2009 Share #9 Posted December 24, 2009 Very nice , unfortunately as I have been trying to impress people about the "weakness of digital"...there is a glaring white hole in the upper left in the clouds. This is where the light intensity is too much for the sensor and you have a burn out or ballooning of the pixels, a good Kodak 160 NC would not have done that. ... Perhaps not, but it wouldn't have recorded the level of detail in the shadows that are evident in Paul's beautiful shot but unfortunately not in the lovely linked shot of yours. Ultimately, there is too much dynamic range in either picture for either a film or digital camera to cope with. With film we exposed for the shadows, let the highlights fall where they would and burned the detail back in in the darkroom. But in digital - and particularly with the M8&9 - we expose for the highlights and can recover shadow detail in post processing because there is so much latitude in the shadows. To call this a 'weakness of digital' is not correct imho, but a learning-curve with digital. Paul, My apologies for the distraction but this is beautiful, brooding shot of Snowdonia that epitomises the natural beauty of the landscape through excellent use of the natural lighting conditions. I particularly like your composition using the snow-covererd track and the telegraph poles to lead the eye into the distance and provide an illusion of depth. Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicamann Posted December 25, 2009 Share #10 Posted December 25, 2009 Pete..the picture that is linked to is NOT blown out at all , I even have it on my desktop as a wallpaper and is ready for printing. Its the "web version" is so stripped down via compression that it looks blown...so unfortunately folks here cannot see what I see, I can and I may post sections of the image to demonstrate the incredible level of detail and how the DMR held out fine and can handle the "dynamic range" fine. Now the other Peter is making a snide remark, suggesting that I am BS ing him and "full of it"..... The fact remains, I cannot post many pictures here on this forum because by the time the become "web images" they are practically useless . I do not "evaluate" my images by the "web version" but by how they turn out in print. That is impossible to ever show here on this web browser. However, the reverse is true for many folks here, the "web version" is the "true version" and you win or lose by it..... and that is wrong and not photography as I know it, the print is the final judge for me. Cheers, JRM Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted December 25, 2009 Share #11 Posted December 25, 2009 Pete..the picture that is linked to is NOT blown out at all , I even have it on my desktop as a wallpaper and is ready for printing. Its the "web version" is so stripped down via compression that it looks blown...so unfortunately folks here cannot see what I see, I can and I may post sections of the image to demonstrate the incredible level of detail and how the DMR held out fine and can handle the "dynamic range" fine.... JRM, I didn't suggest that the highlight in your linked shot were blown-out I pointed out that it doesn't contain detail in the shadows, so presumably you metered to retain detail in the highlights (inevitably) at the expense of the shadows. No problem there because you're always going to be limited by the film or digital camera's dynamic range when confronted by a scene with such bright highlight and dark shadows. I agree that web compression can destroy detail so I accept that we're not seeing what you're seeing. Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicamann Posted December 25, 2009 Share #12 Posted December 25, 2009 The shadow details are also fine, in fact ..phenomenal..better than film..again we have the sad fact that when you compress the image for this web browser, you left with a joke on the former original...its simply a limitation of the medium for now. As I said, you making conclusions based on the "joke" of the original... if I was buying from a photographer , I would ask "so what does the print look like? Cheers, JRM Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglouis Posted December 25, 2009 Share #13 Posted December 25, 2009 In this kind of shot the blown highlight is inevitable and I am not sure that film would actually handle it any better. I do know that when this has happened with me using the M8 I have sometimes cheated and used layers to add texture and contrast. I have even isolated the burned out area and used gradients to give it some texture. Such is the opportunity of working with digital files. You can see an example of what I have done, here. Paul, you could do a lot more with this frame, have you tried processing it as black and white? LouisB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted December 25, 2009 Share #14 Posted December 25, 2009 The shadow details are also fine, ... JRM, That seriously surprises me because in your picture the shadows in the bank at the middle right of the picture are completely black and blocked up. You say that the highlights are fine too but you can't have it both ways because you simply do not have enough dynamic range for both highlights and shadows to be fine. ... As I said, you making conclusions based on the "joke" of the original... . I can only draw conclusions on what I am able to see in the shot you've posted. If you say that the print is fine then I must accept your word because you're the only one who can see it. But that doesn't prevent me from being dubious. Anyway, this deviation from the original thread (sorry, Paul) has gone on for too long so I shall stop here. Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicamann Posted December 25, 2009 Share #15 Posted December 25, 2009 I guess you figure I am BS ing you well then have a look http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/landscape-travel/110240-section-44-a.html You can send me 10 quid via PayPal Cheers, JRM Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted December 26, 2009 Author Share #16 Posted December 26, 2009 Thanks everyone! I'm thinking that debate is useful - but I do agree that the web is a difficult place to base image judgements on. [A friend judged a photo print competition a couple of years ago to find that he already knew some of the images from online viewing. Sadly the prints of many photos which looked goon online were apparently in many cases not very good at all.) Personally my own criteria is that I require my files to potentially print to A2 at high quality (a vague term I know, but suffice it to say that I'd like to think that technical quality should not be an issue at A2). As I shoot a lot of contre jour images, burnout, excess dynamic range and highlight banding are all issues that I look for ways to avoid. I have found that HDR can work, as can layers, etc., but I am tending to prefer to shoot hand held, spontaneous compositions which do not lend themselves to such photography. I've not played with this particular file more but a rough B&W conversion indicates that it may ell produce a good B&W file - however this was not my intent when it was taken and I prefer to envisage B&W shots when taking them rather than 'try it later'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.