06-27-2011, 09:37 PM
[quote name='guy_incognito' timestamp='1309207309' post='9592']
That's the point. That's the benefit of a camera with a high dynamic range. Do you understand now?
(EDIT: You can download the first sunset/sunrise 645D picture in that thread. There is a small bump on the far right of the histogram, corresponding to the sun. There is a larger bump on the far left corresponding to the foreground.)
I was only referring to your post about dynamic range and contrast. I wasn't interested in a debate on MF vs. your 450D camera.
[/quote]
I do not get your point still. Images with a high dynamic range are unattractive. I tend to boost contrast, which means lowering the dynamic range.
Shooting into the bright sun with shadow parts of course will be a very high dynamic range scene, and will not get more attractive when you compress that high dynamic range into a low dynamic range image (that is what you do, when having a former high dynamic range in a 16 bit per channel image).
Pulling down the bright, and pulling up the shadows, that will just make the image unattractive and flat. To counter than, one can only boost local contrast in a big way, which gives those awful bad HDR halos and weird colour effects.
Nope... Like I said before, I tend to increase contrast, not lower it. And it was you who pointed to the Pentax review images:
"High dynamic range would benefit precisely the photographs in the thread linked above."
Like I said, those scenes I would have posed little problems for my 450D. No higher dynamic range is needed. That was my point.
Pentax is not really MF, though... its a very small sensor compared to MF.
That's the point. That's the benefit of a camera with a high dynamic range. Do you understand now?
(EDIT: You can download the first sunset/sunrise 645D picture in that thread. There is a small bump on the far right of the histogram, corresponding to the sun. There is a larger bump on the far left corresponding to the foreground.)
I was only referring to your post about dynamic range and contrast. I wasn't interested in a debate on MF vs. your 450D camera.
[/quote]
I do not get your point still. Images with a high dynamic range are unattractive. I tend to boost contrast, which means lowering the dynamic range.
Shooting into the bright sun with shadow parts of course will be a very high dynamic range scene, and will not get more attractive when you compress that high dynamic range into a low dynamic range image (that is what you do, when having a former high dynamic range in a 16 bit per channel image).
Pulling down the bright, and pulling up the shadows, that will just make the image unattractive and flat. To counter than, one can only boost local contrast in a big way, which gives those awful bad HDR halos and weird colour effects.
Nope... Like I said before, I tend to increase contrast, not lower it. And it was you who pointed to the Pentax review images:
"High dynamic range would benefit precisely the photographs in the thread linked above."
Like I said, those scenes I would have posed little problems for my 450D. No higher dynamic range is needed. That was my point.
Pentax is not really MF, though... its a very small sensor compared to MF.