> Posted by Innocent (Innocent) > > Having said all the above, the question remains about the performance > of digital RAW capture in terms of latitude and dynamic range. Any > suggestion?
RAW is a very useful format in some instances. When I am feeling very lazy on a shoot, I use it because I can do anything possible in image processing later.
However, it is most useful when conditions are dreadful - you are in a situation with little light, and the light you do have is a great mixture of sources - stage light, light in a club lit with neon, even a commercial shot - say a café with daylight coming in tinted windows, incandescent predominantly inside, but with a neon for accent and an open kitchen area lit by fluorescent. I actually shot this during film days and it took all night in the fume-room to come up with a well balanced 8x10 transparency for an 8:30 am deadline. The shoot was in a far distant city at twilight. I had the corporate client's multi-engine plane and crew to take me there and bring me back. The shoot was too critical to take advantage of the well stocked bar in the aircraft.
Had the shoot been now, I would have shot RAW, opened the image repeatedly, balancing each area not only for colour balance, but also for dynamic range and instead of using physical masking in the darkroom, I would use layers and layer masking in Photoshop. If I had a well calibrated laptop, I could have done the job on the plane, and got a good night's sleep after e-mailing the image to the client - waiting there at the opening of business. The end result would have been of equal or better quality.
The contrast limits of digital photography are quite similar to Kodachrome. However, when bracketing Kodachrome, you are hoping to get exactly the density needed for the job. A slide the projects beautifully will reproduce poorly and vice versa. With digital, I stil bracket, but take the highlight detail from the darkest image and the shadow detail from the lightest and use the interim steps for making a smooth transition.
RAW does not have as extended a dynamic range as a bracket, but it does allow around 2.5EV to 3EV under some circumstances, using the same technique. It offers only around 0.5 to 0.66EV in the highlights - if that - but allows one to plumb the shadows for considerable detail. Of course, this technique can be coupled to the above technique to gain both in colour balance and dynamic range. See an illustrated tutorial on bracketintg that works identically with RAW at http://www.larry-bolch.com/layers.htm
See an ex&le of RAW being used for extended dynamic range and colour balancing under the worst possible combination of mixed light and low light at "Sharing an Image" near the mid-page at http://www.larry-bolch.com/ephemeral/
There is also an ex&le of extreme clouds for your collection on this page near the bottom, shot with a NIKON CP990. Speaking of sky, when it is serene, one wants it to look serene in the photograph, capturing the delicacy of the gradients. Not all skies are dramatic. A camera - and photographer - needs to capture and interperate both.
larry!
http://www.larry-bolch.com/
ICQ 76620504
RAW is a very useful format in some instances. When I am feeling very lazy on a shoot, I use it because I can do anything possible in image processing later.
However, it is most useful when conditions are dreadful - you are in a situation with little light, and the light you do have is a great mixture of sources - stage light, light in a club lit with neon, even a commercial shot - say a café with daylight coming in tinted windows, incandescent predominantly inside, but with a neon for accent and an open kitchen area lit by fluorescent. I actually shot this during film days and it took all night in the fume-room to come up with a well balanced 8x10 transparency for an 8:30 am deadline. The shoot was in a far distant city at twilight. I had the corporate client's multi-engine plane and crew to take me there and bring me back. The shoot was too critical to take advantage of the well stocked bar in the aircraft.
Had the shoot been now, I would have shot RAW, opened the image repeatedly, balancing each area not only for colour balance, but also for dynamic range and instead of using physical masking in the darkroom, I would use layers and layer masking in Photoshop. If I had a well calibrated laptop, I could have done the job on the plane, and got a good night's sleep after e-mailing the image to the client - waiting there at the opening of business. The end result would have been of equal or better quality.
The contrast limits of digital photography are quite similar to Kodachrome. However, when bracketing Kodachrome, you are hoping to get exactly the density needed for the job. A slide the projects beautifully will reproduce poorly and vice versa. With digital, I stil bracket, but take the highlight detail from the darkest image and the shadow detail from the lightest and use the interim steps for making a smooth transition.
RAW does not have as extended a dynamic range as a bracket, but it does allow around 2.5EV to 3EV under some circumstances, using the same technique. It offers only around 0.5 to 0.66EV in the highlights - if that - but allows one to plumb the shadows for considerable detail. Of course, this technique can be coupled to the above technique to gain both in colour balance and dynamic range. See an illustrated tutorial on bracketintg that works identically with RAW at http://www.larry-bolch.com/layers.htm
See an ex&le of RAW being used for extended dynamic range and colour balancing under the worst possible combination of mixed light and low light at "Sharing an Image" near the mid-page at http://www.larry-bolch.com/ephemeral/
There is also an ex&le of extreme clouds for your collection on this page near the bottom, shot with a NIKON CP990. Speaking of sky, when it is serene, one wants it to look serene in the photograph, capturing the delicacy of the gradients. Not all skies are dramatic. A camera - and photographer - needs to capture and interperate both.
larry!
http://www.larry-bolch.com/
ICQ 76620504
