Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 6, 2004, 9:53 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 414
Default

Ohenry,

Are you saying that there may be something wrong with the camera?

Dave
headhunter66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2004, 10:02 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,483
Default

No, what he is saying is the difference from the brightest part of the scene to the darkest part is beyond what the imaging sensor is able to record. This is the biggest problem with digital cameras as a whole- not just the Digital Rebel/300D. It is nothing thats wrong with your camera. Digital sensors cannot record huge differences in brightness, so you have to do one of two things. Either use a graduated filter as he suggested OR shoot RAW and process the image twice- once to account for the brighter parts of the image and once to account for the lower light levels. You can then open both up in photoshop and combine them to make one perfect image.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2004, 10:57 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
ohenry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,676
Default

Dave, exactly as Greg said, it's not a fault of the camera, but the nature of the beast. Digital cameras behave similar to shooting slide file with regards to the tonal range that they can capture. Film is much more resilient to wider tonal ranges than either slide or digital. Brightsky is the biggest culprit here. As Greg pointed out, you can expose two shots (one exposing for the brighter zones and one to capture the darker images and then blend them in Photoshop) or you can use a graduated ND filter so that the overpowering sky can be toned down a bit to allow the camera to deal with the wider range.

I use HiTech filters which are flat filters that are held in place with a Cokin filter holder (they could also be handheld in front of the lens if desired). You can move them up and down in the scene to place the change on the horizon. They come in either hard or soft edge (the area where they change to clear) and a variety of strengths. The can also be lowered on the lens to provide complete coverage and thus can also be used to reduce the amount of light reaching the sensor to allow slower shutter speeds to show the motion of flowing water.

Haze is not that uncommon in distant horizons. Although not always visible to the naked eye, the camera tends to accentuate it. A UV haze filter may help to some degree. A polarizer will also help, provided the lighting is not in front of or behind the camera lens.
ohenry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2004, 12:55 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 414
Default

Thanks ohenry and Greg, that cleared up a lot. And thanks to everyone else that helped out also. I haven't tried to merge photos yet, but I'll have to give it a try. That's one of the many great things about digital, trial and error without the cost of film or processing. Maybe just a little extra time to get it right.

One more thing Ohenry, you weren't by any chance on submarines at one time were you? I noticed your icon under your name.

Dave
headhunter66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2004, 2:24 PM   #15
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

My 2c...

Unless you crop out the leaves in the foreground -> you'll have problem merging the two pictures (unless there's no breeze that day) shot @ two different exposures.

The graduated ND filter is the probably quickest way since it compresses the open sky to manageable level all in one shot!

My other option is to expose for the shadow only and use the color picker in photoshop to delete out the sky entirely... and add it back through a mask with another picture, but still a lot of work... :-)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2004, 4:14 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
ohenry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,676
Default

headhunter66 wrote:
Quote:
One more thing Ohenry, you weren't by any chance on submarines at one time were you? I noticed your icon under your name.

Dave

3 boats, all nukes. Retired in 90. ahhooooga
ohenry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 7, 2004, 12:46 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 414
Default

ohenry wrote:
Quote:
3 boats, all nukes. Retired in 90. ahhooooga

My brother did 6 years on nukes, from 88 to 94. Well, I guess most of that was schooling. He finished up his time up your way. He tried to get me into the nuke program, but I went Army instead. 6 Months under water just didn't seem like fun to me.

Again, thanks for the help.

Dave
headhunter66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2004, 5:34 AM   #18
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 69
Default

Seeing this picture bring up many memories... CMOS memories I mean... the histograms gone crazy... etc. etc.
My antique 2Mp CMOS camera had that problem a lot, the Drebel DIGIC must have gone crazy not to fix this...
My solution at that time was to compensate -0.5...-1.0 and grab some blue onto the all green scenes. It helped a lot.
Being a p&s camera I had a live picture on the back viewfinder, move a little to the left, a little to the right :-) until the colours was right.
The Drebel is not so lucky, you don't have a live image of what you have until you actually take the shot and review it on the back...
pauza is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:12 AM.