Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MrF" data-source="post: 71784" data-attributes="member: 10292">Thanks for the likes and advice everyone!Richard: I've seen a technique called dynamic range increase that involves masking out overexposed areas and layering in properly exposed image to fill in the masked areas.&nbsp; Is this what you're talking about?&nbsp; I'll have to look around for that tutorial.Rick:&nbsp; I shot the three images used in that photo at -2,0,+2EV.&nbsp; Would you recommend lowering all the exposure values (i.e. -3,-2,-1) in conjunction to reducing the EV spread, or would reducing the EV spread work on its own to keep the highlights more in check?&nbsp; At the time, I felt that I needed the full +2EV to get the detail I needed out of the darkest parts of the ceiling, but after combining the images, I was pretty surprised at how clear the detail was.&nbsp; I may have gotten by just fine with +-1.Ted: Nice shot!&nbsp; I particularly like the translucence in the flag.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MrF, post: 71784, member: 10292"] Thanks for the likes and advice everyone! Richard: I've seen a technique called dynamic range increase that involves masking out overexposed areas and layering in properly exposed image to fill in the masked areas. Is this what you're talking about? I'll have to look around for that tutorial. Rick: I shot the three images used in that photo at -2,0,+2EV. Would you recommend lowering all the exposure values (i.e. -3,-2,-1) in conjunction to reducing the EV spread, or would reducing the EV spread work on its own to keep the highlights more in check? At the time, I felt that I needed the full +2EV to get the detail I needed out of the darkest parts of the ceiling, but after combining the images, I was pretty surprised at how clear the detail was. I may have gotten by just fine with +-1. Ted: Nice shot! I particularly like the translucence in the flag. [/QUOTE]

Verification