EOS magazine advert
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 13 of 13

Thread: Rannoch

  1. #11
    Member Trev B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    East Devon

    Default Re: Rannoch

    I still don't get it. Why do we need to muck around with a shot in Photoshop/Lightroom etc. If I take a shot of a scene and it's a dull overcast day, then that's how I want to remember it. If I was not happy with what I saw in the view finder in the first place I would not have pressed the shutter. Why would I want to make that shot look like the sun was shining on it when I got home. Likewise if I take a shot of a bird in a hedgerow with a few sticks and twigs in the shot, why do I need to clone them out when I get home. I was happy to see and record that bird, why make it into what I term a 'Field Guide Image' with just a plain uninteresting BG. Because some people think that's how it should look.

    Equipment - According to the wife more than a Camera Shop got


  2. #12
    Member* colin C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009

    Default Re: Rannoch

    If I take a shot of a scene and it's a dull overcast day, then that's how I want to remember it.
    I agree with Trev. The majority of images I take, I want them to be exactly as I saw them through the viewfinder, although there are some others that I am trying to be arty with. The problem is that most of the time, the camera is unable to render the image as I saw it. There are two main problem areas:

    Dynamic Range:

    The human eye/brain combination has a dynamic range of around EV12. That's 12 stops if we translate that into camera language. The best of the current cameras have a range of EV7 and many are less than that. So the camera image is not going to deliver the tonal and colour range that I originally saw ............ by some considerable margin at times.


    The algorithms within the Digic processor are set up for an 18% grey scale. It has been determined that for the vast majority of images taken, an 18% grey scale base will provide an acceptable exposure in over 90% of images. However, if you regularly take landscapes, you will know that they don't come out quite like you saw them. The sky is a little too bright and the foreground is a little too dark.

    A set of neutral Graduated filters will balance the exposure between sky and foreground, allowing the photographer to get the image as near as reasonable in camera, but mostly, it will still be lacking the dynamic range of the human eye. Shooting in RAW and a little work post editing can bring the image pretty close to what you saw, but there is an inherent problem with that .................. the temptation to go too far with the sliders! I used to teach Photoshop and one lesson I drummed into my students was: "Do what you need to ............ not what you can!"

    There will come a time when cameras can recognise a scene and expose accordingly, with a dynamic range that equals, or exceeds the human eye, but until that day comes, I am stuck with some post capture polishing to get the image as I saw it, rather than how the camera rendered it.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    North West England

    Default Re: Rannoch

    You've echoed my thoughts exactly Colin. I try and keep adjustments to a minimum. But I'll definitely remove the odd twig etc if it appears to be growing out if a birds back/head. I've plenty of images of birds/animals on both 'clean' and 'habitat' backgrounds, all achieved in camera. Personally I think both have their place.
    Canon 5D3, 7D2, 60D, Canon 70-200L f2.8 IS II, Canon 300 f4L IS, Canon 16-35 f4 L, Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, Canon 1.4 MkIII extender, Sigma AF 10-20mm f/3.5 EX DC HSM, Sigma 150-600 Contemporary, Tamron SP AF 70-300 F/4-5.6 Di VC USD, Canon EF-S 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6 IS

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts