Sort of a general observation re: digital cameras

[odilonvert]

I think a bigger part of this is that you can buy a really good old film camera for hardly anything. Very attractive if you're a student with not much money. Of course the film and developing costs add up a lot more than shooting digital.
Back in the film days, (daze), it was sometimes fun to pick up an antique camera and see what I could do with it. You could still get some 616 film back then. Or if film was not available you could cut pieces of sheet file so you could make one shot and then go back to the darkroom. I found the results never lived up to my expectations. Why? They were all too good. They looked perfectly normal. No soft focus, no light leaks, no defects. To get those things you needed to use something truly dismal. The Diana camera was made for just this purpose. Terrible cheap construction, barely workable. No controls as all. Often the body parts fitted together so poorly you needed black tape to cover the gaps. The lens was exceedingly cheap and it made some low quality images. I still have one in the original box in case you desperately want to buy one Not as fun as a pinhole camera which you made yourself.
Another fad from the film days. The idea was to discover something in your pictures you did not in any way create or frame or see at the time of shooting. This was done by strapping your camera on your back and using a shutter release cable to trip the shutter. You would walk around and see something interesting in front of you. Then, without looking back, you would take a picture behind you. Look forward, take a picture backward. Then you would go to the darkroom, develop your film, and see what discoveries might be in store. Mostly a lot of rubbish. Occasionally a passerby looking quizzically at the camera. I think the recent pictures, selfies, made by apes using phone cameras are more interesting.

HAHAHA! I have a Diana camera but despite all my best efforts, and really my lack of time - which is why I got into digital in the first place, you know, young kids, a job... - I still haven't done as much film as I want to. I even got a toy twin lens reflex last year which I constructed myself, so fascinating to put together a shutter!, and a cardboard pinhole camera, which I have yet to put together, in anticipation of film. I found our old SLR Minolta film camera too (I think my old film point and shoot from the '80s is around somewhere, my husband has one too, because, egad, we have photos shot on film all the way up to 2009). We even have a Brownie from my husband's parents - probably finding film somewhere around for that will be an adventure... The only thing I've done in the past few years with film is use a Lomokino for making some very short motion picture film with 35mm regular old camera film. Scanned that, so beautiful, and full of flaws, used it in a few of my videos along with digital footage. All in good time. I gain more time as my children grow older... yaaaaaay

With experimental anything there are no rules. That's my thing. Combine old with new, with a solid emotional and intellectual basis - so fun and so... well, who you are.

 

[FundyBrian]

Haha! Yeah, there's a fetish for that "bad film" look. You'd think they'd do the opposite, go for the "bad pixel" look.

I remember when grunge style photos were big, and I came into the app thing later than most of the people in the community I learned from. The other thing is the 19th century look. I can't say that either are my schtick. I'm more fascinated with glitch than trying to emulate film. It's natural to the electronic world, after all. ...

Then you must like Decim8. It does some wonderful things, now with live preview. I've taken a recent interest in live effects. I used to think the best idea was to shoot a good quality original and then play with it later. Now I think I should decide on the final outcome of the image up front. Make a commitment to the current image rather than leaving it open for future waffling. I also found that interacting with the live effect on-screen at the time of the original shot gives numerous additional options that are not available when working from a camera roll shot. Sometimes even subtle camera position adjustments interacting with the live effect make all the difference.

 

[odilonvert]

Then you must like Decim8. It does some wonderful things, now with live preview. I've taken a recent interest in live effects. I used to think the best idea was to shoot a good quality original and then play with it later. Now I think I should decide on the final outcome of the image up front. Make a commitment to the current image rather than leaving it open for future waffling. I also found that interacting with the live effect on-screen at the time of the original shot gives numerous additional options that are not available when working from a camera roll shot. Sometimes even subtle camera position adjustments interacting with the live effect make all the difference.

Oh yes, LOVE Decim8. And have found some other fascinating glitch apps too, one of which you can actually use your finger to control the effects - Glitche, not a new app but it's gotten a facelift recently and works pretty nicely.

And yes, Kitcamera is great for live filters, one of my favorite apps. I've gotten so many great pics with it, in so many unlikely situations. One of my favorite scenarios for photography is riding the subways and shooting passengers on the platform, while in motion! And while they are in motion! Or the same thing with a bus. That app has lived up to and beyond my expectations every time.

I totally understand about committing to the image then and there. Framing and light are so important if you really don't want to edit at all after shooting. It puts your skills on the line, and I like that. The only time I ever do extensive editing is with photo collage. But that's a whole other thing.

 

[FundyBrian]

Oh yes, LOVE Decim8. And have found some other fascinating glitch apps too, one of which you can actually use your finger to control the effects - Glitche, not a new app but it's gotten a facelift recently and works pretty nicely.

And yes, Kitcamera is great for live filters, one of my favorite apps. I've gotten so many great pics with it, in so many unlikely situations. One of my favorite scenarios for photography is riding the subways and shooting passengers on the platform, while in motion! And while they are in motion! Or the same thing with a bus. That app has lived up to and beyond my expectations every time.

I totally understand about committing to the image then and there. Framing and light are so important if you really don't want to edit at all after shooting. It puts your skills on the line, and I like that. The only time I ever do extensive editing is with photo collage. But that's a whole other thing.

Yes, I'm familiar with Glitché, too.
Have a look at ameraC for some weird and wonderful live effects. There is an on-line resource for more presets you can download.

 

[odilonvert]

Yes, I'm familiar with Glitché, too.
Have a look at ameraC for some weird and wonderful live effects. There is an on-line resource for more presets you can download.

I've tried ameraC- wait, it's aremaC - it's pretty cool but the interface was a bit cumbersome, at least when I was using it. I'll look again, maybe they've updated since I tried it. ...

 

[Mik]

Have you ever notice that all of the film emulation apps for iPhone make the pictures look different by degrading them in some way. They add dirt, light leaks, foggy areas, weird colour, low contrast, lens flare, etc. So far I have not seen any film emulation apps that make the picture look clearer, or more detailed, or improve the highlight and shadow detail. The problem is that it is much easier to degrade an image than it is to improve it. The film emulation apps also give the impression that film was generally terrible, with poor colour, bad developing, dirty chemicals, poorly handled, etc. It was never THAT bad.

Brian, you are right with this degrading thing. All emulation apps I know of (erm... just VSCO, RNI) do this, they reduce the quality in a technical manner (sharpness, detail ...), but can enhance the look and feel of the image (at least in my eyes). So, is degrading one side needed to enhance the other side?

 

[FundyBrian]

Brian, you are right with this degrading thing. All emulation apps I know of (erm... just VSCO, RNI) do this, they reduce the quality in a technical manner (sharpness, detail ...), but can enhance the look and feel of the image (at least in my eyes). So, is degrading one side needed to enhance the other side?

When I look through thousands of colour slides I have shot in the past I never see foggy shadow areas. I never see faded colours. I don't see washed out highlights. I see clear bright fully detailed images. When I photographed the MacBeth colour chart with different films I could see slight differences in colour response between films and under different lighting.
Seeing hazy dark areas, washed out colour, weird colour, etc never make me think of film. It might make think of a UV filter smeared with Vaseline for a soft focus effect, or a picture shot through a dirty window. No, a film image should look clear, crisp, have good colour, good highlight and shadow detail.
So what is the difference between a digital image and a film image? Beyond the obvious pixels vs film emulsion. It's all in the different response curve of film compared to digital. Film is very non-linear. Remember the typical response curve graphs showing a long, not quite straight, mid-tone area, a curved toe shadow region, and a rounded-off shoulder representing the highlight area. Every film has its own response profile. There's not much you can do to change it, besides drastically altering the developing.
The other difference is the colour response. Films can have quite different response to colour and often had a reputation for a certain type of colour rendition. For instance, Ektachromes were well known for blues. Fujichromes for greens. You would pick your film to suit your needs at the time. Remember, the film manufacturers are doing their best to produce an accurate colour response. It's not easy.
The data from an image sensor can be changed quite a bit. A digital camera can have a linear response if you want and this curve can be altered quite a bit if you know what you want from it.
You can calibrate a digital camera to match some standard, like the Macbeth chart. But you can just as easily change the colour response to match a certain film. A digital camera can be dead accurate but very few people want that. They pick "vivid" or "landscape" over accurate. Who wants reality? Nobody. Well, hardly anyone.
Subtle changes to the response curve and colour calibration can emulate film quite well. There is absolutely no need to bad mouth film by adding dirt and scratches and other defects created by only the greatest ineptness. Haziness and weird colour and defects do NOT emulate film. A film emulation should not degrade the image in any way. However, the result might be too subtle for most people to see so they add the more obvious destruction to give people a clue that this is some sort of film effect. People want to click the button and go "wow, look at the difference". If they click the button and the difference is quite subtle they immediately think "this thing is no good".
The film effects we see are not real emulations but exaggerations.
So why don't we see apps that truly enhance the digital image? It is probably too hard. It is much easier to degrade the image with textures and overlays than it is to actually make the image better.
If you put a well made digital and film image side by side most people would find it hard to tell the difference. They wouldn't even know what to look for. If the can tell the difference they probably can't say which one is better.
I think there is something else people are looking for besides film or digital. There just isn't a name for it yet. It has something to do with wanting to create their own personal reality that isn't quite the same as camera reality.
It isn't the difference between film and digital. It is the way the camera doesn't measure up to what your eyes can see.
Nobody will buy a portrait that depicts reality. Reality is too cruel. Their own self image isn't connected to reality. They want an idealized image.
This is where to look for what people want in a photo. Not reality, enhanced reality. What they see in the mind's eye.
On the iPhone the primary limitation is the limited dynamic range of the small sensor. Until we get longer scale sensors the first solution is HDR. To my way of thinking improving the digital image starts there. HDR is showing us the future of what a not-yet-invented increased dynamic range sensor might look like. It addresses the first thing people notice about photos. "Well, with my eyes I can see detail in the highlights and the shadow areas have lots of detail, too. I don't see stark contrasty bright and dark areas that the usual backlit photo shows."

 

[odilonvert]

When I look through thousands of colour slides I have shot in the past I never see foggy shadow areas. I never see faded colours. I don't see washed out highlights. I see clear bright fully detailed images. When I photographed the MacBeth colour chart with different films I could see slight differences in colour response between films and under different lighting.
Seeing hazy dark areas, washed out colour, weird colour, etc never make me think of film. It might make think of a UV filter smeared with Vaseline for a soft focus effect, or a picture shot through a dirty window. No, a film image should look clear, crisp, have good colour, good highlight and shadow detail.
So what is the difference between a digital image and a film image? Beyond the obvious pixels vs film emulsion. It's all in the different response curve of film compared to digital. Film is very non-linear. Remember the typical response curve graphs showing a long, not quite straight, mid-tone area, a curved toe shadow region, and a rounded-off shoulder representing the highlight area. Every film has its own response profile. There's not much you can do to change it, besides drastically altering the developing.
The other difference is the colour response. Films can have quite different response to colour and often had a reputation for a certain type of colour rendition. For instance, Ektachromes were well known for blues. Fujichromes for greens. You would pick your film to suit your needs at the time. Remember, the film manufacturers are doing their best to produce an accurate colour response. It's not easy.
The data from an image sensor can be changed quite a bit. A digital camera can have a linear response if you want and this curve can be altered quite a bit if you know what you want from it.
You can calibrate a digital camera to match some standard, like the Macbeth chart. But you can just as easily change the colour response to match a certain film. A digital camera can be dead accurate but very few people want that. They pick "vivid" or "landscape" over accurate. Who wants reality? Nobody. Well, hardly anyone.
Subtle changes to the response curve and colour calibration can emulate film quite well. There is absolutely no need to bad mouth film by adding dirt and scratches and other defects created by only the greatest ineptness. Haziness and weird colour and defects do NOT emulate film. A film emulation should not degrade the image in any way. However, the result might be too subtle for most people to see so they add the more obvious destruction to give people a clue that this is some sort of film effect. People want to click the button and go "wow, look at the difference". If they click the button and the difference is quite subtle they immediately think "this thing is no good".
The film effects we see are not real emulations but exaggerations.
So why don't we see apps that truly enhance the digital image? It is probably too hard. It is much easier to degrade the image with textures and overlays than it is to actually make the image better.
If you put a well made digital and film image side by side most people would find it hard to tell the difference. They wouldn't even know what to look for. If the can tell the difference they probably can't say which one is better.
I think there is something else people are looking for besides film or digital. There just isn't a name for it yet. It has something to do with wanting to create their own personal reality that isn't quite the same as camera reality.
It isn't the difference between film and digital. It is the way the camera doesn't measure up to what your eyes can see.
Nobody will buy a portrait that depicts reality. Reality is too cruel. Their own self image isn't connected to reality. They want an idealized image.
This is where to look for what people want in a photo. Not reality, enhanced reality. What they see in the mind's eye.
On the iPhone the primary limitation is the limited dynamic range of the small sensor. Until we get longer scale sensors the first solution is HDR. To my way of thinking improving the digital image starts there. HDR is showing us the future of what a not-yet-invented increased dynamic range sensor might look like. It addresses the first thing people notice about photos. "Well, with my eyes I can see detail in the highlights and the shadow areas have lots of detail, too. I don't see stark contrasty bright and dark areas that the usual backlit photo shows."

I think it depends on the kind of photography you are doing (e.g. scientific vs. photojournalistic vs. nature vs. artistic) - but ultimately an image is not reality, it's an echo of it, and it's influenced by both the camera and the eye of the person shooting. The idea that a photo can replicate reality is a myth, all it does is remind us of reality. You can make it remind you better of reality, of course, and that is where photo quality comes in, no matter film or digital or something not even photographic, like... a hologram?

We all see the world in an adulterated way. The fact that we can agree on a view is rather impressive, when you think about it. And then, there are all the ways that make it obvious that we have no idea whatsoever what it's like to see the world through someone else's eyes, literally and figuratively.

 

[Mik]

Thank you very much FundyBrian and odilonvert. You gave me a lot to think about.

 

[Mik]

Found some interesting website:
http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/How_to/100_Curves_and_Films/_Curves_and_films.html
http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/How_to/n_Digital_BW/a_Digital_Black_and_White.html

 

[odilonvert]

Found some interesting website:
http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/How_to/100_Curves_and_Films/_Curves_and_films.html
http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/How_to/n_Digital_BW/a_Digital_Black_and_White.html

Interesting, though it makes my head "hurty," as Rosecat said above. One thing that is mentioned in article 2 (I think), and is good to remember, is something that I also recall a person in another mobile photography community mentioning long ago: "Digital cameras are designed to mimic color slide in their response."

I don't approach photography in a super technical way at all, but that's because I come from a painting/drawing background, where you train your eye and intuition and that takes you where you want to go, without verbalizing it too much at all (at least below college level, where analyzing is supposed to be part of your learning for your degree). Of course you could sit down and look at a painting and talk about highlights and midtones and color ranges - but it would not be very interesting nor productive, at least not to me, because there are very few good forgers in the world and even at that, there's always the individual's touch that is unique. And the person's "presence" in the work is most important, how they see the world - the technique is a minor point, unless you are a student finding your way to your own voice.

Photography, where you have a machine and post-processing between you and the final result, gets much more complicated. On the internet, it seems that it's all about rules, and technique is intertwined with that. It's less free, if you approach it the way I see it represented. What sort of seems lost in all this extra layer of stuff between you and your work though, is the main event, if you're doing artistic photography as opposed to scientific - and that is, you, your presence in what you make. It doesn't have to be, but if I were to try and teach myself photography within the larger, orthodox photography community, as I see it represented in many places on the internet, I would quickly get bored. Sure there is much to know about technique, about the tools themselves, but the thing to observe about what the author is saying behind everything in the first article, is that what makes a picture for him is the emotion he feels about what he is looking at. Technique is at the service of your idea, your feeling, not the other way around.

This is an important takeaway, and it is what makes the real difference between a boring photo, and a photo which you never get tired of looking at - just like anything else. What I may think of as good, and what you may think of as good, can be two very different things - and that's fine. But to me, the baseline for being a masterful artist is confidently using your technique and your tools to say what you want to say. That is the only reason I am ever interested in technique and tools, and once I get that down, everything else is irrelvant for the work I am making. And it's another reason I love to make art, in whatever medium - ultimately, I have the final say. Where else can you do that? Even kings have their day of reckoning.

 

[Mik]

The other difference is the colour response. Films can have quite different response to colour and often had a reputation for a certain type of colour rendition. For instance, Ektachromes were well known for blues. Fujichromes for greens. You would pick your film to suit your needs at the time. Remember, the film manufacturers are doing their best to produce an accurate colour response. It's not easy.

From the link I posted above there are some files to download with values for the levels tool in Photoshop. The author recreated some film looks from Fuji with RGB curves. I think, this can be a way to change the colors to some extend (don't overdo it) to give the image a certain "feel" or what else you want to name it, but it's also a chance to not destroy the image with dirt, leaks and so on. I managed to adapt his curves into Enlight which also has a curve tool. From here you can experiment with them.

 

[terse]

I managed to adapt his curves into Enlight which also has a curve tool.

You did this by eye, looking at the shape of the curves? Or did you find another way?

 

[FundyBrian]

From the link I posted above there are some files to download with values for the levels tool in Photoshop. The author recreated some film looks from Fuji with RGB curves. I think, this can be a way to change the colors to some extend (don't overdo it) to give the image a certain "feel" or what else you want to name it, but it's also a chance to not destroy the image with dirt, leaks and so on. I managed to adapt his curves into Enlight which also has a curve tool. From here you can experiment with them.

View attachment 75876

I don't think the curves in Photoshop can be visually translated into iPhone curves except in a very general way. There's something different about the way the iPhone sensor and display work that don't line up with a dslr and Adobe rgb. A dslr captures a larger gamut so it records image information the iPhone sensor cannot see.
It is possible that some of the things I do to an image might occasionally and accidentally be similar to a film rendition but that is not my objective. I don't hold any films as something I aspire to recreate. I think the best thing is to walk away from film and never look back. It muddies the waters too much. We don't even have a way to compare extinct films with digital images. There is no side-by-side testing possible for films you can no longer get so it becomes imaginary. In the imagination the old films seem to get better and better the farther away from them we get.
Why not just make images look the way we want without reference to outdated and limited methods. We need to go "beyond film" and seek higher quality levels than were possible with film. I know for certain that the digital images and prints I make now are better than anything I ever made from film.

 

[FundyBrian]

From the link I posted above there are some files to download with values for the levels tool in Photoshop. The author recreated some film looks from Fuji with RGB curves. I think, this can be a way to change the colors to some extend (don't overdo it) to give the image a certain "feel" or what else you want to name it, but it's also a chance to not destroy the image with dirt, leaks and so on. I managed to adapt his curves into Enlight which also has a curve tool. From here you can experiment with them.

View attachment 75876

For the sake of exploration and possibly finding a new route to the future, let us imagine that film never existed and we are unable to refer to it in any way to define how an image looks.
Now, how would we describe the type of image changes that would achieve a certain "look" or style? What would you do to an image to give it a romantic look? (And from now on there are no presets) First of all we would need to define what a romantic look looks like. And there we might not agree. There would be wide variation depending on the subject and situation. But there is bound to be a general direction of settings we might agree on.
The majority of image editing apps that people use today do these things with presets so most users never actually know what is being done behind the scenes to create their favourite "looks". I think apps of this type do a disservice to users in preventing them from learning what goes into making the styles they like.
Really, all the styles are simply slight adjustments to the overall image curve plus some individual changes to colour response. If people were more in tune with what sort of changes created the look they like they could more easily create their own style.
It is worth taking some time to experiment with the curves to see what type of changes are to your liking, and then try to understand why.

 

[odilonvert]

For the sake of exploration and possibly finding a new route to the future, let us imagine that film never existed and we are unable to refer to it in any way to define how an image looks.
Now, how would we describe the type of image changes that would achieve a certain "look" or style? What would you do to an image to give it a romantic look? (And from now on there are no presets) First of all we would need to define what a romantic look looks like. And there we might not agree. There would be wide variation depending on the subject and situation. But there is bound to be a general direction of settings we might agree on.
The majority of image editing apps that people use today do these things with presets so most users never actually know what is being done behind the scenes to create their favourite "looks". I think apps of this type do a disservice to users in preventing them from learning what goes into making the styles they like.
Really, all the styles are simply slight adjustments to the overall image curve plus some individual changes to colour response. If people were more in tune with what sort of changes created the look they like they could more easily create their own style.
It is worth taking some time to experiment with the curves to see what type of changes are to your liking, and then try to understand why.

I like this thinking, Brian.

 

[Mik]

You did this by eye, looking at the shape of the curves? Or did you find another way?

On my PC I loaded a curve into Photoshop curve tool and made a screenshot from the tools window with the curves in it. I then opened this screenshot in Photoshop again to scale the hight to 117% to match the screen in Enlight. I then made a photo of my pc monitor of this scaled screenshot with my iPhone and opened the image in Enlight. I chose the curve tool from Enlight, scaled the image so that the curves fits right in and edited the curves from Enlight to have the same shape i.e. the Enlight curves lie on top the curves from the screenshot. I then saved the result as a preset.

I know you can't compare DSLR and iPhone sensors and their response curves. These curves give me an idea how to change colors and what it did to my image. These curves are a starting point.

I don't have much experience with certain films. I don't care about what film A is doing and film B is doing. I like more (or less) the outcome of those filters. I just need to experiment and find my recipe, regardless if it's more Kodaky or Ilforty.

 

[FundyBrian]

On my PC I loaded a curve into Photoshop curve tool and made a screenshot from the tools window with the curves in it. I then opened this screenshot in Photoshop again to scale the hight to 117% to match the screen in Enlight. I then made a photo of my pc monitor of this scaled screenshot with my iPhone and opened the image in Enlight. I chose the curve tool from Enlight, scaled the image so that the curves fits right in and edited the curves from Enlight to have the same shape i.e. the Enlight curves lie on top the curves from the screenshot. I then saved the result as a preset.

I know you can't compare DSLR and iPhone sensors and their response curves. These curves give me an idea how to change colors and what it did to my image. These curves are a starting point.

I don't have much experience with certain films. I don't care about what film A is doing and film B is doing. I like more (or less) the outcome of those filters. I just need to experiment and find my recipe, regardless if it's more Kodaky or Ilforty.

Yes, that sounds like a good approach. Ignore the films and learn to use the curves to create the look you like. Can you describe the type of changes you make to the curves and what effect they have in the image? Or, when you look at a typical image, what type of changes do you think it needs to have the look you like? For instance, do you like to smooth the transition from highlight to midtone? Brighten the upper midtones? Darken the lower midtones to reduce the contrast going into black?

 

[FundyBrian]

On my PC I loaded a curve into Photoshop curve tool and made a screenshot from the tools window with the curves in it. I then opened this screenshot in Photoshop again to scale the hight to 117% to match the screen in Enlight. I then made a photo of my pc monitor of this scaled screenshot with my iPhone and opened the image in Enlight. I chose the curve tool from Enlight, scaled the image so that the curves fits right in and edited the curves from Enlight to have the same shape i.e. the Enlight curves lie on top the curves from the screenshot. I then saved the result as a preset.

I know you can't compare DSLR and iPhone sensors and their response curves. These curves give me an idea how to change colors and what it did to my image. These curves are a starting point.

I don't have much experience with certain films. I don't care about what film A is doing and film B is doing. I like more (or less) the outcome of those filters. I just need to experiment and find my recipe, regardless if it's more Kodaky or Ilforty.

When working with b&w film and the zone system we used a 10 stop exposure range, but with colour slide film the range was more like 6 or 7 stops. A good digital camera has a slightly longer scale than some slide films but certainly not 10 stops, except with HDR. We certainly can't get close to a 10 stop range with an iPhone so trying to emulate the longer tonal scale is a challenge, to say the least. I think that what people are usually trying to achieve is extending or smoothing the transition at highlight and shadow ends of the scale. I think a bit of HDR, not drastic or weird, gives me the equivalent of a change in curve that provides me with the look I like. Think of it as adding a piece of detailed shadow beyond your low end and adding a piece of detailed highlight on the high end, as opposed to manipulating just the midtone area. This brings a lot more life and significance to the shadow detail areas as well as preventing abrupt transition from midtone to blown-out highlights.

 

[odilonvert]

When working with b&w film and the zone system we used a 10 stop exposure range, but with colour slide film the range was more like 6 or 7 stops. A good digital camera has a slightly longer scale than some slide films but certainly not 10 stops, except with HDR. We certainly can't get close to a 10 stop range with an iPhone so trying to emulate the longer tonal scale is a challenge, to say the least. I think that what people are usually trying to achieve is extending or smoothing the transition at highlight and shadow ends of the scale. I think a bit of HDR, not drastic or weird, gives me the equivalent of a change in curve that provides me with the look I like. Think of it as adding a piece of detailed shadow beyond your low end and adding a piece of detailed highlight on the high end, as opposed to manipulating just the midtone area. This brings a lot more life and significance to the shadow detail areas as well as preventing abrupt transition from midtone to blown-out highlights.

This is good to know. The HDR I've seen always looks overprocessed. To have the option to use it subtly so it doesn't scream HDR works better for my taste, I'll have to play with it a little.

 

[FundyBrian]

This is good to know. The HDR I've seen always looks overprocessed. To have the option to use it subtly so it doesn't scream HDR works better for my taste, I'll have to play with it a little.

You'll find it is quite common for HDR neophytes to overdo the effects. It's rather fun for a while. Eventually the pendulum swings back to normal.

 

[Philippe Schlossberg]

You'll find it is quite common for HDZ neophytes to overdo the effects. It's rather fun for a while. Eventually the pendulum swings back to normal.

yeah ... especially when they use so called HDR filters in post processing, which doesn't have much to do with HDR modes while shooting.

 

[odilonvert]

yeah ... especially when they use so called HDR filters in post processing, which doesn't have much to do with HDR modes while shooting.

haha! there are whole apps dedicated to that "look!"