Started Mar 26, 2013 | Discussions thread
RomanJohnston Forum Pro • Posts: 18,823
Re: Cool...non issue then.....

Fred Mueller wrote:

Hi Roman ...

I would like to know if you agree with the broader slant of my statement ?

You know every time I read a news account about something I know something about intimately (which is a rare thing in most of our lives, but it does happen from time to time) I am amazed how often that news account is misinformed, come to the wrong conclusion, or misses some essential aspect.  This has happened to me maybe 1/2 dozen times in my 60 year life.  The only conclusion you can come to after this happens a few times is - not that in just those cases you know about, they got it wrong - but that TYPICALLY they get it wrong - but most of us consume the news with naive trust - even an old cynic like me just sort of goes with the flow most of the time - because after all cynicism is exhausting ...

I learned to listen to my instincts EVERY day. Because when I do not....the universe is RIGHT THERE to bop me on the head. You should hear the arguments in my head...lol.

Here is what I know:  in my little "one in a million" corner of the photographic world, all our cameras are woefully inadequate to the simple task of "somehow" capturing the full range of light and dark in a pleasing, and more importantly realistic way in many, if not most of the living spaces we occupy ...  in a way that we recognize as being "what we saw" ...

I do agree. If I were doing your work, I would not get a camera that has any banding issues.

If you just run into most rooms and shoot a generally all inclusive wide shot of the space, the lighting fixtures will be blown our, or the walls and furniture will be in dark murk, or a combination of both.  If sunlight or direct views out of doors to daylight are included, the situation becomes drastic.

How do I know? Because I do it over and over again. And basically without intervention (strobes, bracketing, heavy post manipulation), a great many living spaces cannot be photographed successfully. OOC rarely if ever looks good at all, and almost never "as it was"  And I am talking about premium properties here:  nicely furnished, expertly lit, with good daylight, good color and all the rest.

Here is what I know about my D600 - I can reliably underexpose by about 3 stops and thus often  contain detail in lighting fixtures (and the adjacent walls) and sometimes even windows, and then pull the bulk of the room up in post to match and have a good looking result. This sensor beats my D700 at this by an easy to see margin. And that was a "great camera", right?


My point being, when I go outside to shoot landscapes, which is almost never: but if I did, knowing what I know about interior work, should I assume the "1 in a million" would not apply standing atop Horse Shoe Bend for instance?

Actually I think your dynamic range of inside to outside light is harder to work with than nature. You have even walls and with solid color or light tones to work with which I think would show banding WAY before the random lines and colors of nature would.

I don't see how you can have a 14-24 and NOT a D800 BTW.

Yet I still make the art I make with my old D300 and D70 in one of the more (but not most) demanding areas of photography on the sensor....which IS my point.

Smith Rock Misery Ridge Morning


-- hide signature --

The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious; It is the source of all true art and science.
~ Albert Einstein

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
MOD Mako2011
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow