Reading mode: Light Dark

D100, Alps & frustration

Go to last post
V

Vtie

Senior Member
Messages
1,713
Reaction score
1
Location
Gent, BE
Being a hiking and mountain climbing fanatic, I have taken my D100
with me for the first time to a vacation in the Alps, and used it
on some of the easier hikes (I didn't want to take that weight with
me to climb +4000meter mountains...)
I'm not impressed at all by the results. Years ago, I got better pictures
with my all-manual Minolta film SLR. The reason is simple: dynamic
range. Imagine a dark green forest in the shadow and on the same
scene a mountain covered with snow in the sun. The D100 simply can't
get this scene in an acceptable way. Exposing for the snow and
intensive post-processing can help somewhat, but the result is
less than satisfactory. This strengthened me in my opinion: I don't
give a damn about pixel count, my next camera needs better dynamic
range!
Anyway, below are a few of the more acceptable results.
feel free to comment...

















--
Vtie
http://www.pbase.com/vtie
 
Vtie

There are some nice shots there. One thing to consider: most high quality film shooters would probably be using slide rather than neg film and that would be worse for dynamic range than a DSLR.

Sometimes you either have to use grads, blend shots or just wait for the right light! Those mountain shots would probably test neg film as well...
Vtie said:
Being a hiking and mountain climbing fanatic, I have taken my D100
with me for the first time to a vacation in the Alps, and used it
on some of the easier hikes (I didn't want to take that weight with
me to climb +4000meter mountains...)
I'm not impressed at all by the results. Years ago, I got better
pictures
with my all-manual Minolta film SLR. The reason is simple: dynamic
range. Imagine a dark green forest in the shadow and on the same
scene a mountain covered with snow in the sun. The D100 simply can't
get this scene in an acceptable way. Exposing for the snow and
intensive post-processing can help somewhat, but the result is
less than satisfactory. This strengthened me in my opinion: I don't
give a damn about pixel count, my next camera needs better dynamic
range!
Anyway, below are a few of the more acceptable results.
feel free to comment...

















--
Vtie
http://www.pbase.com/vtie
Click to expand...
 
Vtie, I also like the Alps and travel around in the mountains all the time. I like your image #7 very much.

I know what you mean. But I wouldn't want to use film anymore. Maybe if I had a flim scanner, ok. I don't know how much you have practised with your camera so far (haven't looked at your profile). My only suggestion: make several exposures of the same view with different exposure compensation and always check the histogram thereafter. This might help. But still, yes, the dynamic range is much less than with film so it becomes very important to use the right exposure.

Keep on posting,

Moonwalker
http://www.utopia-photography.ch
 
Hey Vite, it may help you to use a split ND (neutral density) filter to help with the dynamic range. Think of digital as giving the same results as slide film. Both have a low exposure latitiude of about one stop + -.

here are a few links and examples:

http://www.photofocus.com/zine2/zine9.htm
http://www.singh-ray.com/grndgrads.html
http://www.fredmiranda.com/article_2/

Check these out.... I hope it helps.

Very nice photos you have anyway. Very nice use of framing. I wish I could get out more to get away and bring back some nice shots. I am sure I will soon.

Todd
Vtie said:
Being a hiking and mountain climbing fanatic, I have taken my D100
with me for the first time to a vacation in the Alps, and used it
on some of the easier hikes (I didn't want to take that weight with
me to climb +4000meter mountains...)
I'm not impressed at all by the results. Years ago, I got better
pictures
with my all-manual Minolta film SLR. The reason is simple: dynamic
range. Imagine a dark green forest in the shadow and on the same
scene a mountain covered with snow in the sun. The D100 simply can't
get this scene in an acceptable way. Exposing for the snow and
intensive post-processing can help somewhat, but the result is
less than satisfactory. This strengthened me in my opinion: I don't
give a damn about pixel count, my next camera needs better dynamic
range!
Anyway, below are a few of the more acceptable results.
feel free to comment...

















--
Vtie
http://www.pbase.com/vtie
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/todd991
 
Todd Hargis said:
Hey Vite, it may help you to use a split ND (neutral density)
filter to help with the dynamic range. Think of digital as giving
the same results as slide film. Both have a low exposure latitiude
of about one stop + -.
Click to expand...
A good idea, it may help for a lot of scenes, although not for all.
Todd Hargis said:
Very nice photos you have anyway. Very nice use of framing. I wish
I could get out more to get away and bring back some nice shots. I
am sure I will soon.
Click to expand...
Thanks!

--
Vtie
http://www.pbase.com/vtie
 
Moonwalker said:
My only suggestion: make several exposures of the same view with
different exposure compensation and always check the histogram
thereafter. This might help. But still, yes, the dynamic range is
much less than with film so it becomes very important to use the
right exposure.
Click to expand...
This is what I tried to do: make sure the snow is not too saturated and
then bring back the dark parts in PS.

--
Vtie
http://www.pbase.com/vtie
 
DMillier said:
Sometimes you either have to use grads, blend shots or just wait
for the right light!
Click to expand...
The last suggestion makes a lot of sense indeed. You can get much
better shots in the Alps at early morning or late evening. But, on a
single day hike, these are the times you are back in your tent in the
valley... And I refused to take my D100 on a 2 day mountain climbing

--
Vtie
http://www.pbase.com/vtie
 
Vtie,

Those are really nice shots but I feel your frustration. I'd look into using a Graduated Neutral Density filter or consider exposure bracketing and then comining the two images in Photoshop (there are tools for this as well, Photomatix is one). This works really well for mountain scenery (mountains don't move very fast :-)
Kent
Vtie said:
Being a hiking and mountain climbing fanatic, I have taken my D100
with me for the first time to a vacation in the Alps, and used it
on some of the easier hikes (I didn't want to take that weight with
me to climb +4000meter mountains...)
I'm not impressed at all by the results. Years ago, I got better
pictures
with my all-manual Minolta film SLR. The reason is simple: dynamic
range. Imagine a dark green forest in the shadow and on the same
scene a mountain covered with snow in the sun. The D100 simply can't
get this scene in an acceptable way. Exposing for the snow and
intensive post-processing can help somewhat, but the result is
less than satisfactory. This strengthened me in my opinion: I don't
give a damn about pixel count, my next camera needs better dynamic
range!
Anyway, below are a few of the more acceptable results.
feel free to comment...

--
Vtie
http://www.pbase.com/vtie
Click to expand...
 
I think most of us fight narrow dynamic range all the time, well... at least in certain lighting conditions, but you sure have some beauties here. I especially like the second one.
Jarrell
 
Shadow scenes and bright sunlit snow just don't fit on one exposure ... I'd like to see some of your old 35mm shots, though, to see if you really did get that range back the good old days -- that kind of dynamic range is also hard to get on film.

I'll second the suggestions of graduated ND filters, and multiple exposures w/contrast blending & such.

Nice shots, though -- which Alps are they, Swiss or Austrian?
Vtie said:
Being a hiking and mountain climbing fanatic, I have taken my D100
with me for the first time to a vacation in the Alps, and used it
on some of the easier hikes (I didn't want to take that weight with
me to climb +4000meter mountains...)
I'm not impressed at all by the results. Years ago, I got better
pictures
with my all-manual Minolta film SLR. The reason is simple: dynamic
range. Imagine a dark green forest in the shadow and on the same
scene a mountain covered with snow in the sun. The D100 simply can't
get this scene in an acceptable way. Exposing for the snow and
intensive post-processing can help somewhat, but the result is
less than satisfactory. This strengthened me in my opinion: I don't
give a damn about pixel count, my next camera needs better dynamic
range!
Click to expand...
--
Roger

... the dogs bark, but the caravan passes ...
 
and anticipate the same problems. I will definitely have a split ND with me. But I do remember having the same frustrations with film...(always shot slides) when I went to Alaska...the same issues, very hard to get correct exposure. ND saved some, but sometimes its not feasible. That's where digital may be superior...the ability to combine two shots for shadows and highlights, as others have suggested. (However, this would be difficult without a tripod, which is something I wouldn't take mountain climbing!)

No matter, these shots are beautiful, I especially love the second to last shot with the running stream. Where in the Alps were you?

--
Janet
D 1 0 0
F 1 0 0
C P 5 7 0 0
http://www.jczinn.com
 
Whatever your feelings are I like the 2nd,3rd very much also the last is beautiful
Vtie said:
Being a hiking and mountain climbing fanatic, I have taken my D100
with me for the first time to a vacation in the Alps, and used it
on some of the easier hikes (I didn't want to take that weight with
me to climb +4000meter mountains...)
I'm not impressed at all by the results. Years ago, I got better
pictures
with my all-manual Minolta film SLR. The reason is simple: dynamic
range. Imagine a dark green forest in the shadow and on the same
scene a mountain covered with snow in the sun. The D100 simply can't
get this scene in an acceptable way. Exposing for the snow and
intensive post-processing can help somewhat, but the result is
less than satisfactory. This strengthened me in my opinion: I don't
give a damn about pixel count, my next camera needs better dynamic
range!
Anyway, below are a few of the more acceptable results.
feel free to comment...

















--
Vtie
http://www.pbase.com/vtie
Click to expand...
--
hans
 
Hi Vite,

Taking photos in the mountains is always difficult, specially mid day, as you will have to manage the haze as well which reduces the sharpness. Secondly, whatever camera or fil/slide/digital you use, your camera is in the end a "stupid" machine and cannot know the contrast you have in front of you and will in the end expose for an average 18% gray. It is the task of us, the photographers, to use our brains and either compensate for the contrast, use a handheld meter or compensate by use of filters and to interprete the scene in front of us to get the proper exposure. Bracketing is a good option too, specially as with digital it does not cost you anything. Another option is to take difficult scenes in RAW mode which will give you more possibillities to work on the image afterwards. With RAW you can change the exposure, colours, sharpness, etc. almost anything can be done.

Just a small remark, in the first image the mountains in the back are totally out of focus. Was this on purpose ? I think it would have been much nicer to get full focus by using a small aperture or even the hyperfocal distance.

Best regards,

Itamar Engelsman
London, UK
 
Vtie said:
Being a hiking and mountain climbing fanatic, I have taken my D100
with me for the first time to a vacation in the Alps, and used it
on some of the easier hikes (I didn't want to take that weight with
me to climb +4000meter mountains...)
I'm not impressed at all by the results. Years ago, I got better
pictures
with my all-manual Minolta film SLR. The reason is simple: dynamic
range. Imagine a dark green forest in the shadow and on the same
scene a mountain covered with snow in the sun. The D100 simply can't
get this scene in an acceptable way. Exposing for the snow and
intensive post-processing can help somewhat, but the result is
less than satisfactory. This strengthened me in my opinion: I don't
give a damn about pixel count, my next camera needs better dynamic
range!
http://www.pbase.com/vtie
Click to expand...
Dynamic range is the main problem with digital IMO. Its not only the limited range, digital handles highlights in an ugly way compared to film, the response curve is different. However, several of the photos you showed looked pretty good....
--
http://www.pbase.com/interactive
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

V
Metal build fetish? (In defense of the OM-5/E-M5 III)
6 7 8
Replies
149
Views
20K
cba_melbourne
cba_melbourne
V
Upgrade to E-M1 III + 12-100 vs Z5 II + 24-200
2
Replies
29
Views
31K
Owlsfan
O
NicholasD
RESULTS - Mini Challenge #781 "Water"
Replies
11
Views
2K
Howard V
Howard V
Bill Ferris
I Can't Believe it's Gone
Replies
13
Views
5K
NikonMan09
NikonMan09
G
New Camera, hand held long exposure test
Replies
7
Views
3K
Gloomy1
G

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top