Dynamic Range - Black and White Birds
This is one from a while ago....
What do you notice about this and why is it so?
D3S
Sigmonster @60mm
F7.1
1/1250TH
+1.0EV
Matrix metering
Braced on car window
I wasn't crazy abou the perch either :) (But the image illustrates a point I was wanting to make)
Comments welcome :)
Well, what can I say, super quality as usual. Not black enough though :D:D
Don't know if you have buffleheads where you are. They're not black and white birds but quite difficult to get details in both the dark and white areas, too, at least for me. Even soft light from overcast sky doesn't help as it only makes the darker color feathers look darker.
I'd see what other say :)
AGree with Desmond. great image.
super sharp and love the energetic pose.
but the black in the eye doesn't look super deep black. which makes me wonder if the rest of the blacks are as dark as they should be.
(the perch doesn't bother me, but if you don't like it, can you clone out the left side? Moving the left side in, to closer to the feet?
Lance,
It looks to me as if you added exposure compensation to make sure the blacks did not clip but in doing so you pushed the whites pretty close to edge of clipping.
I think you were trying to juggle the exposure for both ends of the dynamic range at the same time and getting close to the limit of what your camera's sensor can capture.
Joel
PS Looks like you did it quite well too!!!
Lance,
Greetings. Pretty much agree with Joel. I see more detail in the whites on the head and less so in the brighter neck/breast whites, even though they are on a plane focus wise.
I would guess that even a dual raw-conversion hdr might not equalize the detail between those two areas (suggesting sensor limits, even beyond the lighting differences).
Great sharp detail in the blacks, especially without chroma noise (must be a D3s).
& that would be 600 mm?
Cheers,
-Michael-
I agree with Joel's assessment. Also, I'm not crazy about the pose. I wonder if you might have minimized the effects of the very bright whites by capturing the bird in a different position (eg if his head was turned more in the direction his body is facing, with a slight angle toward you.) There would have been less visible whites and you wouldn't have the shadowing under his neck. Such a position may not be as dramatic, but to me it would look a bit more natural. The perch doesn't particularly bother me. Interesting bird.
My monitor is showing a few of the whites on the breast at high 240's to 250, and a few of the blacks on the flank at 4 and 5, pushing the limits at both ends. I'd say you did just about as well as possible to balance the detail at both ends of the dynamic range without softer light. For a cormy, the perch is about as typical as you could get, although admittedly not 'photogenic'. As you have said many times, soft light is the key.
Should have mentioned exposure was not changed during conversion. SOFT light is the key!
Bill has the numbers - no blown whites. Though the angle of the sun probably had something to do with the brighter spots (was behind a cloud and every now and again it would partly peak out)
I pushed the histogram as far right as possible (without any clipping) --- Why??
to get detail in the blacks?
cause it is easier to lower whites, than it is to brighten blacks??
To retain as much detail in the blacks as you could without clipping the whites.
Congrats Cheryl and Maureen - Correct.Originally Posted by Cheryl Flory
Easier to lower the whites via a linear burn layer or numerous other methods. Any under exposure will produce noise in the blacks when lightened in PP. (Including Shadow/ Highlight)
Soft light really is the key - IMHO - Couple of bright white spots here are a easy fix - Blacks could go just a smidge darker - pretty much full dynamic range of the camera here.
Lance, I like these mini-lessons. Let's have more!
Thanks Lance
Lovely image Lance! I wish we had this species in Canada!
I wanted to comment on something not mentioned in the techs. The D3s has large, fat sensor sites and has great dynamic range, kilo for kilo. However, DR is also influenced by ISO (the lower the ISO the wider the DR). So did you choose a low ISO to up your DR capability? Is this a good strategy in harsh lighting conditions- i.e., does it make enough of a difference?
Hi John - interesting thoughts - how much difference it makes I am unsure - 95% of the time I am shooting in low light - so usually high ISO'S . I dont venture out much in harsh light with a view to serious shooting, find there is just too much working against you at these times - Now for blurs or infrared --- well thats a different matter.
My most used ISO on the D3S would be 1600! with 3200ISO not all that far behind.
:)
Posting Permissions
