[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: tank picture: overexposed upper leaves

Erik Olson wrote:

> CCD's have a significantly lower
> dynamic range than photographic film.   Maybe it's easier to CONTROL a
> digital camera, but there is definitely a lot less information stored on
> those CCDs (especially if it's a 24-bit color image) than on the
> equivalent piece of celluloid.

I had exposure problems with both film an digital cameras.  The problems
were considerably less using film and a fairly advanced camera than thay
were using a good but old digital camera.

> Anyway, to add my experience to this, I can often correct some of these
> problems by retouching (aka good old dodging & burning) the picture
> afterwards on the scan.  I've seen some folks (like Olga Betts) use
> fill-in lights to add a little more to the areas that get shaded by the
> top light.

I tried to digitally correct the saturated parts of both scanned images
and digital photos.  The saturated areas were pretty much
information-free, so there wasn't anything to recover.  Excessively
bright (but not saturated) areas could be corrected.  Just what is
"dodging and burning?".

I suspect that -- regardless of the photo media -- the solution probably
lies in better photography. I tried using incandescent flood lights to
fill in the shadows created by the aquarium lights, but got some
unnatural-looking effects and hard-to-avoid reflections off the glass. 
I haven't tried using a filter yet and suspect, just as Elie thought,
that is wouldn't be worth the hassle. 

Is there some other way to arrange fill-in lighting that is useful for
the casual amateur?

Roger Miller