Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/09/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]That's very cool (I was just drooling over Sinar monorails the other day, by coincidence). But I'm just asking about folks' everyday experiences shooting with their DSLR of choice and putzing around in PS, or their favorite tool or plugin, to deal with shadow noise. Scott animal wrote: > What I do know is that the latest LF digital backs outclass film in > dynamic range. > A Sinar brochure mentiones 14 stops with the cooled back. > best > simon jessurun > > > >> Ok, I got lucky. Googled and got this on the 1st or 2nd hit. >> (Apologies if >> the formattng gets screwy below.) >> >> Here's a longish quote I want to examine: "The best way to remove >> noise is >> not to create them in the first place. To me, it means ISO100 as much >> as possible >> and don't underexpose by too much (I do want to remind everybody >> about erring >> on the underexposure side still holds, just don't overdo it). When >> contrast is high, >> use fill flash or reflector if possible.... I group noise into 2 >> catagories, shadow noise >> and long exposure noise. Shadow noise is a general low level noise >> that spreads out >> in dark areas. [snip] Note that shadow noise could happen in brightly >> lit photos, it >> could lurk in dark shadows, or one of the other color channels (for >> example, blue >> channel on a red subject)." >> >> Ok, this does correspond to my own digi experiences over the past two >> years >> (including the blue channel noise thing, interesting). >> >> Does anyone else think that this is *completely* retarded? >> >> He says clearly that very well exposed pictures can have oodles of >> noise "in the >> shadows." So if there are shadows, use fill flash if possible. >> >> Huh!?!?!? >> >> So, think of Wynn Bullock's photographs with those beautiful and >> seemingly >> infinite shades of black and gray, and then something in the >> composition that >> soars from the shadows toward paper white (not necessarily getting >> there). >> >> http://www.laurencemillergallery.com/images/bullock_real38.jpg >> >> This looks crappy compared to the LensWork reproduction. But it's >> just an >> example, and I hope it will sufficiently illustrate the point. I'm >> sure most >> of us can think of other beautifully toned, "nearly all shadows" >> kinds of fine >> art photographs. >> >> One more very important detail. I've done noise reduction for shadow >> noise. >> It *softens* things up quite a bit. Often doesn't matter. But I'm >> talking now >> about photos where there is lots of *very sharp*, important detail on >> the >> "shadow side" of the histogram. >> >> In fact, sometimes nearly all the important detail can be in the >> shadows. >> >> http://www.laurencemillergallery.com/images/bullock_real15.jpg >> >> This doesn't *quite* illustrate this point, but it's pretty close, >> and we can >> all recall the myriad fine art pictures of black-to-dark rocks. >> Sharp, sharp, sharp. We're talking LF 4x5 or 8x10 sharp. So throwing >> alot of blur or any other technique that will compromise the sharpness >> and detail of the shadowy objects would most often be completely >> unacceptable. >> >> >> So gosh, were he a digi shooter, I guess we'd have to advise Mr. Bullock >> to use fill flash. >> >> This is a joke, right? Come on, I'm LMAO, have a chuckle along me. >> >> If the quote above is true, a digital camera would be nearly >> unsuitable for any >> serious art photography where the shadow side of the histogram is >> where all >> the action is. It would only be good for vaction pics of the Taj >> Mahal, some >> happy snaps using fill flash and other brightly lit scenes - or PJ >> work where >> no one cares. >> >> Yeah, I'm exagerating again :-) >> >> So this is my question. >> >> With a DSLR, can one take "oodles of shades of gray" style pictures, >> or even >> pictures where sharp objects in shadows dominate or significantly >> complement >> a well lit subject???? Like a nude on lovely black wet rocks, just >> for example. >> >> If you made it this far, many thanks. >> >> I'd love to be told that I've got some blind spot, that I'm missing >> something >> very basic and fundamental. >> >> Or, I'd love to be told that the above quote is hogwash. (Not likely) >> >> Better yet, I'd love to be clued into some by now well known and well >> worn >> technique for making beautiful, sharp "shadowy" pictures with a DSLR. >> >> I appreciate any insight or advice anyone has to offer. >> >> Scott >> >> -- >> Pics @ http://www.adrenaline.com/snaps >> Leica M6TTL, Bessa R, Nikon FM3a, Nikon D70, Rollei AFM35 >> (Jihad Sigint NSA FBI Patriot Act) >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information -- Pics @ http://www.adrenaline.com/snaps Leica M6TTL, Bessa R, Nikon FM3a, Nikon D70, Rollei AFM35 (Jihad Sigint NSA FBI Patriot Act)