Kringla Bakeri og Kafe & Stave Church (HDRish)

Oooh, I love the drama in this one!
I almost wish the "Vikings" sign wasn't there, to hide where this was taken.
Nice job Roger!

 

I need to post the "original" DNG ([shadow=red,left]shudder[/shadow], c'mon Apple, release the RAW update! It's easy. Just reprogram the D3 converter to accept the D700 files because they are basically the same!!!!!!)

 

Here it is.

[attachment=1]

Yes I love the DR of the D700.

[This attachment has been purged. Older attachments are purged from time to time to conserve disk space. Please feel free to repost your image.]

 

is it apple or nikon with their proprietary nef's?

 

Well just like everyone else, every time they make a new camera they tweak the RAW file just enough to prevent other RAW engines from reading it. Heck even Nikon was requiring the new version of Capture NX just to see the D700 files.

Fortunately Adobe was able to break the code quickly and updated their DNG converter, and A2 includes full DNG 2.0 support, so it's basically the same as reading the original NEF anyway. So I don't *have* to wait for Apple to update the RAW codecs for the OS.

 

Roger the shot is definitely better, after you tweaked it, but that sky just looks weird to me, what is causing this?

 

Actually if you look at the red phone booth in Canada - same thing - it's the recovery of the blown highlights that is causing haloing around the buildings.....Recovery to the max, and then lower highlights to the max.

I did have Definition to the max on this one, but the Canada shot was only at 0.25.

 

Interesting. Is there a way to prevent this from happening? Had you used a fill flash would it have helped the original photo?

 

Not sure a fill flash would have completely worked here. Sensor to subject distance is pretty far for the church; it would have helped with the pretzel sign as long as the flash was designed for a wide angle lens.

 

so aside from what you have done, is there anyway to prevent having to tweak this type of photo?

 

Shoot with Fuji's SuperCCD?

If I exposed for the building, the sky would have been completely blown out. Then it would have required PS to bring a sky in. The overall dynamic range for this scene was just too great IMHO.

 

sometimes you have to make a value judgment about what is more important in your shot. in this instance, a slightly blown sky would not have been the deal-breaker. as you can see in the original photo, roger seemed to expose the sky reasonably but the detail in the shadow area was sacrificed. the opposite would have been true had he metered for the building.

as he said, the dynamic range in this instance was too great to nail in one shot; the sky was too bright and the shadows too deep. gotta go HDR for this one.

 

ok, cool, thanks for the explanation, I appreciate it.

Oh yeah, before I forget again, does HDR = High Definition Resolution?

 

High Dynamic Range

 

ah, that makes a little more sense. Thanks Roger.