Thanks Marc, I think you're quite right about the random grain structure of film giving a very different look to the uniformity of digital. It is of course a question of choosing the right medium for the job. I still prefer film for many landscapes, but wouldn't swap back from digital for wildlife.
And I do like the jazz simile
One thing puzzles me about dynamic range with digital:
If I drag the exposure slider left, what appear to be overexposed areas suddenly reveal hidden detail. If this detail is there in the raw file, why do raw developers not use the information unless underexposure is selected?
Rather than creating two tiff's (1 underexposed and 1 over) and blending them, surely it must be possible to widen the scope of what information is used in the first place.
I've used DPP, CS2 and Raw Shooter Premium, but none seem to use the full dynamic range of the sensor.
Nicely caught moment btw, the girl's hand position adds some curiosity to the shot.
And I do like the jazz simile
One thing puzzles me about dynamic range with digital:
If I drag the exposure slider left, what appear to be overexposed areas suddenly reveal hidden detail. If this detail is there in the raw file, why do raw developers not use the information unless underexposure is selected?
Rather than creating two tiff's (1 underexposed and 1 over) and blending them, surely it must be possible to widen the scope of what information is used in the first place.
I've used DPP, CS2 and Raw Shooter Premium, but none seem to use the full dynamic range of the sensor.
Nicely caught moment btw, the girl's hand position adds some curiosity to the shot.