Get it right in camera or fix it in post?

[photoguy99]

There are so many things going on in this thread! And the biggest one is self-important posturing! YAY!

 

[Buckster]

on subject. I think there are instances one should be on guard using that dynamic range. As it does give more power in editing it might require some self restrictions. I was looking at a photo I took earlier of a snow covered road, almost full sunset. Exposed for the sky. course the road and trees lining it are heavily shadowed and dark. First instinct looking at it was to get rid of that darkness on the road and dark trees as it was exposed for the sky. shadow recovery. But upon considering it, the road and trees WAS dark when I looked at it. so I could recover the shadows and brighten them up and upon viewing the photo it might look more appealing. But if one thought about it for more than a couple seconds staring at it they would wonder how at that time of day with the sun where it is the road and trees could even have light. so it becomes very unnatural very quick if you stop and actually consider what you are looking at. with less dynamic range, that limit in shadow recovery could have been a barrier preventing extreme screw ups. with more dynamic range one might have to "self police" themselves..

That's a great argument, right up until you understand how human eyeballs actually work:

Cameras vs. The Human Eye

The human eye can detect a luminance range of 10^14, or one hundred trillion (100,000,000,000,000) (about 46.5 f-stops), from 10−6 cd/m2, or one millionth (0.000001) of a candela per square meter to 10^8 cd/m2 or one hundred million (100,000,000) candelas per square meter.

 

[photoguy99]

Of the several things going on here, I count:

1. scene has more dynamic range than can be handled in 8 bit color, so expose for one thing "properly', and fix the rest in post.
2. expose more or less at random and attempt to fix in post OR fix mistakes in post which is pretty much the same thing
3. I shoot film and therefore I am awesome plus flim is super duper hard
4. digital produces terrible results with no salt
5. photoguy99 is dumb and should be yelled at for his dumbness

None of these things are related to any of the others, and yet, people seem to be trying to stitch them in to a coherent flow. Which isn't working too well.

 

[bribrius]

on subject. I think there are instances one should be on guard using that dynamic range. As it does give more power in editing it might require some self restrictions. I was looking at a photo I took earlier of a snow covered road, almost full sunset. Exposed for the sky. course the road and trees lining it are heavily shadowed and dark. First instinct looking at it was to get rid of that darkness on the road and dark trees as it was exposed for the sky. shadow recovery. But upon considering it, the road and trees WAS dark when I looked at it. so I could recover the shadows and brighten them up and upon viewing the photo it might look more appealing. But if one thought about it for more than a couple seconds staring at it they would wonder how at that time of day with the sun where it is the road and trees could even have light. so it becomes very unnatural very quick if you stop and actually consider what you are looking at. with less dynamic range, that limit in shadow recovery could have been a barrier preventing extreme screw ups. with more dynamic range one might have to "self police" themselves..

That's a great argument, right up until you understand how human eyeballs actually work:

Cameras vs. The Human Eye

The human eye can detect a luminance range of 10^14, or one hundred trillion (100,000,000,000,000) (about 46.5 f-stops), from 10−6 cd/m2, or one millionth (0.000001) of a candela per square meter to 10^8 cd/m2 or one hundred million (100,000,000) candelas per square meter.

it has nothing to do with how the human eyeballs work. I am saying the greater ability to edit and dynamic range can be pushed accidently to the point of making the scene nolonger feasible to a discerning individual looking at the photo. I am well aware of the dynamic range of the human eye, I am also well aware of when a photo goes beyond a point of being realistic. For instance shadow recover has a definite point of when it becomes unnatural as shadows are somewhat normal.

 

[pgriz]

That was an interesting read, Buckster. Some stuff I knew, some stuff was new. The act of "seeing" is much more of a mental exercise than we usually think.

The only thing that article skips over are the "eyes at the back of the head" that mothers and teachers have.

 

[bribrius]

Of the several things going on here, I count:

1. scene has more dynamic range than can be handled in 8 bit color, so expose for one thing "properly', and fix the rest in post.
2. expose more or less at random and attempt to fix in post OR fix mistakes in post which is pretty much the same thing
3. I shoot film and therefore I am awesome plus flim is super duper hard
4. digital produces terrible results with no salt
5. photoguy99 is dumb and should be yelled at for his dumbness

None of these things are related to any of the others, and yet, people seem to be trying to stitch them in to a coherent flow. Which isn't working too well.

lol. you made me laugh...

people do what they do anyway. no matter...

 

[Buckster]

on subject. I think there are instances one should be on guard using that dynamic range. As it does give more power in editing it might require some self restrictions. I was looking at a photo I took earlier of a snow covered road, almost full sunset. Exposed for the sky. course the road and trees lining it are heavily shadowed and dark. First instinct looking at it was to get rid of that darkness on the road and dark trees as it was exposed for the sky. shadow recovery. But upon considering it, the road and trees WAS dark when I looked at it. so I could recover the shadows and brighten them up and upon viewing the photo it might look more appealing. But if one thought about it for more than a couple seconds staring at it they would wonder how at that time of day with the sun where it is the road and trees could even have light. so it becomes very unnatural very quick if you stop and actually consider what you are looking at. with less dynamic range, that limit in shadow recovery could have been a barrier preventing extreme screw ups. with more dynamic range one might have to "self police" themselves..

That's a great argument, right up until you understand how human eyeballs actually work:

Cameras vs. The Human Eye

The human eye can detect a luminance range of 10^14, or one hundred trillion (100,000,000,000,000) (about 46.5 f-stops), from 10−6 cd/m2, or one millionth (0.000001) of a candela per square meter to 10^8 cd/m2 or one hundred million (100,000,000) candelas per square meter.

it has nothing to do with how the human eyeballs work. I am saying the greater ability to edit and dynamic range can be pushed accidently to the point of making the scene nolonger feasible to a discerning individual looking at the photo. I am well aware of the dynamic range of the human eye, I am also well aware of when a photo goes beyond a point of being realistic. For instance shadow recover has a definite point of when it becomes unnatural as shadows are somewhat normal.

Nobody's even suggesting that everything should be edited to the point where all luminance in the photo should be middle gray, or even anything close to that.

But the idea that what pops out of the camera looks luminance-correct compared to what the human eye saw when standing there is just plain wrong. It's not in any way even near the same, especially when the contrast gets more intense. Human eyeballs deal with it just fine, where cameras, digital or film, simply can't. That's the whole idea behind HDR, dodging and burning in a darkroom or Photoshop, and the specific topic under discussion here.

 

[bribrius]

on subject. I think there are instances one should be on guard using that dynamic range. As it does give more power in editing it might require some self restrictions. I was looking at a photo I took earlier of a snow covered road, almost full sunset. Exposed for the sky. course the road and trees lining it are heavily shadowed and dark. First instinct looking at it was to get rid of that darkness on the road and dark trees as it was exposed for the sky. shadow recovery. But upon considering it, the road and trees WAS dark when I looked at it. so I could recover the shadows and brighten them up and upon viewing the photo it might look more appealing. But if one thought about it for more than a couple seconds staring at it they would wonder how at that time of day with the sun where it is the road and trees could even have light. so it becomes very unnatural very quick if you stop and actually consider what you are looking at. with less dynamic range, that limit in shadow recovery could have been a barrier preventing extreme screw ups. with more dynamic range one might have to "self police" themselves..

That's a great argument, right up until you understand how human eyeballs actually work:

Cameras vs. The Human Eye

The human eye can detect a luminance range of 10^14, or one hundred trillion (100,000,000,000,000) (about 46.5 f-stops), from 10−6 cd/m2, or one millionth (0.000001) of a candela per square meter to 10^8 cd/m2 or one hundred million (100,000,000) candelas per square meter.

it has nothing to do with how the human eyeballs work. I am saying the greater ability to edit and dynamic range can be pushed accidently to the point of making the scene nolonger feasible to a discerning individual looking at the photo. I am well aware of the dynamic range of the human eye, I am also well aware of when a photo goes beyond a point of being realistic. For instance shadow recover has a definite point of when it becomes unnatural as shadows are somewhat normal.

Nobody's even suggesting that everything should be edited to the point where all luminance in the photo should be middle gray, or even anything close to that.

But the idea that what pops out of the camera looks luminance-correct compared to what the human eye saw when standing there is just plain wrong. It's not in any way even near the same, especially when the contrast gets more intense. Human eyeballs deal with it just fine, where cameras, digital or film, simply can't. That's the whole idea behind HDR, dodging and burning in a darkroom or Photoshop, and the specific topic under discussion here.

oh, I wont even claim that what pops out of a camera is even close to what the human eye sees. Examples below I took as a jpeg. with a kick in contrast the snow is blown out, between the buildings black. clearly a effect of lack of dynamic range lacking. Clearly when I looked at his scene this is not a direct reflection of what was there. My only concern with what is being discussed here is taking the editing and dynamic range too far the other direction. Which I really dont care what others do but with more power comes more restriction possibly needed. At some point you will lose the shadows in between the buildings to a large extent, the effect of the street lights and the photo would be on the other end up the spectrum of believability. which is something hdr does seem to run in to at times. If one wanted to they could reduce the lights and increase the shadow of the photo so that they are in such a middle the light and shadows nolonger makes sense.

I am not arguing that people are suggesting doing such a thing. I do think the more you "play" the more careful one might want to be in not overdoing using dynamic range and editing of a photo on that opposite end if they want to keep it believable. Because at some point one may think with edits that it all looks better, but at another they may start to see the streetlights and shadows have gone to the point the scene is lost to unbelievability and entire purpose of the shot gone.. stupid light house shot here. over kicking the shadow isn't much different from using a dulled flash. Since the light is clearly on the other side with the lit up light house the foreground being equally lit not only wouldn't make sense but also detract from the image. Neither of these are great images I am just posting for examples of when or how I think someone could take the editing and dynamic range to a counter productive level. In these cases (clearly at my self inflicted expense of the photos shooting jpeg with no dynamic range so trashed the photos from the get go) I am on one side of the spectrum, while I do believe there is another side as well.

 

[gsgary]

Of the several things going on here, I count:

1. scene has more dynamic range than can be handled in 8 bit color, so expose for one thing "properly', and fix the rest in post.
2. expose more or less at random and attempt to fix in post OR fix mistakes in post which is pretty much the same thing
3. I shoot film and therefore I am awesome plus flim is super duper hard
4. digital produces terrible results with no salt
5. photoguy99 is dumb and should be yelled at for his dumbness

None of these things are related to any of the others, and yet, people seem to be trying to stitch them in to a coherent flow. Which isn't working too well.

I don't remember anyone saying film is hard