bracket with raw - 350d

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Brian wrote:

> Does anyone know if you can bracket exposures when shooting in raw
> format? I don't have the camera yet, that's why I'm asking...

Sure. OTOH, get the higlights right and avoid bracketing altogether.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

>For B&W Film you "expose for the shadows and develop for the
>highlights". For Color film you "Expose for the highlights and develop
>for the shadows".

Well, not exactly. For color SLIDE you expose for the highlights to
prevent blown out details. For color NEG, you expose for the shadows
or the colors get muddy fast.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <de4hbu$laa$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>Brian wrote:
>
>> Does anyone know if you can bracket exposures when shooting in raw
>> format? I don't have the camera yet, that's why I'm asking...
>
>Sure. OTOH, get the higlights right and avoid bracketing altogether.

.... and bracket to get the highlights right?
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

kz8rt3 wrote:

> In article <de4hbu$laa$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>Brian wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Does anyone know if you can bracket exposures when shooting in raw
>>>format? I don't have the camera yet, that's why I'm asking...
>>
>>Sure. OTOH, get the higlights right and avoid bracketing altogether.
>
>
> Yes, for digital the rule is "Expose for the highlights and develop for
> the shadows".
>
> However, I know this is a digital group I want to point out
> misconceptions about film exposure I have see floating around web pages.
>
> For B&W Film you "expose for the shadows and develop for the
> highlights". For Color film you "Expose for the highlights and develop
> for the shadows".
>
> But sometimes it is an artistic expression to blowout the highlights. As
> it is with bracketing.

Well, it's actually:

for reversal (slide) film: expose for the highlights.
for negative film: expose for the shaddows.
for B&W as you say above.

for digital, it's like slide film except that most cameras don't have
much highlight room above mid tone. For my Maxxum 7D it's about 1.3 to
1.7 stops (I still haven't settled on a rule because it's so east to
chimp out any blown highlights ... perhaps to exageration).

What I haven't yet calibrated is the mapping from my Maxxum 7D to my
Maxxum 9 shooting slide film. (+ incident meter).

Cheers,
Alan.




--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Yes you can bracket. You can have the camera +/- 1/3 stop, 1/2 stop or more.

One other thing you can do with raw is to take one exposure and process it
twice, once for the highlights and once for the shadows. You can then
combine them together to get what you are looking for.

As an example, I was shooting pictures of butterflies on bright yellow and
pink flowers. The foliage was green. I shot a variety of pictures all raw.

When I got them on the computer, I selected the best composition. Next, I
processed the raw image to make sure that the color of the butterfly was
perfect with no regard for the background or flowers. I saved that file
separately. I then processed the same raw image, this time exposing it to
get the background and foliage perfect and ignored the butterfly, which
would have had the highlights blown out. I saved that as a separate image.

I then combined both images, opening one and then pasting the other image on
top making two layers. I then erased the blown out highlights of the
butterfly, which was on the top to allow a more properly exposed image of
the butterfly to come thru.

This technique is great when you are shooting something with a lot of
contract or if you are stuck shooting in the middle of the day with high
sun.

Steve


"Brian" <ripcurl187@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124425286.515581.166930@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Does anyone know if you can bracket exposures when shooting in raw
> format? I don't have the camera yet, that's why I'm asking...
>
> Thanks, Brian
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Steve Dell" <stevedell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3f6dnXBgeqbng5TeRVn-3w@comcast.com...
> Yes you can bracket. You can have the camera +/- 1/3 stop, 1/2 stop or
> more.
>
> One other thing you can do with raw is to take one exposure and process it
> twice, once for the highlights and once for the shadows. You can then
> combine them together to get what you are looking for.
>

The problem with that way is that you have but one range of values to work
with - if it's all you've got, then fine. It would be better to get two RAW
shots: one for highlights and one for shadows. That way, you have even more
to play with.

http://luminous-landscape.com/tuto [...] ndex.shtml


LCD

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"LCD" <photonistry@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4311eb8b$0$17467$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...
>
> "Steve Dell" <stevedell@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:3f6dnXBgeqbng5TeRVn-3w@comcast.com...
>> Yes you can bracket. You can have the camera +/- 1/3 stop, 1/2 stop or
>> more.
>>
>> One other thing you can do with raw is to take one exposure and process
>> it twice, once for the highlights and once for the shadows. You can then
>> combine them together to get what you are looking for.
>>
>
> The problem with that way is that you have but one range of values to work
> with - if it's all you've got, then fine. It would be better to get two
> RAW shots: one for highlights and one for shadows. That way, you have even
> more to play with.
>
> http://luminous-landscape.com/tuto [...] ndex.shtml
>
>
> LCD
>
Specifically
http://luminous-landscape.com/tuto [...] ding.shtml

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

<JPS@no.komm> wrote:

> I've never understood the "two conversions" method (especially when
> converted to 8-bit). All it does is lower the contrast in the darker
> render where the other one clipped or got compressed, and mix in
> posterized shadows in the darker render into the lighter render.

It was a workaround to not being able to get the tonal response you
actually needed in RAW conversion. Camera Raw 3 with the curves
interface pretty much makes it obsolete.

However, you didn't mix in the shadows; the idea, same as blending
two different exposures, is to just use the shadows from the lighter
version.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

<JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
news:e7r3h1tuhukssr235el011r5v0a2jv47ku@4ax.com...
> In message <4311eb8b$0$17467$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net>,
> "LCD" <photonistry@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>The problem with that way is that you have but one range of values to work
>>with - if it's all you've got, then fine. It would be better to get two
>>RAW
>>shots: one for highlights and one for shadows. That way, you have even
>>more
>>to play with.
>
> I've never understood the "two conversions" method (especially when
> converted to 8-bit). All it does is lower the contrast in the darker
> render where the other one clipped or got compressed, and mix in
> posterized shadows in the darker render into the lighter render.
> --
>
So, if the original image is properly exposed it will have all the available
values to the camera anyway? I mean if the camera can record say 5 stops and
the scene has 10, then 5 of those 10 will be permanently outside the
camera's ability to record.


> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <43122566$0$97116$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>,
"LCD" <photonistry@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

><JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
>news:e7r3h1tuhukssr235el011r5v0a2jv47ku@4ax.com...

>> I've never understood the "two conversions" method (especially when
>> converted to 8-bit). All it does is lower the contrast in the darker
>> render where the other one clipped or got compressed, and mix in
>> posterized shadows in the darker render into the lighter render.

>So, if the original image is properly exposed it will have all the available
>values to the camera anyway?

I just render RAW images with lots of dynamic range a little dark as a
16-bit TIFF, and then use "curves to bring back the mid-tones and squash
the highlights.

In an ideal world, there would be a control in the RAW converter that
would be like a horizontal slider, with multiple small vertical sliders
on it. Each would represent a RAW zone, and its placement on where it
is mapped in the output. The smaller vertical sliders would control
contrast within those zones. The controls to the left would boost
contrast by brightening their brighter parts; the ones to the right by
darkening their darker parts, etc.


>I mean if the camera can record say 5 stops and
>the scene has 10, then 5 of those 10 will be permanently outside the
>camera's ability to record.

Well, it's a little bit more than that, but yes, sometimes you will need
two completely different exposures. Some current sensors are limited at
their lowest ISOs by the standard 12-bit analog-to-digital conversion,
so better converters could make better use out of current sensors.

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <11h4rtgl5648r04@corp.supernews.com>,
Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:

> <JPS@no.komm> wrote:
>
>> In an ideal world, there would be a control in the RAW converter that
>> would be like a horizontal slider, with multiple small vertical sliders
>> on it. Each would represent a RAW zone, and its placement on where it
>> is mapped in the output. The smaller vertical sliders would control
>> contrast within those zones. The controls to the left would boost
>> contrast by brightening their brighter parts; the ones to the right by
>> darkening their darker parts, etc.
>
>Isn't Curves (in ACR) what you're describing, just with a slightly different
>interface? It controls how each level of RAW data gets mapped to the output.

"Curves" does nothing to effect contrast boosts in compressed ranges,
and is unwieldy. The control is far to coarse to be truly useful.

How would you like to drive a car where you steered with a pair of
pliers on a shaft, and it only turned in 45 degree increments? That is
what using "curves" feels like to me.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><