bracket with raw - 350d

Yes you can bracket. You can have the camera +/- 1/3 stop, 1/2 stop or more.

One other thing you can do with raw is to take one exposure and process it
twice, once for the highlights and once for the shadows. You can then
combine them together to get what you are looking for.

As an example, I was shooting pictures of butterflies on bright yellow and
pink flowers. The foliage was green. I shot a variety of pictures all raw.

When I got them on the computer, I selected the best composition. Next, I
processed the raw image to make sure that the color of the butterfly was
perfect with no regard for the background or flowers. I saved that file
separately. I then processed the same raw image, this time exposing it to
get the background and foliage perfect and ignored the butterfly, which
would have had the highlights blown out. I saved that as a separate image.

I then combined both images, opening one and then pasting the other image on
top making two layers. I then erased the blown out highlights of the
butterfly, which was on the top to allow a more properly exposed image of
the butterfly to come thru.

This technique is great when you are shooting something with a lot of
contract or if you are stuck shooting in the middle of the day with high
sun.

Steve


"Brian" wrote in message
oups.com...
Does anyone know if you can bracket exposures when shooting in raw
format? I don't have the camera yet, that's why I'm asking...

Thanks, Brian

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
wrote:

In message ,
Alan Browne wrote:


Brian wrote:


Does anyone know if you can bracket exposures when shooting in raw
format? I don't have the camera yet, that's why I'm asking...

Sure. OTOH, get the higlights right and avoid bracketing altogether.


... and bracket to get the highlights right?

Shouldn't have to. If you can spot meter the highlights, you should be
able to avoid blowing the highlights. Works for me *most* of the time
with the 7D.

That way you end up exposing to the left of the histogram and losing most of
the values available - clipping. In digitaland you need to be a right
wing-capitialist pig to get a good profit! Have a read here

http://luminous-landscape.com/tutori...se-right.shtml

Also, there are techniques for combining different exposures of the same
shot to 'increase' the DR. Lots of very good info on MR's site...


Guess the Canon 10/20D/350D shooters are screwed. No spot meter in
camera.

Sorry, but you are screwy! You would not buy currently the best dslr in its
class because it lacked a spot meter? Duh!

Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

"Steve Dell" wrote in message
...
Yes you can bracket. You can have the camera +/- 1/3 stop, 1/2 stop or
more.

One other thing you can do with raw is to take one exposure and process it
twice, once for the highlights and once for the shadows. You can then
combine them together to get what you are looking for.


The problem with that way is that you have but one range of values to work
with - if it's all you've got, then fine. It would be better to get two RAW
shots: one for highlights and one for shadows. That way, you have even more
to play with.

http://luminous-landscape.com/tutori...es/index.shtml


LCD

In message ,
"LCD" wrote:

That way you end up exposing to the left of the histogram and losing most of
the values available - clipping.

I'd call that over-quantization, posterized, or under-digitized, not
"clipping".

Although, if you leave ACR's "shadows" slider greater than 0, it does
clip shadows, and the more you under-expose at a given ISO, the more
shadow range you will lose.
--


John P Sheehy

"LCD" wrote in message
...

"Steve Dell" wrote in message
...
Yes you can bracket. You can have the camera +/- 1/3 stop, 1/2 stop or
more.

One other thing you can do with raw is to take one exposure and process
it twice, once for the highlights and once for the shadows. You can then
combine them together to get what you are looking for.


The problem with that way is that you have but one range of values to work
with - if it's all you've got, then fine. It would be better to get two
RAW shots: one for highlights and one for shadows. That way, you have even
more to play with.

http://luminous-landscape.com/tutori...es/index.shtml


LCD

Specifically
http://luminous-landscape.com/tutori...blending.shtml

In message ,
"LCD" wrote:

The problem with that way is that you have but one range of values to work
with - if it's all you've got, then fine. It would be better to get two RAW
shots: one for highlights and one for shadows. That way, you have even more
to play with.

I've never understood the "two conversions" method (especially when
converted to 8-bit). All it does is lower the contrast in the darker
render where the other one clipped or got compressed, and mix in
posterized shadows in the darker render into the lighter render.
--


John P Sheehy

wrote:

I've never understood the "two conversions" method (especially when
converted to 8-bit). All it does is lower the contrast in the darker
render where the other one clipped or got compressed, and mix in
posterized shadows in the darker render into the lighter render.

It was a workaround to not being able to get the tonal response you
actually needed in RAW conversion. Camera Raw 3 with the curves
interface pretty much makes it obsolete.

However, you didn't mix in the shadows; the idea, same as blending
two different exposures, is to just use the shadows from the lighter
version.

--
Jeremy |

wrote in message
...
In message ,
"LCD" wrote:

That way you end up exposing to the left of the histogram and losing most
of
the values available - clipping.

I'd call that over-quantization, posterized, or under-digitized, not
"clipping".

I see, you mean it has fewer values to use rather than the ones available
being cut off.


Although, if you leave ACR's "shadows" slider greater than 0, it does
clip shadows, and the more you under-expose at a given ISO, the more
shadow range you will lose.
--


John P Sheehy

wrote in message
...
In message ,
"LCD" wrote:

The problem with that way is that you have but one range of values to work
with - if it's all you've got, then fine. It would be better to get two
RAW
shots: one for highlights and one for shadows. That way, you have even
more
to play with.

I've never understood the "two conversions" method (especially when
converted to 8-bit). All it does is lower the contrast in the darker
render where the other one clipped or got compressed, and mix in
posterized shadows in the darker render into the lighter render.
--

So, if the original image is properly exposed it will have all the available
values to the camera anyway? I mean if the camera can record say 5 stops and
the scene has 10, then 5 of those 10 will be permanently outside the
camera's ability to record.



John P Sheehy

LCD wrote:

So, if the original image is properly exposed it will have all the available
values to the camera anyway? I mean if the camera can record say 5 stops and
the scene has 10, then 5 of those 10 will be permanently outside the
camera's ability to record.

You would have to use two (or more) different exposures to capture the full
range. If the camera can record 5 stops, that's all it can record.

--
Jeremy |