Here is an example of what I got the other day, these are right from the camera, shot on a tripod, same settings, location, I didn't move, and neither did he. One is fine (a bit dark) and the other was blown away.... it's hard to show here, it really shows when you look thru a dozen images or so, It looks like I could just darken the light image and match it, play with the exposure in RAW and come out with something good, but when I do, it bands, gets halos around the white edges, color fringes and really goes contrasty, it's strange the info just isn't there like it should be. I am going to go out and shoot a series of specific shots now tonight, thinking I may be going crazy, lol, hoping and praying it isn't the same thing again and it was something I had set wrong. Cross your fingers for me, and I'll post more on this later. I also have to dig up my reciept from the repair, so I can determine exactly what it was they fixed last time..... Thanks for your comments, keep em coming! Please!
posted by Wingnut at 2:10 PM
6 Comments:
Yeah, I see what you mean now. That's way off. The trouble I'm having is when there is white or light colored with a dark background. It blows out the highlights, but some of the images are useable as is. I was totally unprepared for dSLRs to be so unforgiving at the highlight end.
But yeah, that's a problem you have there, I'm sorry to say. I have the luxury of taking photographs for my own enjoyment, and if I were a pro like you, I would understand your concern.
I hear you about the disappointment on the whites. I get that too occasionally in real hot light, but it's usually relatively small areas, and like you said, can usually go without working it over or is fixable in Raw. Most people do not see it.
We recently switched to dlp tv, WOW what a difference, and I see sooooooooo may techincal boo boo's now in the broadcast. And NO one hardly ever notices! I think this is good and bad for us photographers, the public is getting used to seeing things digitally, and it desensitizes thier standards. That means, we can display and sell it to their liking and quality standards now even with blown highlights.
Sad, because people should not settle for less, as digital advances we should see more white detail, but until then, it only hurts those of us that are purists really. I shot a Hasselblad before I switched to digital, talk about a difference! But what I want digital for is the action capture, on the fly, you don't get that with a Hassey! Portability and ease of use is a must photographing animals and wildlife, even sports.
Nothing beats the Blad for still life, portraiture and scenery... Except maybe a digital blad :) Someday I will win the lottery and try one out, until then, the detail I get with my Canon is in some cases is better these days (dare I say) than film! You sacrifice the whites, which happens in film too, but get so much more in the shadow areas it's incredible I think. I know this is a hot topic, not trying to stir it up, just putting it out there you know.....
Thanks for your comments, nice to have someone speak up instead of just looksie and move on thru, I welcome you anytime!
He is a nice young guy, and when a person uses to be photographied by somebody who loves him, he has a pretty smile and knows how to take a good posture for the picture.
Thanks Wingnut for passing by yesterday on my blog and writting a kind comment.
I'm so happy to be choise, it's an honour when somebody comes and looks at your work and thinks "OK, that's fine for me". Your blog is beautiful, I'll come too later.
Hi Cyndie,
I see I've missed many great photos since I have been away.
Cute kids you have. I love your daughter's facial expressions below.
Regards, Rhys
Thanks Cergie and Rhys, the girl is mine, the boy is a family friend...they do look like siblings though don't they?
I have heard it is "better" to have an image overexposed thna underexposed, in that case you can always darken it a bit, right?
Post a Comment
<< Home