06-02-2014, 10:18 AM
If printer or screen cannot reproduce a 14 stops image, how could I possibly look at one? Nature often has more contrast than 14 f-stops. Our eyes adapt because we're always only looking at parts pf the whole picture.
I sometimes lift the shadows a bit and lower the highlights to get the impression I had when shooting the picture. This has nothing to do with flat contrast although I'm lowering the contrast, but keep the full range of tonality. Only thing I'm saying: There is more tonality on a 14 stops RAW than on a 12 stops RAW to play with, to adjust exposure (if something went wrong with metering, I'm stil able to get good picture). I don't know about Canon, but lifted shadows of Nikon 14 bit RAWs keep a lot of power, they do look black, not muddy.
Most HDRs I don't like as they are often exaggerated beyond sense just for the effect of it. I tried a bit with HDR but found better to care for exposure and bring the 14 f-stop range to good limits. Of course, extreme highlights will be gone anyway, but that's hardly a reason for me to do static HDR-bracketing. Most of the time there's not much more information in the highlights and they are known to blow out if contrast is too hefty. Do I need to see the shape of a bulb and the filament inside when I'm doing a stage shot? The musician is the object of interest, not the spotlight.
I'm not doing anything else than I was doing with film when I had the same problem: film records up to 11 or more f-stops, paper prints hardly show more than 7-8 f-stops. Playing with shadows and highlights adds information at best - and is distracting at worst. I like to be free in what I'm doing and not limited by a smaller DR, although I'm aware I don't always need it.
I sometimes lift the shadows a bit and lower the highlights to get the impression I had when shooting the picture. This has nothing to do with flat contrast although I'm lowering the contrast, but keep the full range of tonality. Only thing I'm saying: There is more tonality on a 14 stops RAW than on a 12 stops RAW to play with, to adjust exposure (if something went wrong with metering, I'm stil able to get good picture). I don't know about Canon, but lifted shadows of Nikon 14 bit RAWs keep a lot of power, they do look black, not muddy.
Most HDRs I don't like as they are often exaggerated beyond sense just for the effect of it. I tried a bit with HDR but found better to care for exposure and bring the 14 f-stop range to good limits. Of course, extreme highlights will be gone anyway, but that's hardly a reason for me to do static HDR-bracketing. Most of the time there's not much more information in the highlights and they are known to blow out if contrast is too hefty. Do I need to see the shape of a bulb and the filament inside when I'm doing a stage shot? The musician is the object of interest, not the spotlight.
I'm not doing anything else than I was doing with film when I had the same problem: film records up to 11 or more f-stops, paper prints hardly show more than 7-8 f-stops. Playing with shadows and highlights adds information at best - and is distracting at worst. I like to be free in what I'm doing and not limited by a smaller DR, although I'm aware I don't always need it.