You are talking about the HDR, even cell phones cameras
have this capability today;, in general, the camera composes the image
using a reading for the highlight, other for the average light and another
for shadows, it is not an exposure average, they are three different images
with three different exposure readings from the same subject made one.
These shots can produce some dramatic effects but the image lighting looks
unnatural most of the times, my Lumix LX7 has the HDR option and I don't
like the results in general, except for some stormy skies. The HDR could
make sense if you need to see the image details for every different part as
a whole for technical reasons or for some very specific artistic purpose,
otherwise it does not make sense IMO . The tradiitional light measurement
allows you to select the area of the subject you want to emphasize better
than using HDR.-
2017-07-09 16:06 GMT-03:00 Don Williams <dwilli10@xxxxxxx>:
At 06:34 AM 7/9/2017, Carlos wrote:
Lighting conditions were too con)trasty, I preferred to use the camera
lightmeter to calculate this shot exposure:
Yes, there are some scenes which are beyond the range of any film. Most
of the time we just accept it.
I think there are digital cameras, mostly for professional or scientific
use, which take three or more images for later compositing. I think my
Ricoh Theta can take three such images with a single shutter push. (I tend
to think that some commercial TV cameras have some kind of compression
available, but it's just a guess from looking at outside news video.
Richard Knoppow may know . . . he may not be active here though.)
On a slightly related subject, many TV studios like to have windows to the
outside, which makes the view more interesting. Now, many hears later,
they have started to put ND film on the glass so the outside isn't burned
out. Took them years to do that.
Finally, I wonder whether those cameras which take multiple images with
different focal lengths are available to the amateur . . can't remember the
name of the process.