Dynamic range compressed on film?

[Ronald M]

Use profesional color film which is low contrast and use a lab that uses real Kodak C41.

Some C41 like Unicolor jack up the contrast very high and cutting time does not help as there are other defects then.

I have been doing HDR film scanning for decades. Layer up and align with arrow key as it moves 1 pixel at a time. Works fine if required for special shots.

Tiffin low contrast filters at taking stage.

 

[JoeV]

I think there may be a shortcut to getting better dynamic range from digital cameras, if you're OK with a monochrome image and you shoot with a color filter.

For example, let's say you use a red filter. So that means that the red channel in your image will be exposed as normal. However, the blue and green channels will each be underexposed - one probably more than the other - this means that these channels will preserve highlight detail even if the red is clipped. With the right photoshop technique, you should be able to bring back detail from these other channels.

The end result will be a black and white image that looks just like it was shot on a film camera with a red filter, with an expanded dynamic range to match. You end up with the shadow detail advantages of digital with the highlight compression advantages of film.

This is just a thought by the way, I'm not sure if it would work. But if it does, then it would also work with other color filters. Thinking about how digital sensors (due to the bayer design) have 2x the green sensors as red or blue, perhaps it would be better (i.e. result in shorter exposure requirements) if a green filter was used instead of a red filter.

This is a good idea, but one that draws arguments from the Photoshop crowd who think that the color "filtering" should be done in channel mixer in post.

The problem with that approach has always been that at least one channel is under exposed, and you end up with more noise in the image when you try and lift up the curve.

I do like using color filters on my digicam's lens, and adjusting exposure comp in-camera to ensure the main color channel is properly ETTR. Your suggestion of using the green channel is excellent for Bayer -arrayed cameras, though the tones end up not looking quite the same as deep red filtration on B/W film with landscapes. And the blue channel easily becomes the noisiest, at least in the camera I've tried this with.

~Joe

EDIT: I suppose you could just shoot without the filter, knowing ahead of time which channel will be the primary B/W information, and ensure it's properly ETTR, then ignore what the other two channels are doing and don't use their data in post.

 

[willie_901]

A graduated neutral density filter is a much better solution to dynamic range for landscape shots.

I find 4 x 6 " NG grads the best way to deal with high DR landscape shots. I don't use long shutter times and the camera is always on a tripod. So, I gently hand hold the ND Grad flush against the lens. Even with large diameter lenses you can slide the filter up and down and see which position works best. In some scenes it is useful to rotate it. I have seen people using two filters at different at rotation angles to deal with some scenes.

The proper way to use these filters is with a holder. This is required when long shutter times are desired.

 

[Hsg]

I find 4 x 6 " NG grads the best way to deal with high DR landscape shots. I don't use long shutter times and the camera is always on a tripod. So, I gently hand hold the ND Grad flush against the lens. Even with large diameter lenses you can slide the filter up and down and see which position works best. In some scenes it is useful to rotate it. I have seen people using two filters at different at rotation angles to deal with some scenes.

The proper way to use these filters is with a holder. This is required when long shutter times are desired.

With digital and using a tripod, you can also bracket the shots by exposing once for the highlights and another for the shadows, then you can blend the shots in photoshop.

This works with static subjects only and gives you maximum detail both in the shadows and the highlights.

 

[willie_901]

With digital and using a tripod, you can also bracket the shots by exposing once for the highlights and another for the shadows, then you can blend the shots in photoshop.

This works with static subjects only and gives you maximum detail both in the shadows and the highlights.

Of course, and I blended exposures (without tone mapping) when there was no other option. I faced these circumstance for the convenience of my clients. Otherwise I would have worked when the light was more accommodating.

Blending exposures is only problematic on windy days when trees, etc move around.

I hated to do it because of the time it added my post-production work. I would deliver at least two different compositions where the bright sky was a serious problem. It essentially reduced my pay per hour. For this reason I preferred the grad ND method.

 

[Hatchetman]

Just a note: Ansel wasn't using TMAX 100. That stuff has incredible dynamic range relative to some other films. I assume Delta 100 would be similar.

 

[wallace]

TMAX 400 has even more dynamic range (2 1/2 stops more than TMAX 100).

There is an interesting article on Dante Stella's site:

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/dynamic.html

Thomas

 

[marameo]

I shoot color film and don't have to meter. No need for Sunny f/16 rule I can overexpose even 8 stops and will get a printable negative (very dense, I know).

So, I can shoot Portra 800 at 25 ISO and yet the result is great.