Quote:
|
Originally Posted by robski
Is this a case that the camera does lie or is the human vision system so soficticated that an optometrist needs a degree in the subject to understand it.
Is Chris's shot correctly exposed or did he see it differently ?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Don Hoey
The fact that Chris posted it here with his question .. suggests that his camera might not have been able to do justice to the high dynamic range. I was not there so only assume that to be the case.
N.D. filters have been used for ages to assist in this. The camera does not lie but is not as capable as the human eye in dealing with high contrast scenes. If you do not have an N.D. filter then in old fashioned printing terms holding back the sky would be acceptable practice. How you deal with that digitally is another question, which I guess is what Chris is asking.
Don
|
Right Don
In this pic I was getting a different exposure from each of the 4 planes of the composition. As the most distant was the most unusual (10miles/16km away in fair, but not perfect, light), I exposed for that (f8/500th), which left it and the sky fine, 'as seen' but the nearer ones underexposed and dull. The eye deals with all this effortlessly, unfortunately my camera does not, though possibly i could have left it to average. Hence some doctoring; the exposure using Nikon Edit (simplified version of Nikon Capture) then, as that had washed out the sky, putting a polygon fence on the sky and getting that back as far as I dared.
Rob
I have a cousin who is an optometrist (as was his father) and he assures me that you not only need a degree, but that only 1 university in Germany has a good enough course to give one worth the paper it is written on!!