Crystal Ball Required... Locked

Started Jul 9, 2013 | Discussions thread
This thread is locked.
qianp2k Forum Pro • Posts: 10,350
Re: Crystal Ball Required...

SushiEater wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

SushiEater wrote:

I could use a stronger word to describe your condition but I am sure now that you are CRAZY and certainly don't have a clue and experience.

What you're talking about. Please be calm and discuss/debate with merits not thru emotion please.

I am not emotional at all, I am just stating the obvious.

I am not sure who is crazy, not me certainly. I am not sure what's obvious? If you talking about shooting in extreme ETTL and pulling dark shadow from both cameras, yes but I don't play in your game as I will not shoot in your way.

The whole idea behind this shot was not to overblown the sky at 30 second exposure to get a misty look from water.

Still can do and you can shoot ISO 100 instead with a GND filter or a reverse GND filter. You then expose on your 80% of front scene that will be much detailed, cleaner and sharper. The bright sky is protected by GND filter that you can fully recover.

I can do a lot of difference things but this thread is not about what I could do or what I did. I could have brought powerful light and paint those rocks with light.

If you believe the way you did as in this sample fine go ahead. But there is a better way that can generate better IQ and hope you listen. Your way is not the only way.

But this thread is about if can Canon 5D3 recover from underexposure. And the answer is, it can't. As simple as that.

No this thread is not about this if you read OP. Nobody disputes D800 can recover a severely unexposed photo better. I am only disputing there is another way and likely can generate better photos.

And you don't see much grain or noise, you are just saying it. In fact all I did is converted from RAW without any processing for noise or banding for that matter.

Here is a very small 100% crop at full resolution. There is no noise, period.

this is the brightest area in your 80% of lower part of scene. Sure you can apply NR to reduce noises but that effectively smear details on already lost details from severe underexposure. They are not very detailed, not very sharp. Please show those very deep dark shadows at 100% size on sides of rock for example.

But I didn't. This crop was neither sharpened or noise reduced. And the brightest part of the scene still remains the sky. And you want me to show details on the rock that was half a mile away even more underexposed? Seriously? I want it to remain a silhouette so I don't care about details on it.

However I seriously don't see much details on this either. If you expose correctly rather had to push shadows many stops, you'd ended with noticeable more details and sharper photo. D800 ISO 800 or ISO 1600 (equivalent after you pushing shadow) cannot be as good as ISO 100 or 200 anyway.

Post your 5D3 shot in this situation and lets see what it looks like.

But the point is that I will NOT shoot in your way as I said. I will use a GND or reverse GND filter on horizontal, expose correctly at ISO 100 instead that could even expose longer as I expose on front dark area not on sky that protected by GND or reverse GND filter.

No, the point is the same as above.

That scene is a perfect sample a GND or a reverse GND should be used as there is a clear horizontal lien there.

You saw my BIF samples in page 2 of this thread. Now please show us how your D800 can take better photos if you expose on sky then pull a deep dark birds 3-6 stops from shadow. I am waiting to see.

Why in the world would I do that then it is not required?

Just to prove why a severe ETTL (after pushing deep dark shadows many stops) still is as good as, as detailed, as sharp as if you expose correctly (as I did). NO WAY.

'Exposure on highlight then push deep dark shadows in extreme' is not a good technique in general, and will not replace traditional good techniques.

That is your opinion and not mine. Or so using GND is? I wanted high contrast between background and the sky and GND would not give me that look. That was the look I was going for. You don't like it? It is your problem. But considering that I sold 2 of them at $250 a pop I would say that I hit it right on the head. Besides you are constantly going off topic.

See, you resort to the same old tacit, your pictures sold or not, or how much sold nothing to do with techniques. If you can adjust contrast or colors easily in software if you use GND. Your photo actually has typical surreal look after extreme shadow lifting. But post processing can also create such HDR look photo easily.

We are not criticizing my photo we are talking about 5D3 ability to recover from underexposure.

Gee, again I am not disputing D800 has better underexpose recovery and nobody actually disputing that. I am ONLY disputing there is a better technique and better way to shoot photos, and I believe you could get a better IQ if you use GND/reverse-GND filter and expose correctly on 80% of front areas at ISO 100 rather ISO 50 (that sacrifices highlight).

This is nothing to do with 5D3 vs D800. Even 5D3 had 14-stop DR or I shoot with D800, I STILL will not shoot in your way but on the way I descried above, period.

Again, your opinion and not mine.

Sure I am just not agreeing your shooting method, so not playing in the same game as yours.

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