[Tom]

As much as a photo buff as I am, I've never messed much with bracketing expsoures. I'm more of a minimum fuss type of guy. If the exposure looks a little off, I'll tweak it in photoshop. However, there are some hiking pictures you just can't take without either blowing out the sky or underexposing the shadows - don't blame your camera, it doesn't have the dynamic range of your eyes. However, there are some digital imaging tricks you can use to get around this. Basically you take two exposures, one exposed for the sky and one exposed for the shadows and blend them together digitally. For all intents and purposes, you'll need to shoot with a tripod (or rest the camera on a stable surface like a log as I did for the shot below) and have a camera that lets you bracket exposures. I won't go into specific details as the following link covers it pretty good. http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/digital-blending.shtml I gave this a try on my last hike and was really pleased by the results and how easy it was (I used the layer mask method). Blended exposure using -1 and -2 EV:

[MCaver]

Blending exposures pre-dates digital cameras. It's great for getting an image you want, but it is considered doctoring the image. So if you plan to sell it, be sure to be upfront about it. People generally don't like to buy doctored images, even something as benign as this. I personally don't do it, but that's just the way I am.

[MooseAndSquirrel]

[Tom]

Exactly, I wouldn't consider this doctoring at all. Instead of using a graduated neutral density filter, you are expanding the dynamic range of your camera another way. To me, doctoring is creating something that wasn't there to begin with, for example, boosting saturation or tweaking color balance beyond natural levels. I used to think tweaking things in photoshop was cheating until I owned a 10D where images out of the camera are extremely "flat". Minimal processing has been applied in camera and it is left up to the user to apply the appropriate sharpness, saturation, etc. In effect, photoshop replaces the photo lab. On my G3, I think the "standard" in camera saturation is overdone (particularly greens). I sometimes end up bumping down the green and yellow saturation in photoshop. So is that doctoring, or would it be doctoring if I didn't?

[MCaver]

I'm just telling you what has been my experience. Combining two images has always been considered "doctoring" by anyone I've talked to about it, even if it's the same effect as a split ND. I'm not weighing in on either side of the issue, just passing on what knowledge I have of it.

[MooseAndSquirrel]

I have an Olympus D-460Z digicam (1.3 pixels- hopelessly out of date!)that really emphasizes greens, so what Tom said is interesting. Really though, what's the difference between a particular digicam's light capturing device's color levels and a particular film's? Fuji Velvia is supposed to punch up some colors compared to other brands of similar speed/type. I guess you could argue that Tom's method (or link to) was to take two separate pictures and combine them whereas when using a grad nd filter you are still only using one frame/image- so it's not quite as manipulative, so to speak.

[Sore Feet]

Funny how one's perception of color varies. I've been bumping the color saturation on my G3 shots up by 15 across the board (using the Hue / Saturation / Luminosity controls), they've all looked pretty washed out to me (especially the long exposuer waterfall and river shots). I'll get to play with sunset / sunrise stuff this weekend, so we'll see how well it handles a wide variety of contrast. Speaking for manually blending pictures, I've been doing this for a while now. There are at least 10 pictures on my website that I've either stitched by hand, or blended to create better color / sharper images. I gotta say that Photostitch is a super handy utility, but it's capabilities only stretch so far. Manually blending images is still the way to go (if you can master it that is).

[Tom]

[MCaver]

[Synchro]

agreed. personally i try and get the absolute best shot i can in the camera and then take it to the darkroom /photoshop. as we used to say when I was in photography school. "You cannot make chicken salad out of chicken s%#t!" As for people not buying images that are manipulated.....ansel adams, who has sold a bizillion prints and who images are repoduced onto posters and other such media these days, manipulated the heck out of his images in the camera and in the film processing. if we go by the strict definition provided in this thread, the zone system would be "a trick." Photoshoped, darkroom manipulated or not, if the images are good and solid, then in many cases it doesn't matter to your average person buying a picture to hang on their wall. heck your average person who looks at a photograph most times isn't even skilled enough to know what they are looking at. they just know what they like to see. i can look at people's "cherished" prints they get back from the photo lab and almost puke because the color balance is WAY WAY WAY off, but that person thinks the image is the best thing since sliced bread. so like I said your average person doesn't even know what they are looking at. they just know if it is "pretty" to them. I manipulate the heck out of my images in photoshop. because there is a certain type of effect that I want for my images. I visualize this effect in the iamge when I take them though. I know what the "effect" i am putting on the image will do to it. i use the effect to enhance, not to be the shot. if you effect becomes the shot then it is a gimmick. the photograph needs to be a good photograph regardless of the effect. the effect should only enhance. When I put them in the computer i get out pretty darn close what I was visualizing when i was out there shooting it. again, I ALWAYS make sure that the photograph is good to begin with. i almost never mess with my composition in photoshop. it has got to be a photograph i really really want in order for me to do that. and even then it usually doesn't turn out like I wanted because i didn't visualize it that way when I shot it.

[MCaver]

For everyone's consumption, this website is loaded with good photographic and digital darkroom information: Norman Koren. What does everyone use to calibrate their monitor? I had extremely mixed results with the Adobe Gamma Loader that comes with Photoshop, so I tried WYSIWYG XP that's recommended from the website I posted and it's worked great.

[Alan Bauer]

I have used the ColorVision spider with very good results. Spendy but getting the right profiles built sure makes it worthwhile!!

[Damsel Adams]

I see nothing wrong with doctoring an image. There is no photographic process that imitates the eye exactly. Black and white certainly isn't "natural"! Nor any dodging/burning/color balancing/lighting/fill flash/etc. However, that particular example of the sunlit mountain top, and shaded slopes/lake doesn't seem to work. Maybe it's because I'm used to overly contrasty images for that situation. Are we so used to blown-out mountain tops that this doesn't "look right"? Perhaps there are better examples of this technique. The scene would work superbly with the entire mountain in shade. The lake with it's misty surface is a superb scene. I'm sure the technique has some powerful uses.

[jenjen]

Hi - this is jenjen's husband (Dave) dropping out of lurk for a moment. I have done photography for a while - first with film and most recently with digital (Nikon D1X- I had a bunch of old lenses to use). The Color Spider has gotten some good reviews but it is not as accurate as the high-end units. The creme de la creme for this is the Gretag Macbeth Eye One which sells for about $4Kbucks but... the good news is that you only need this once or twice a year and some places rent it. What you do is install the software (Windows and MAC) and it will show some colors on the screen. You put the colorimeter to the screen, take some readings and the software will generate the correction to use. Same thing with the printer - it will spit out a couple sheets of paper (you do this for every paper you use - matte and glossy). You will need to do this again if you change ink formulations (switching from brand ink to 3rd-party refills) and paper and at least once/year as your monitor and printer age but that is about it. You do not need to own one. Glazers Camera ( 888-531-3232 ) used to rent this. I went looking on their web site just now to get prices and I do not see it listed - give them a call. Check with Google to see if other places in town have this unit.

[MCaver]

I don't have anything against post-production changes made to an image that approximates what can be done with filters and such, even though I personally prefer to do it in the camera. What I do object to is what I've found even some professional photographers doing, which is piecing two separate images together to create a completely fictional scene and passing it off as an authentic photograph. The one that comes to mind is Art Wolfe taking an image of an eagle flying through the air, and a separate image of bluish mountains in the distance -- days or weeks apart -- then piecing them together and selling it as a single image, without being upfront about how it was made. If someone wants to piece images together, then fine. But be up front about it. Otherwise it is simple deception and is counter to the spirit of photography, IMO.