This may be a case where the wrong medium was used. Considering the relatively limited range of contemporary digital capture (at least in the APS format), using a digi to catch the tonality of the scene may have just flat out been a mistake.
With B&W, for example, the burnt out highlights could have easily been recorded using appropriate exposure and development. The wider latitude of color negative film may have allowed for superior results as well. Maybe this is a good example of why just dumping film completely for digital may not be the best option for some people. When some here have "disparaged' digital they have been taken to task with comments like "it's a matter of using the best tool for the job - "horses for courses" comes to mind) or that it's "good to have choices." Yet many digi users have totally stopped using film, effectively negating the choices they purport to have, and limiting the scope and potential of their photos. Additionally, I wonder how this lighting situation could have been better rendered with more thought to post processing. Perhaps if more attention was paid to the contrast range of the scene, and exposure made with greater consideration of the highlights with more thought given to the post processing techniques, the bright areas could have been saved and the darker areas, which would have been darker yet, saved using, for example, the Shadows/Highlights tool or Curves. I'll defer to the experts on this one. I'd like to know how best to expose for a scene with such a wide contrast range using a Pentax-type digital camera, and what techniques in Photoshop may be most useful. Shel -----Original Message----- > From: Jens Bladt > This situation occured at Tønder Festival 2005, last weekend: > http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/38253601/
