D100, Alps & frustration

CraigH said:

Wow, really nice work!. some nd grads could have been placed
nicely in a couple of these. when used properly are not
detectable. Ilke singhray, truely neutral " no color shifts" and
allow flexable placement of the grad.in any event the photos are
excellent.

Click to expand...

I indeed should have a look into these things! Thanks for the comment.

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

Hi Vtie,

You did not mention if you used either of the filters in the title. If NOT, then those would greatly help you control contrast in mountain scenics.

As to the dynamic range of digital sensors, they are better or as good as most slide film which is what most would choose for shooting these types of images.

Another option is to shoot two frames, and then merge the images. The two frames would include exposure for mountains, and exposure for shadow. This assumes you have a tripod.

I'm not sure what media you plan on displaying these images with, but also keep in mind that print media has less color space and dynamic range than digital camera's.

I thought many of the shots you took were quite nice. I would however suggest some more photoshoping or whatever tool you use to mask the brighter skies and mountains, and darken the colors a bit.

Ron

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...

here's a link:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=9149576

this is a thread with some excellent advise from knowledgable people. I settled on the Lee system after that thread, it's on the way as we speak.

Cheers,

Sander Meurs
------------------------------------------------------------------



'..fools rush in, where fools have been before..'

Vtie said:

Western Italian Apls, Parco Nationale della Gran Paradiso. One of the
most beautiful places in the Alps imho.

Click to expand...

I can't believe, that's where I am going! We are staying in Valnontey...only for three nights as part of a larger Italy trip. We're not mountain climbers...but good hikers. Planning to hike to Refugio Sella and perhaps beyond. What trails did you take!!?? Any tips? Did you see much wildlife? I'd love to hear anything and everything about this area!
--
Janet
D 1 0 0
F 1 0 0
C P 5 7 0 0
http://www.jczinn.com

I stayed in Lillaz, which is another village close to Cogne. I have been to
this place numereous times, and pretty much did all the single day hikes,
quite a few several-day hikes and I also climbed the summit of the
Gran Paradiso (which is easier than it seems...)

Hiking to Refugio di Sella isn't particularly exciting, but it is an excellent
starting point for a few wonderful single-day hikes, such as Col Lauson
(alt. 3300m) and Col Nera (alt. 3500m). It's quite a difference in altitude
from your starting point (1700m), but if you start early enough and
take your time, it is an easy hike. Count on 9-10h for a round trip.

Another one is Col Herbetet (alt. 3400m I believe), but when I was
there the brigde over the river to get there from Valnontey was broken.

There are numereous excellent hikes from Lillaz (drive with your car to
there to save time). A very easy but beautiful one is ascending to Lago
di Loye (2300m), and then proceeding to Alp Bardoney and descending
back to Lillaz. It's an excellent hike to start with and get used to the
altitude (approx. 5h round trip). It's a must-do. Also starting from Lillaz
is Col d' Arolla (2900m), but this one has some more challenging places.

A truely amazing hike is to start from Gimillan (1700m,a little above Cogne,
take your care to there and park) and hike to the Lagi Lussert (there
are three of them at 2700m, 2800m and 2900m) and then continue
to the Col Laures (3000m). The views and nature you get and this
hike are unbelievable. From Col Laures, you get a magnificent overview
of the central valley of Aosta, including view on the Matterhorn,
Monte Rosa and Grand Combin. You really shouldn't miss this hike.
The path is very easy and well indicated.

There is a lot of wildlife in the park, and it should be no problem to
see Chamois and Stanbecci (don't know the name in English, but
they are bigger than Chamois).

Enjoy one of the best regions in the Alps for hiking, and if you have
any other questions, just ask!

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

Vtie, perhaps I have misled you slightly in that dynamic range is how luminosity levels map onto final image tones. So I admit that unless a the range of luminosities that can be accomodated by the sensor is larger you don't really have a larger dynamic range. So Strictly speaking RAW doesn't give a high dynamic range.

HOWEVER it produces somewhat more exposure lattitude...

The problems with exposure latitude come when you under expose a bit to preserve highlight details. This might only be a third or even two thirds of a stop but this is where there is enormous payback from RAW. You see, raw contains 12 bits per pixel instead of jpg's 8. That means the recorded tone range is represented by 4096 different numbers instead of 256 in each pixel.

That means that when you use curves to restore the tonal range of a slightly underexposed image (i.e. stretch the tone range over the same range of representative numbers) you make much more acceptable adjustments.

For example, if you adjust an image by (say) 1 ev (which is high but it illustrates my point) in jpg you reduce the number of discreet tones per pixel from 256 to about 150 because the scale is stretched. This is very noticable which is why noise becomes extremely prominent. In raw if you do the same you go from 4096 values to about 2500 which produces much less noise in the process of adjustment.

Of course there is no substitute for absoluetely nailing the exposure but when you do RAW produces visibly better results and has more scope for adjustments with very small "penalties".

Also one of the best tools for adjusting RAW images is Nikon Capture. I prefer it to PS CS although I do sharpening (using the Fred Miranda halo-less action) and any noise removal in PS CS (using neatimage).

This is an image captured two thirds under because of the enormous range of tonal variation from the deep shadows to the bright clouds and I was able not only to correct the under exposure and maintain all the highlight detail but open up the shadows with no significant noise. I am happy to email you the full image file... if your in-tray will take it - it's big because it's a three shot pano.



Best regards, Ralph

Pbase Supporter
http://www.pbase.com/rbaer/galleries

BTW while we're having this technical discussion I forgot to say I really like your images... or more precisely I admire your eye... nice sense of composition and drama. I love the Aosta region but I have only ever been there in winter (I used to teach skiing in Pila and Courmayeur)

Best regards, Ralph

Pbase Supporter
http://www.pbase.com/rbaer/galleries

Ron Frank said:

You did not mention if you used either of the filters in the title.
If NOT, then those would greatly help you control contrast in
mountain scenics.

Click to expand...

I'm not too sure whether this would help in all cases. Usually, the
worst is if you have dark rock with patches of sunlit snow. I don't see
how any of these filters could help.

Ron Frank said:

As to the dynamic range of digital sensors, they are better or as
good as most slide film which is what most would choose for
shooting these types of images.

Click to expand...

Again, I'm not sure about this. I have shot some slides in similar
situations in the past, and my experience was that the snow saturated
indeed, but much more gracefully than with digital. With digital,
saturated areas look so ugly that you have to avoid them at any
price, resulting in severe underexposure of other parts. With slides
or film, you could just let the snow saturate, and it still looked nice.

Ron Frank said:

Another option is to shoot two frames, and then merge the images.
The two frames would include exposure for mountains, and exposure
for shadow. This assumes you have a tripod.

Click to expand...

True, but I don't want to carry a tripod on 9 hour hikes involving an
altitude difference of more than 1500 meters.

Ron Frank said:

I'm not sure what media you plan on displaying these images with,
but also keep in mind that print media has less color space and
dynamic range than digital camera's.

Click to expand...

This I don't understand. Dynamic range of a camera is about the range
of luminosity it can capture in a single exposure.
How could this be compared to the range of reflectances you have
on printed media? These are totally different physical properties, with
no connection between them. It's really like comparing apples to pears.

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

DMillier said:

\> 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.

Click to expand...

Since when do DSLRs better dynamic range than film, especially slide film? This has always been the Achilles' heel of digital sensors in comparison to film. The original post is exactly about this.

thanks so much, now I really wish we had more days to spend there. I had the Lillaz--Lago du loye hike on my list, perhaps we'll start with that one instead of the Refugio Sella. We really only have two full hiking days, and one of those days (as we are birders) we are meeting up with a birding guide (head of the Italian Ornitholgists union!) and I'm not sure where he will be taking us. I don't think we're up for a full-day hike at that altitude, but a couple of half-day hikes for sure.

Wondering what lenses you used most? I'll be taking a 17-35, 24-120VR, and probably an old 70-300 Sigma because I just can't see carrying the 80-400VR all over Northern Italy (would probably only want it here; the rest of the trip is more traditional...eating and drinking lots of wine in Piedmont and hiking the Cinque Terre trails.) I'm worried I'll regret that when an Ibex (Steinbock?) steps in front of me on the trail, but...

also, I'm taking a monopod (no tripod.) Figure I can double it up as a hiking staff!

--
Janet
D 1 0 0
F 1 0 0
C P 5 7 0 0
http://www.jczinn.com

Janet Zinn said:

thanks so much, now I really wish we had more days to spend there.
I had the Lillaz--Lago du loye hike on my list, perhaps we'll start
with that one instead of the Refugio Sella.

Click to expand...

If you have a limited amount of time, Lillaz - Lago di Loye - Alp Bardoney
is definetely a much nicer hike than Rifugio di Sella.

Janet Zinn said:

Wondering what lenses you used most? I'll be taking a 17-35,
24-120VR, and probably an old 70-300 Sigma because I just can't see
carrying the 80-400VR all over Northern Italy (would probably only
want it here; the rest of the trip is more traditional...eating and
drinking lots of wine in Piedmont and hiking the Cinque Terre
trails.) I'm worried I'll regret that when an Ibex (Steinbock?)
steps in front of me on the trail, but...

Click to expand...

I only had a 24-120VR with me, because I like travelling light.
However, for mountain scenery, a wideangle is very interesting and
you actually might consider a 12-24. A contributor to this forum

called rfc also has some excellent examples of what you can do with this lens for cityscapes.

Enjoy your trip!

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

I feel that I need to invest some time in learning more about filters.
The thread you mentioned seems to be an excellent starting point.

Until now, photography is only a marginal activity for me, but it seems
that I am catching the virus...

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

Sander Meurs said:

Janet Zinn is visiting that exact region this month, I will be just
a few km away, just north of the Matterhorn in Valais. Thanks for
the tip, I might take the drive down there as well.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it's not very far in linear distance, but a long drive (I guess
you would need to take the pass of the Grand St Bernard)
It's definetely worth a vacation on itself if you like the Alps, hiking and
mountain climbing. I have been to numereous places (including several
places in the Valais), and this is my favourite one.

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

I think you nailed the exposures about as well as anyone could have. Nice work.

One other thing you might consider if you haven't already done so: the Digital DEE in Nikon Capture 4 works quite well for extended range scene. I shot a bunch of group pictures on the beach last weekend in horrible conditions--midday sun, almost straight down, no flash, no reflectors. DEE brought out the shadows on the models's faces like magic.

Gordon

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...

are totally awsome. I wouldn't be fustrated if I had gotten these shots

Seems you managed to work around your DR issue quite well.

Gregory