The sky is too bright in photos?

[runnah]

Sun in your face, photo will be a disgrace. Sun at your rear, your photo is in the clear.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Sun in your face, photo will be a disgrace. Sun at your rear, your photo is in the clear.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Faster shutter for sun, fill flash on subject

 

[runnah]

Sun in your face, photo will be a disgrace. Sun at your rear, your photo is in the clear.

I was trying to think of a whitty saying, but failed...

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Ohhh =)

 

[DiskoJoe]

<Moderated> Time to go outside and play Joe!

 

[Solarflare]

[...] Digital, as we all know, has a superior ability to capture an extreme dynamic range far beyond the capacity of film. [...]

Um ... ? The best digital cameras are somewhere around 13 EV right now.

No idea what color film has, but chemical black and white film has a dynamic range of 16 to 18 EV.

Sun in your face, photo will be a disgrace. Sun at your rear, your photo is in the clear.

Not true, for example for portraits in bright sunlight, the best strategy is to put your subject between yourself and the sun, so that the hair is backlit (giving a nice framing), and then use fill flash to brighten the face.

(Unfortunately that requires a camera and flash able to do HSS which, for example, my D5100 and SB-400 cant manage)

 

[Ysarex87 81]

[...] Digital, as we all know, has a superior ability to capture an extreme dynamic range far beyond the capacity of film. [...]

Um ... ? The best digital cameras are somewhere around 13 EV right now.

No idea what color film has, but chemical black and white film has a dynamic range of 16 to 18 EV.

13 EV is probably a tad high for digital and I'll qualify my tendency to exaggerate and say useable dynamic range. The 16 to 18 EV figure for B&W is fantasy. This from Edward Ingold published in 2007:

Based on characteristic curves (*) published for various films, Fuji Velvia (reversal) has a useful dynamic range of 3-1/2 stops. Fuji Provia has a range of 5 stops. Representative negative films include Reala (8 stops) and NPS160 (10 stops). Tri-X has a range of 10 to 12 stops, depending on development.

Modern DSLRs have a dynamic range of about 7 stops (D2x) to about 8 stops (Canon 1dsMkII), based on test results published on DPReview.com and my own experience (D2x). These sensors have a 12 bit range of capture, expressed in the RAW mode.

Many MF digital sensors have a true 16-bit sensor. Hasselblad/Imacon claims a 12 stop dynamic range for their CFV back. Having seen the results, I'm inclined to believe it.

*The abscissa of the characteristic curves is logarithmic - divide the extrapolated range by log2 (0.301) to express the difference in f/stops.

That was 2007. Five years in the digital world is like half a century in film. Today I use digital cameras with 14 bit range sensors. If you wanted to try and compete you'd have to use a color neg film like NPS160 which as noted above can capture 10 stops. But then what? You'll have to purchase a scanner capable of extracting that data and you'll have to switch to digital processing at that point (you won't do it in a darkroom). That scanner is going to cost more than my digital camera, and you'll still fall short.

Joe

 

[JSER]

Grad filter, simple

 

[Solarflare]

Uh-hu.

Sorry, but my books say 16 to 18 EV for black/white chemical film.

I also know a photographer who still does chemical film and he uses a camera from the 1960s that can no longer do metering. So there must be much more potential than your source claims, because the person in question is a casual photographer, not a professional.

 

[amolitor]

It's possible that for some b&w films there is SOME measurable variation in density across 18 stops of exposure range. This might conceivably be a figure you are seeing someplace? I don't know this for a fact, but it seems to be possible -- film does "roll off" for quite some time.

This is different from the standard measurement methods, which are about usable variation in density, and come in well under 18 stops, and is generally considered to be about 10 stops plus or minus.

 

[Ysarex87 81]

Uh-hu.

Sorry, but my books say 16 to 18 EV for black/white chemical film.

I also know a photographer who still does chemical film and he uses a camera from the 1960s that can no longer do metering. So there must be much more potential than your source claims, because the person in question is a casual photographer, not a professional.

Uh-hu.

Your books against my books then. My books say your books are wrong. I referenced my source by the way.

And I use a camera from the 1950s that never had a meter installed and I use it without a hand meter -- so what?

Amolitor right after you used the term "measurable variation" and I'd say he's on to it there. This is also about usability -- measurable and usable are two different things. If you're going to go after a scene with an extreme contrast range and not light the scene to correct the extreme contrast, but still want a photo that looks like you did, then out the other end in processing you're going to have to jump some tone-mapping hoops to get the data to your target. That shuts your darkroom down. Burning and dodging compared with Photoshop is like a rock versus a scalpel. So as I noted, now you have to bring your film over to the computer and you need a serious money scanner and usability wise you still won't get useful data that equals a good 14 bit digital capture. And I know this from years of practical experience. I've been there with film. I've used a Hasselbald/Imacom ($18,000.00) scanner (at the office) with medium format film and I've tried. I've squeezed every last useable drop of tone out of film. I've been shooting film for 40 years. With massively less money I can use a 14 bit digital camera (and Photoshop) and beat film.

Joe