Worth Going Canon FF?

The Davinator said:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

The Davinator said:

brightcolours wrote:

The Davinator said:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

Nothing to do with pulling an underexposed photo. It has everything to do with working on a properly exposed photo.

Click to expand...

Stop writing nonsense. I properly exposed photos when I was using slide film (5-6 stops DR). I was properly exposing photos when I was using color negative film (the contrasty consumer ones like kodak color gold and such, 8-9 stops of DR). I was properly exposing when using contrasty BW film (low DR) and less contrasty BW film (10-12 stops of DR).

You are just talking nonsense with your "properly exposed photo" stuff.

Explain to me what your workflow is, to get 14 (!!!!) stops of DR into your 6-8 stop images, and have them look nice.

High DR means low contrast. Contrast makes images look nice. People like contrasty lenses not without reason. Highlights get blown in real, so why feel the need to not have any highlights blown? You hate sunny days? Shadows make images, they do not break them.

Now, to show what 14 stops of DR actually looks like. On the left, a normal 7-8 stops tonal curve. On the right, a ~14 stops tonal curve.

Click to expand...

How did one expose slide film again? Oh, ya....metering to insure the highlights are maintained. I suggest you read Adams work on the zone system.

Click to expand...

Now, why am I totally sure about that Ansel Adams did not shoot colour positive (slide) film? So, why do you keep on using the name Ansel Adams?

Now, lets go back to metering and slide film. It of course is nonsense, what you write. With slide film, one would expose the subject correctly. One would take care about shooting in nice light conditions and nice light directions, because of the low DR. And no, one would not be advised to shoot in bad light conditions and "expose for highlights", because one could not do any dark room magic in prints. The film was the end product.

The Davinator said:

It should open your eyes alittle.

Click to expand...

Read your own post and let it sink in for a while. If you somehow link colour slide film with extensive dark room techniques which involve burning and dodging, different development times for different parts of the image, and so on.... on black and white large negative film images, even you must realize that your typings are a bit didgy?

And oh yes. Again: Color slide film DR: 5-6 stops of DR.

brightcolours said:

brightcolours wrote:

First of all, Ansel Adams only made BW stuff, with large format cameras. He did shoot a few colour images at the end of his life, but they do not follow his BW processing techniques and style.

Click to expand...

Adams shot hundreds of color transparencies, pretty early to pay the bills. He traveled the country on commercial assignments or on Guggenheim Fellowships and he often took pictures in color as well as black and white. He even exhibited some of his color photographs/prints from his transparencies at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City in 1950. A pretty good selection (from nearly 3,500 images) of these Kodachromes, most created between 1946 and 1948, appears in the book, Ansel Adams in Color. It's a good read

First off, Adams shot thousands of large format color transparencies. I have one of his books that has hundreds of Kodachrome and Ektachrome color 8x10 transparencies used.

Second, I'll make this easy....if I am right, ten the zone system and exposing to the right principles work....if you are right they don't. Now do you get it? Look, this is very easy. You expose to right to maintain highlights. This would place you highlights right near sone 9 or 10. In doing so, the midtones are normally moved down from zone 5 and 6 down to zone 3 or so. In post processing, you move the midtones back up to zone 5 or 6, while leaving the shadows where they are. See? Nothing to do with underexposed images because you exposed correctly to maintain all the values in the scene. And nothing to do with shadow pulling because you arent pulling shadows.....you are placing the midtones back where they should be. If a system has a larger DR, then there will be less noise in those midtones that have been moved a few stops.

I'm actually rather shocked you find this so difficult. It is basic metering and exposure and has been taught for the better part of the last century.

Feel free to argue, but with the zone system and exposing to the right agreeing with me, I don't think I need to explain myself any longer.

The Davinator said:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

I'm actually rather shocked you find this so difficult. It is basic metering and exposure and has been taught for the better part of the last century.

Click to expand...

You assume he actually learned photography.

This might not be the case - most of people these days are self-taught or know photography from some half-done books written by people with a knowledge not much deeper than their own. I know literally 1 other photographer who studied photography. I probably a met few more, but never got known of them well enough to know their education background.

So I wouldn't put much hope in what was taught during last century. It's not any more. At least: not for majority of people.

Plastek said:

Plastek wrote:

Plastek said:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

I'm actually rather shocked you find this so difficult. It is basic metering and exposure and has been taught for the better part of the last century.

Click to expand...

You assume he actually learned photography.

This might not be the case - most of people these days are self-taught or know photography from some half-done books written by people with a knowledge not much deeper than their own. I know literally 1 other photographer who studied photography. I probably a met few more, but never got known of them well enough to know their education background.

So I wouldn't put much hope in what was taught during last century. It's not any more. At least: not for majority of people.

Click to expand...

Maybe that is why it is so difficult to get through to some of them.

Mako2011 said:

Mako2011 wrote:

Mako2011 said:

brightcolours wrote:

First of all, Ansel Adams only made BW stuff, with large format cameras. He did shoot a few colour images at the end of his life, but they do not follow his BW processing techniques and style.

Click to expand...

Adams shot hundreds of color transparencies, pretty early to pay the bills. He traveled the country on commercial assignments or on Guggenheim Fellowships and he often took pictures in color as well as black and white. He even exhibited some of his color photographs/prints from his transparencies at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City in 1950. A pretty good selection (from nearly 3,500 images) of these Kodachromes, most created between 1946 and 1948, appears in the book, Ansel Adams in Color. It's a good read

Click to expand...

His colour work however has nothing to do with his theories of this zone system.

Mako2011 said:

--
My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Click to expand...

The Davinator said:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

First off, Adams shot thousands of large format color transparencies. I have one of his books that has hundreds of Kodachrome and Ektachrome color 8x10 transparencies used.

Second, I'll make this easy....if I am right, ten the zone system and exposing to the right principles work....if you are right they don't. Now do you get it? Look, this is very easy. You expose to right to maintain highlights. This would place you highlights right near sone 9 or 10.

Click to expand...

Zone 10 is WHITE. You are all about "preserving highlights, with which you mean, not have them be white.

The Davinator said:

In doing so, the midtones are normally moved down from zone 5 and 6 down to zone 3 or so.

Click to expand...

Why? Funny enough when I meter for mid tones, I almost never get any total whites. So why do you feel the need to under expose?

The Davinator said:

In post processing, you move the midtones back up to zone 5 or 6, while leaving the shadows where they are. See?

Click to expand...

No, I don't see. According to you, zone 6 went to zone 3. How do you go about moving zone 3 to zone 6? And what happens to zone 4 and zone 5? Do they move to 7 and 8? What happens with zone 7 and 8 then? And what is stuffed into zone 3, which "moved" to zone 6?

Oh yeah, and by putting zone 6 in zone 3, what happened to zone 2, 1 and 0? Not pulling shadows, huh?

The Davinator said:

Nothing to do with underexposed images because you exposed correctly to maintain all the values in the scene. And nothing to do with shadow pulling because you arent pulling shadows.....you are placing the midtones back where they should be. If a system has a larger DR, then there will be less noise in those midtones that have been moved a few stops.

Click to expand...

You are just typing nonsense. But how about explaining your actual work flow, with actual examples/results?

The Davinator said:

I'm actually rather shocked you find this so difficult. It is basic metering and exposure and has been taught for the better part of the last century.

Click to expand...

I am really rather flabbergasted that you somehow have read some stuff about some photographer who decades ago, with large format cameras, developed a style in which he made black and white images of american landscapes with a surreal and different, contrasty look, and think that somehow it translates to digital colour photography, and that somehow it is all about a DR of 14 stops.

The Davinator said:

Feel free to argue, but with the zone system and exposing to the right agreeing with me, I don't think I need to explain myself any longer.

Click to expand...

Nothing agrees with you. And exposing to the right several stops just shows you have little knowledge on how data in RAW is stored.

brightcolours said:

brightcolours wrote:

brightcolours said:

Mako2011 wrote:

brightcolours said:

brightcolours wrote:

First of all, Ansel Adams only made BW stuff, with large format cameras. He did shoot a few colour images at the end of his life, but they do not follow his BW processing techniques and style.

Click to expand...

Adams shot hundreds of color transparencies, pretty early to pay the bills. He traveled the country on commercial assignments or on Guggenheim Fellowships and he often took pictures in color as well as black and white. He even exhibited some of his color photographs/prints from his transparencies at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City in 1950. A pretty good selection (from nearly 3,500 images) of these Kodachromes, most created between 1946 and 1948, appears in the book, Ansel Adams in Color. It's a good read

Click to expand...

His colour work however has nothing to do with his theories of this zone system.

Click to expand...

How so? He was applying it with those early color works as well. Since you didn't realize he had even done color work so early, I can understand why you think his zone system theories might not have applied there as well. He was actually a bit more well rounded than the B&W only person you give him credit for. Many can still learn from his writings work and they do in fact translate to color as well. You just have to read a bit closer with more of an open understanding. Still applicable.

[No message]

brightcolours said:

brightcolours wrote:

brightcolours said:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

First off, Adams shot thousands of large format color transparencies. I have one of his books that has hundreds of Kodachrome and Ektachrome color 8x10 transparencies used.

Second, I'll make this easy....if I am right, ten the zone system and exposing to the right principles work....if you are right they don't. Now do you get it? Look, this is very easy. You expose to right to maintain highlights. This would place you highlights right near sone 9 or 10.

Click to expand...

Zone 10 is WHITE. You are all about "preserving highlights, with which you mean, not have them be white.

Click to expand...

Zone 9 is white (but not always when you apply it in terms of luminance) ...there actually isn't a zone 10 as it goes from 0-9 and above 9 is considered a light source.

brightcolours said:

brightcolours said:

In doing so, the midtones are normally moved down from zone 5 and 6 down to zone 3 or so.

Click to expand...

Why? Funny enough when I meter for mid tones, I almost never get any total whites. So why do you feel the need to under expose?

Click to expand...

As Adams pointed out...with the zone system you would expose to maintain shadow detail, then develop to place highlights in zones of your choosing. You don't actually meter for the mid-tones. With color digital, and Adams actually seemed to anticipate this, you might be metering for a specific channel like green vs red. Depends on the final presentation medium also.

brightcolours said:

brightcolours said:

In post processing, you move the midtones back up to zone 5 or 6, while leaving the shadows where they are. See?

Click to expand...

No, I don't see. According to you, zone 6 went to zone 3. How do you go about moving zone 3 to zone 6? And what happens to zone 4 and zone 5? Do they move to 7 and 8? What happens with zone 7 and 8 then? And what is stuffed into zone 3, which "moved" to zone 6?

Oh yeah, and by putting zone 6 in zone 3, what happened to zone 2, 1 and 0? Not pulling shadows, huh?

Click to expand...

Your simply not applying the system as defined. takes a bit to get it. Remember, he used it so as to make the most, in terms of tonality, with a single grade of paper. With digital your using the zone system to maximize desired detail in much the same way he was maximizing detail and tonality.

brightcolours said:

I am really rather flabbergasted that you somehow have read some stuff about some photographer who decades ago, with large format cameras, developed a style in which he made black and white images of american landscapes with a surreal and different, contrasty look, and think that somehow it translates to digital colour photography, and that somehow it is all about a DR of 14 stops.

Click to expand...

He actually spoke in length about it in 1981. He did indeed anticipate the move to digital

brightcolours said:

brightcolours said:

Feel free to argue, but with the zone system and exposing to the right agreeing with me, I don't think I need to explain myself any longer.

Click to expand...

Nothing agrees with you. And exposing to the right several stops just shows you have little knowledge on how data in RAW is stored.

Click to expand...

Smile

--
My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Would love to have a sit down with Yousuf Karsh. Lucky you!

My knowledge is fine. It seems it is you with the problems grasping basic concepts. As to understanding raw files, what I said is agreed upon by most books on the topic....and some of the best photographers around.

if it makes you feel better, go on exposing for the midtones.....just stay out of discussions on Adams, the Zone System, or Exposing to the right.....because it is clear you dont understand.

brightcolours said:

brightcolours wrote:

brightcolours said:

Mako2011 wrote:

brightcolours said:

brightcolours wrote:

First of all, Ansel Adams only made BW stuff, with large format cameras. He did shoot a few colour images at the end of his life, but they do not follow his BW processing techniques and style.

Click to expand...

Adams shot hundreds of color transparencies, pretty early to pay the bills. He traveled the country on commercial assignments or on Guggenheim Fellowships and he often took pictures in color as well as black and white. He even exhibited some of his color photographs/prints from his transparencies at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City in 1950. A pretty good selection (from nearly 3,500 images) of these Kodachromes, most created between 1946 and 1948, appears in the book, Ansel Adams in Color. It's a good read

Click to expand...

His colour work however has nothing to do with his theories of this zone system.

Click to expand...

wrong again. The zone system was often used by Adams for his color work....you know....the work you didn't even know existed until I told you. Really, how can I have a discussion with you on this when you throw around terms you don't even understand. Look up Barbaum's texts as well. It appears many of the best out there don't agree with you. Instead of arguing with me....ask yourself why some of the most knowledgeable out there disagree with you. The onus is on you to prove your theory.....because right now, convention says you're wrong.

brightcolours said:

brightcolours said:

--
My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Mako2011 said:

Mako2011 wrote:

Mako2011 said:

brightcolours wrote:

Mako2011 said:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

First off, Adams shot thousands of large format color transparencies. I have one of his books that has hundreds of Kodachrome and Ektachrome color 8x10 transparencies used.

Second, I'll make this easy....if I am right, ten the zone system and exposing to the right principles work....if you are right they don't. Now do you get it? Look, this is very easy. You expose to right to maintain highlights. This would place you highlights right near sone 9 or 10.

Click to expand...

Zone 10 is WHITE. You are all about "preserving highlights, with which you mean, not have them be white.

Click to expand...

Zone 9 is white (but not always when you apply it in terms of luminance) ...there actually isn't a zone 10 as it goes from 0-9 and above 9 is considered a light source.

Click to expand...

Technically, Adams and Baurnbaum discuss zone extensions past 10 in cases of larger DR of some films with dilute processing. Barnbaum discussed this at length when I met him as he lectured on how he photographed in Antelope Canyon. He discussed using dilute two bath developers and semi-stand and stand development to improve acutance and maintain highlight details in very high contrast scenes.....scenes where he measured an SBR of 15 or more stops.....and discussed moving tonal values past zone 10.....even to sone 15 as an extension.

Mako2011 said:

Mako2011 said:

Mako2011 said:

In doing so, the midtones are normally moved down from zone 5 and 6 down to zone 3 or so.

Click to expand...

Why? Funny enough when I meter for mid tones, I almost never get any total whites. So why do you feel the need to under expose?

Click to expand...

As Adams pointed out...with the zone system you would expose to maintain shadow detail, then develop to place highlights in zones of your choosing. You don't actually meter for the mid-tones. With color digital, and Adams actually seemed to anticipate this, you might be metering for a specific channel like green vs red. Depends on the final presentation medium also.

Mako2011 said:

Mako2011 said:

In post processing, you move the midtones back up to zone 5 or 6, while leaving the shadows where they are. See?

Click to expand...

No, I don't see. According to you, zone 6 went to zone 3. How do you go about moving zone 3 to zone 6? And what happens to zone 4 and zone 5? Do they move to 7 and 8? What happens with zone 7 and 8 then? And what is stuffed into zone 3, which "moved" to zone 6?

Oh yeah, and by putting zone 6 in zone 3, what happened to zone 2, 1 and 0? Not pulling shadows, huh?

Click to expand...

Your simply not applying the system as defined. takes a bit to get it. Remember, he used it so as to make the most, in terms of tonality, with a single grade of paper. With digital your using the zone system to maximize desired detail in much the same way he was maximizing detail and tonality.

Click to expand...

you are correct here. Zone 0-2 are compressed and remain as shadows in post processing. Thus, no shadows are pulled.

Mako2011 said:

Mako2011 said:

I am really rather flabbergasted that you somehow have read some stuff about some photographer who decades ago, with large format cameras, developed a style in which he made black and white images of american landscapes with a surreal and different, contrasty look, and think that somehow it translates to digital colour photography, and that somehow it is all about a DR of 14 stops.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Mako2011 said:

He actually spoke in length about it in 1981. He did indeed anticipate the move to digital

Click to expand...

Adams did speak to digital....and he and Barbaum discuss a great length how to record 15-17 stops on film.

Mako2011 said:

Mako2011 said:

Mako2011 said:

Feel free to argue, but with the zone system and exposing to the right agreeing with me, I don't think I need to explain myself any longer.

Click to expand...

Nothing agrees with you. And exposing to the right several stops just shows you have little knowledge on how data in RAW is stored.

Click to expand...

Smile

Click to expand...

that is about all I can do because this has become so ridculous.

Mako2011 said:

--
My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Click to expand...

The Davinator said:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

The Davinator said:

Mako2011 wrote:

The Davinator said:

brightcolours wrote:

The Davinator said:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

First off, Adams shot thousands of large format color transparencies. I have one of his books that has hundreds of Kodachrome and Ektachrome color 8x10 transparencies used.

Second, I'll make this easy....if I am right, ten the zone system and exposing to the right principles work....if you are right they don't. Now do you get it? Look, this is very easy. You expose to right to maintain highlights. This would place you highlights right near sone 9 or 10.

Click to expand...

Zone 10 is WHITE. You are all about "preserving highlights, with which you mean, not have them be white.

Click to expand...

Zone 9 is white (but not always when you apply it in terms of luminance) ...there actually isn't a zone 10 as it goes from 0-9 and above 9 is considered a light source.

Click to expand...

Technically, Adams and Baurnbaum discuss zone extensions past 10 in cases of larger DR of some films with dilute processing.

Click to expand...

True...I was being a bit simplified.

The Davinator said:

Barnbaum discussed this at length when I met him as he lectured on how he photographed in Antelope Canyon. He discussed using dilute two bath developers and semi-stand and stand development to improve acutance and maintain highlight details in very high contrast scenes.....scenes where he measured an SBR of 15 or more stops.....and discussed moving tonal values past zone 10.....even to sone 15 as an extension.

Click to expand...

All true and makes for really interesting discussion and well applied to today's tech.

The Davinator said:

The Davinator said:

The Davinator said:

The Davinator said:

In doing so, the midtones are normally moved down from zone 5 and 6 down to zone 3 or so.

Click to expand...

Why? Funny enough when I meter for mid tones, I almost never get any total whites. So why do you feel the need to under expose?

Click to expand...

As Adams pointed out...with the zone system you would expose to maintain shadow detail, then develop to place highlights in zones of your choosing. You don't actually meter for the mid-tones. With color digital, and Adams actually seemed to anticipate this, you might be metering for a specific channel like green vs red. Depends on the final presentation medium also.

The Davinator said:

The Davinator said:

In post processing, you move the midtones back up to zone 5 or 6, while leaving the shadows where they are. See?

Click to expand...

No, I don't see. According to you, zone 6 went to zone 3. How do you go about moving zone 3 to zone 6? And what happens to zone 4 and zone 5? Do they move to 7 and 8? What happens with zone 7 and 8 then? And what is stuffed into zone 3, which "moved" to zone 6?

Oh yeah, and by putting zone 6 in zone 3, what happened to zone 2, 1 and 0? Not pulling shadows, huh?

Click to expand...

Your simply not applying the system as defined. takes a bit to get it. Remember, he used it so as to make the most, in terms of tonality, with a single grade of paper. With digital your using the zone system to maximize desired detail in much the same way he was maximizing detail and tonality.

Click to expand...

you are correct here. Zone 0-2 are compressed and remain as shadows in post processing. Thus, no shadows are pulled.

The Davinator said:

The Davinator said:

I am really rather flabbergasted that you somehow have read some stuff about some photographer who decades ago, with large format cameras, developed a style in which he made black and white images of american landscapes with a surreal and different, contrasty look, and think that somehow it translates to digital colour photography, and that somehow it is all about a DR of 14 stops.

Click to expand...

He actually spoke in length about it in 1981. He did indeed anticipate the move to digital

Click to expand...

Adams did speak to digital....and he and Barbaum discuss a great length how to record 15-17 stops on film.

The Davinator said:

The Davinator said:

The Davinator said:

Feel free to argue, but with the zone system and exposing to the right agreeing with me, I don't think I need to explain myself any longer.

Click to expand...

Nothing agrees with you. And exposing to the right several stops just shows you have little knowledge on how data in RAW is stored.

Click to expand...

Smile

Click to expand...

that is about all I can do because this has become so ridculous.

Click to expand...

brightcolours said:

brightcolours wrote:

brightcolours said:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

First off, Adams shot thousands of large format color transparencies. I have one of his books that has hundreds of Kodachrome and Ektachrome color 8x10 transparencies used.

Second, I'll make this easy....if I am right, ten the zone system and exposing to the right principles work....if you are right they don't. Now do you get it? Look, this is very easy. You expose to right to maintain highlights. This would place you highlights right near sone 9 or 10.

Click to expand...

Zone 10 is WHITE. You are all about "preserving highlights, with which you mean, not have them be white.

brightcolours said:

In doing so, the midtones are normally moved down from zone 5 and 6 down to zone 3 or so.

Click to expand...

Why? Funny enough when I meter for mid tones, I almost never get any total whites. So why do you feel the need to under expose?

brightcolours said:

In post processing, you move the midtones back up to zone 5 or 6, while leaving the shadows where they are. See?

Click to expand...

No, I don't see. According to you, zone 6 went to zone 3. How do you go about moving zone 3 to zone 6? And what happens to zone 4 and zone 5? Do they move to 7 and 8? What happens with zone 7 and 8 then? And what is stuffed into zone 3, which "moved" to zone 6?

Oh yeah, and by putting zone 6 in zone 3, what happened to zone 2, 1 and 0? Not pulling shadows, huh?

brightcolours said:

Nothing to do with underexposed images because you exposed correctly to maintain all the values in the scene. And nothing to do with shadow pulling because you arent pulling shadows.....you are placing the midtones back where they should be. If a system has a larger DR, then there will be less noise in those midtones that have been moved a few stops.

Click to expand...

You are just typing nonsense. But how about explaining your actual work flow, with actual examples/results?

Click to expand...

That's people said a photo worth more than thousand (blah) words Nobody would care Ansel Adams words or books if he didn't have those wonderful photos.

brightcolours said:

brightcolours said:

I'm actually rather shocked you find this so difficult. It is basic metering and exposure and has been taught for the better part of the last century.

Click to expand...

I am really rather flabbergasted that you somehow have read some stuff about some photographer who decades ago, with large format cameras, developed a style in which he made black and white images of american landscapes with a surreal and different, contrasty look, and think that somehow it translates to digital colour photography, and that somehow it is all about a DR of 14 stops.

brightcolours said:

Feel free to argue, but with the zone system and exposing to the right agreeing with me, I don't think I need to explain myself any longer.

Click to expand...

Nothing agrees with you. And exposing to the right several stops just shows you have little knowledge on how data in RAW is stored.

Click to expand...

Actually if Canon and Nikon/Sony both exposed with ETTR (expose to right) or overexposed, the difference is much smaller and even indistinguishable, the method I prefer. Sony/Nikon DR advantage is ONLY obvious when you push up a severe underexposed photo. Canon cameras' DR is not as good as but certainly not slouch either even under very contrast scenes but might need a bit of processing. Here are another 3 samples.


OOC RAW, Cape of the Good Hope


Processed


OOC RAW, Cape of the Good Hope


Processed

This one is even more challenging. Just a snapshot in early morning. I stayed in that hotel on the hill, the Queens Victoria at Waterfront in Cape Town, just cross the Nobel Square. I used the brush tool but a bit of too big size to have a quick result but left a few rough edges that can be fixed easily later.


OOC RAW


Processed

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/

qianp2k said:

qianp2k wrote:

qianp2k said:

brightcolours wrote:

qianp2k said:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

First off, Adams shot thousands of large format color transparencies. I have one of his books that has hundreds of Kodachrome and Ektachrome color 8x10 transparencies used.

Second, I'll make this easy....if I am right, ten the zone system and exposing to the right principles work....if you are right they don't. Now do you get it? Look, this is very easy. You expose to right to maintain highlights. This would place you highlights right near sone 9 or 10.

Click to expand...

Zone 10 is WHITE. You are all about "preserving highlights, with which you mean, not have them be white.

qianp2k said:

In doing so, the midtones are normally moved down from zone 5 and 6 down to zone 3 or so.

Click to expand...

Why? Funny enough when I meter for mid tones, I almost never get any total whites. So why do you feel the need to under expose?

qianp2k said:

In post processing, you move the midtones back up to zone 5 or 6, while leaving the shadows where they are. See?

Click to expand...

No, I don't see. According to you, zone 6 went to zone 3. How do you go about moving zone 3 to zone 6? And what happens to zone 4 and zone 5? Do they move to 7 and 8? What happens with zone 7 and 8 then? And what is stuffed into zone 3, which "moved" to zone 6?

Oh yeah, and by putting zone 6 in zone 3, what happened to zone 2, 1 and 0? Not pulling shadows, huh?

qianp2k said:

Nothing to do with underexposed images because you exposed correctly to maintain all the values in the scene. And nothing to do with shadow pulling because you arent pulling shadows.....you are placing the midtones back where they should be. If a system has a larger DR, then there will be less noise in those midtones that have been moved a few stops.

Click to expand...

You are just typing nonsense. But how about explaining your actual work flow, with actual examples/results?

Click to expand...

That's people said a photo worth more than thousand (blah) words Nobody would care Ansel Adams words or books if he didn't have those wonderful photos.

qianp2k said:

qianp2k said:

I'm actually rather shocked you find this so difficult. It is basic metering and exposure and has been taught for the better part of the last century.

Click to expand...

I am really rather flabbergasted that you somehow have read some stuff about some photographer who decades ago, with large format cameras, developed a style in which he made black and white images of american landscapes with a surreal and different, contrasty look, and think that somehow it translates to digital colour photography, and that somehow it is all about a DR of 14 stops.

qianp2k said:

Feel free to argue, but with the zone system and exposing to the right agreeing with me, I don't think I need to explain myself any longer.

Click to expand...

Nothing agrees with you. And exposing to the right several stops just shows you have little knowledge on how data in RAW is stored.

Click to expand...

Actually if Canon and Nikon/Sony both exposed with ETTR (expose to right) or overexposed, the difference is much smaller and even indistinguishable, the method I prefer. Sony/Nikon DR advantage is ONLY obvious when you push up a severe underexposed photo. Canon cameras' DR is not as good as but certainly not slouch either even under very contrast scenes but might need a bit of processing. Here are another 3 samples.


OOC RAW, Cape of the Good Hope


Processed


OOC RAW, Cape of the Good Hope


Processed

This one is even more challenging. Just a snapshot in early morning. I stayed in that hotel on the hill, the Queens Victoria at Waterfront in Cape Town, just cross the Nobel Square. I used the brush tool but a bit of too big size to have a quick result but left a few rough edges that can be fixed easily later.


OOC RAW


Processed

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/

Click to expand...

To be honest I prefer the OOC Raws.

Member said:

meland wrote:

Member said:

qianp2k wrote:

Member said:

brightcolours wrote:

Member said:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

First off, Adams shot thousands of large format color transparencies. I have one of his books that has hundreds of Kodachrome and Ektachrome color 8x10 transparencies used.

Second, I'll make this easy....if I am right, ten the zone system and exposing to the right principles work....if you are right they don't. Now do you get it? Look, this is very easy. You expose to right to maintain highlights. This would place you highlights right near sone 9 or 10.

Click to expand...

Zone 10 is WHITE. You are all about "preserving highlights, with which you mean, not have them be white.

Member said:

In doing so, the midtones are normally moved down from zone 5 and 6 down to zone 3 or so.

Click to expand...

Why? Funny enough when I meter for mid tones, I almost never get any total whites. So why do you feel the need to under expose?

Member said:

In post processing, you move the midtones back up to zone 5 or 6, while leaving the shadows where they are. See?

Click to expand...

No, I don't see. According to you, zone 6 went to zone 3. How do you go about moving zone 3 to zone 6? And what happens to zone 4 and zone 5? Do they move to 7 and 8? What happens with zone 7 and 8 then? And what is stuffed into zone 3, which "moved" to zone 6?

Oh yeah, and by putting zone 6 in zone 3, what happened to zone 2, 1 and 0? Not pulling shadows, huh?

Member said:

Nothing to do with underexposed images because you exposed correctly to maintain all the values in the scene. And nothing to do with shadow pulling because you arent pulling shadows.....you are placing the midtones back where they should be. If a system has a larger DR, then there will be less noise in those midtones that have been moved a few stops.

Click to expand...

You are just typing nonsense. But how about explaining your actual work flow, with actual examples/results?

Click to expand...

That's people said a photo worth more than thousand (blah) words Nobody would care Ansel Adams words or books if he didn't have those wonderful photos.

Member said:

Member said:

I'm actually rather shocked you find this so difficult. It is basic metering and exposure and has been taught for the better part of the last century.

Click to expand...

I am really rather flabbergasted that you somehow have read some stuff about some photographer who decades ago, with large format cameras, developed a style in which he made black and white images of american landscapes with a surreal and different, contrasty look, and think that somehow it translates to digital colour photography, and that somehow it is all about a DR of 14 stops.

Member said:

Feel free to argue, but with the zone system and exposing to the right agreeing with me, I don't think I need to explain myself any longer.

Click to expand...

Nothing agrees with you. And exposing to the right several stops just shows you have little knowledge on how data in RAW is stored.

Click to expand...

Actually if Canon and Nikon/Sony both exposed with ETTR (expose to right) or overexposed, the difference is much smaller and even indistinguishable, the method I prefer. Sony/Nikon DR advantage is ONLY obvious when you push up a severe underexposed photo. Canon cameras' DR is not as good as but certainly not slouch either even under very contrast scenes but might need a bit of processing. Here are another 3 samples.


OOC RAW, Cape of the Good Hope


Processed


OOC RAW, Cape of the Good Hope


Processed

This one is even more challenging. Just a snapshot in early morning. I stayed in that hotel on the hill, the Queens Victoria at Waterfront in Cape Town, just cross the Nobel Square. I used the brush tool but a bit of too big size to have a quick result but left a few rough edges that can be fixed easily later.


OOC RAW


Processed

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/

Click to expand...

To be honest I prefer the OOC Raws.

Click to expand...

I think first shot didn't need any shadow lifting.

On the second highlight recovery looks good, but not the shadow lifting.

On the third, Peter pushed shadow too much, maybe 1/3rd or half of what he has done would have been fine.



--
Life is short.
Travel with passion.

Member said:

meland wrote:

To be honest I prefer the OOC Raws.

Click to expand...

I do as well.

qianp2k said:

qianp2k wrote:

Actually if Canon and Nikon/Sony both exposed with ETTR (expose to right) or overexposed, the difference is much smaller and even indistinguishable, the method I prefer. Sony/Nikon DR advantage is ONLY obvious when you push up a severe underexposed photo. Canon cameras' DR is not as good as but certainly not slouch either even under very contrast scenes but might need a bit of processing. Here are another 3 samples.


OOC RAW, Cape of the Good Hope


Processed


OOC RAW, Cape of the Good Hope


Processed

This one is even more challenging. Just a snapshot in early morning. I stayed in that hotel on the hill, the Queens Victoria at Waterfront in Cape Town, just cross the Nobel Square. I used the brush tool but a bit of too big size to have a quick result but left a few rough edges that can be fixed easily later.


OOC RAW


Processed

Click to expand...

Good demonstration as none of them is how you would present them anyway as I assume.

--
Kind regards,
Hans Kruse
Home Page -- www.hanskrusephotography.com, http://500px.com/hanskrusephotography, www.hanskrusephotography.zenfolio.com
Workshops -- www.hanskrusephotography.com/gallery/14682573_Q9mq4
Facebook Photography http://www.facebook.com/HansKrusePhotography
Workshop Newsletter signup http://eepurl.com/bA0Pj