I think the opposite is true. I see an overall improvement in the
quality of photography, and I think it's due in part to digital.
Shooting RAW gives the photographer more control than he or she could
hope to attain with most -- perhaps all -- films. And the near
immediate review allows the photographer to correct mistakes.
Controlling highlights isn't difficult. When shooting RAW, the Pentax
meter seems to expose for them. The overall frame is often underexposed
with the highlight within range. That's a good starting point in many
cases. Being able to shape the response curve in the conversion process
makes good results attainable in almost any circumstance. It's true
that some shooters haven't yet figured out to work with digital, but I
see more and more evidence every day that most practitioners are
improving rapidly. Things are only going to get better. It's
inevitable.
Paul
On Sep 7, 2005, at 9:53 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I wasn't referring to specular highlights, but to areas like you noted
on
the dress in Bruce's photograph, (Sorry Bruce, not picking on you or
the
photo specifically, just using it as an example), which, BTW, he
explained
in the detailed response he sent earlier.
What I'm seeing with digi are more and more fried highlights in more
and
more pics, and Jens' comment seemed to indicate that it was
acceptable. I
noticed bright areas in the photo of your grand daughter that seem to
be
acceptable to you and to others (at least no one commented on them),
that
I'd not find acceptable and which would probably (note the qualifier)
not
have appeared had the photo been made with film, or perhaps with
greater
care or attention to detail (again, not to be picking specifically on
you).
The test photos I made in the garden showing the tree leaves that were
shot
raw and presented unaltered, showed the difference that 1/3 stop of
exposure could make. Overall, I'm seeing a decline in what many
photographers and editors consider acceptable quality. Is this a
result of
digital? I suspect that it is to a degree. I also attribute it to
other
factors.
However, I'd like to see more photographers taking greater care with
the
photos they present, learning more about what makes a good photo (at
least
technically), and spending more time correcting small details. I'm
disheartened to see what I perceive as an overall decline in the
quality of
photography.
Shel
"Am I paranoid or perceptive?"
[Original Message]
From: Paul Stenquist
Subject: Re: SV: PESO - The Bridge
Burnt out highlights are certainly acceptable in some compositions.
For
example, specular highlights on water that are out of the range can be
quite beautiful. In the case of the bride photo, however, I would have
liked to see detail in that part of the dress. I was wondering if this
started out life as a RAW digital file. If so, was there an attempt to
pull the exposure level down and restore the midtones with the
brightness slider? That strategy can bring back a stop or more on the
high end.
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Are burnt out highlights becoming acceptable these days?
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Jens Bladt
Beautiful photograph. And hardly any burned out high lights
http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bullock_0109.htm
