[sac-forum] Re: The Problem with Imaging
- From: Gray Olson <golson17@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "sac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <sac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 14:15:56 -0700
Yeah, it just sounded like you didn't see that high dynamic range can be
had in a photo just like our eyes... In fact even higher dynamic range than
our eyes can see. Whether it's too much processing is just a matter of
opinion.
On Tuesday, April 8, 2014, Steve D. <fester00@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> You just proved my point. The dynamic range can be had, but not with a
> single exposure, or not without (too) much processing. Balancing the image
> is the problem.
>
> Steve Dodder
> Chairman, SAC Novice Group
> Coordinator, Grand Canyon Star Party, North Rim
> Director, Stone Haven Observatory
> fester00@xxxxxxxxxxx<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','fester00@xxxxxxxxxxx');>
> http://www.stonehavenobservatory.com
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 13:23:03 -0700
> Subject: [sac-forum] Re: The Problem with Imaging
> From:
> golson17@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','golson17@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx');>
>
> I disagree we are incapable of capturing the same dynamic range in an
> image as the eye can. You can do this by using HDR photography which uses
> different exposure lengths and combines them into one image to create high
> dynamic range.
>
Other related posts:
