Preserve shadow detail vs clipping blacks

[Visual Reality]

I have learned that having some black in an image greatly increases its visible contrast to the eye. It makes pictures pop, basically.

However, I am constantly fighting an internal struggle with my left brain that is telling me to preserve that shadow detail! Don't crush those blacks too much! I find that preserving shadow detail leaves images dull since I can't use blacks to increase contrast. With the "Blacks" slider in ACR, it is all too easy to fine-tune an image. I find myself using between 2-10 depending on the image. A black cat may only warrant 0-4 to keep the fur visible, but other images up to 10 if the exposure is correct. It also nicely hides noise if you are using high ISO levels.

You can also adjust this by changing the curve.

I'd like to see what the general philosophy is on this, so I've posted a poll.

How do you handle blacks in an image? Do you adjust the curve to favor some contrast at the expense of some shadow detail? How far do you take it? Or do you preserve shadow detail at all costs?

[SpecialK]

I normally tend not to worry about (minor) blown highlights, so I guess that applies to blown lowlights, too.

I like a bit of contrast for the pop, as well, though I sometimes lighten the shadows after opening the image in Elements. I like that a bit better than "fill" light.

Don't know if that answered your question.

[talkingdog]

I try to keep the details, I am taking pictures of my kids in choir or in a school plays etc. I try and keep as much detail in the main part of the image. With the dark curtains I don't care about so sometimes I bury if it is to busy.
I'm new to pp work.

[Rooz]

depends what the subject is. if the subject is black then i want to preserve the detail. if its not the main focal point, (or detail isnt necesary), then i dont really care.

imo, always expose the subject right. if preserving the shadow detail means you comprimise your main focal point then forget it.

[TheWengler]

I agree that it depends on what I'm shooting. Typically though I don't worry about clipped blacks the same way I do blown highlights. Sometimes images with no blacks lack pop, but again I think it depends on the subject.

[fionndruinne]

I picked preserving shadow detail, because I find I do that more often - however it really depends on the shot. I think I'm starting to accept a little highlight clipping more than I used to these days, as long as enough information is preserved for a more moderated edit. I agree that fiddling with blacks in PP can do a lot for contrast, and is good for covering up noise as well. Also, when I shoot high-ISO I do my best never to underexpose. Noise is much less evident if the image tends toward overexposure rather than underexposure.

[DonSchap]

Shadow detail is something that really needs definition ... okay, pardon the pun. LOL :D

If your image is to be studied (as most images convey some kind of message) then it is incumbant upon the photographer to CLEARLY get his message across. If that message relies upon the definition of detail, then yeah ... you have to render it.

If there no apparent reason for it, other than exercising technique ... then it is overkill and you are probably clouding your intended message with "too much information."

PRIMARY QUESTION to be asked: "What is the subject?"
SECONDARY QUESTION: "Does it look cool?"

I hope I am being CLEAR on this ... can't we focus on something else? :o

[Turn]

it largely depends but in general I like to preserve shadow

[pianoplayer88key]

I voted preserve detail.

Often I've taken a picture in less-than-optimum lighting, and, in PP, brightened some dark area of the pic that originally looked black when viewing on screen, but when "boosted" several stops I could actually make out some detail. Sure, it would look like I shot with ISO 204,800 on a dSLR or ISO 25,600 on a P&S, but it's better IMO than not having anything at all. (Of course, it'd have been nice if the camera I was using could have an EV -24 to EV 30 dynamic range with as much noise as ISO 6.25 would have on a Nikon D3 downsampled to 1.5mp, but alas that doesn't exist in an affordable form factor that can be handled by one person.

Speaking of "shadow detail"... Could someone (who owns one) take a Nikon D3 (or D700) outside some (preferably moonless) night (preferably not in the middle of a city either), with a F/1.4 lens mounted (I don't care what focal length), and shoot several pics (in aperture priority mode with the lens wide open at hyperfocal), and report what the detail (& noise) is like at:
ISO 12,800 (standard noise reduction)
ISO 25,600 (standard noise reduction)
then 25,600 underexposed -1, -2, -3, -4 and -5 (I believe that's the D3's max exposure compensation (negative) range. As for the "properly exposed" ones, preferably meter so that even though you're shooting at night, it looks like full daylight.
What kinds of shutter speeds would you be getting?
At 25,600 and -5 stops, if you reduce it to 1/2 by 1/2 resolution, can you still make out enough detail to recognize a person in a ball game? (assuming he/she fills about 2/3 of the frame)

[cdifoto]

If the darks gotta go, they gotta go.

If the lights gotta go, they gotta go.

Expose the subject, damn the rest. Unless you can control it all.

[Visual Reality]

If the darks gotta go, they gotta go.

If the lights gotta go, they gotta go.

Expose the subject, damn the rest. Unless you can control it all.
I think about this constantly as I read through my National Geographic magazines. I see loads of photographs with blurry people - and I start to think to myself that the subject must be the inside of the tavern, the architecture, whatever, and not worrying about the fact that there are people in the images. They are simply exposing the scene and damn the rest, as you said.

However with current technology, I'd argue that we can do both with the right gear.

[cdifoto]

I think about this constantly as I read through my National Geographic magazines. I see loads of photographs with blurry people
Those are monkeys dude. And that's not blur, it's fur.

[TheWengler]

Speaking of "shadow detail"... Could someone (who owns one) take a Nikon D3 (or D700) outside some (preferably moonless) night (preferably not in the middle of a city either), with a F/1.4 lens mounted (I don't care what focal length), and shoot several pics (in aperture priority mode with the lens wide open at hyperfocal), and report what the detail (& noise) is like at:
ISO 12,800 (standard noise reduction)
ISO 25,600 (standard noise reduction)
then 25,600 underexposed -1, -2, -3, -4 and -5 (I believe that's the D3's max exposure compensation (negative) range. As for the "properly exposed" ones, preferably meter so that even though you're shooting at night, it looks like full daylight.
What kinds of shutter speeds would you be getting?
At 25,600 and -5 stops, if you reduce it to 1/2 by 1/2 resolution, can you still make out enough detail to recognize a person in a ball game? (assuming he/she fills about 2/3 of the frame)

Wow, I didn't even see a "please." Maybe you should just rent one. Then you can go to town testing those ISOs. :rolleyes:

[pianoplayer88key]

lol... sorry...

I'd try one at my local Ritz store, but I usually can only get there during daylight hours, and I don't know that they'd let me take it outside the store (besides the fact that it's in a mall so still even at night would have like 10-15 stops too much light for my tests...)

[cdifoto]

That's why Lukas suggested you rent. When you rent, you can do pretty much whatever you want with it.

[raven15]

I was going for detail, then I realized my pictures looked very flat, so I started making blacks black. I don't think detail in black matters nearly as much as in highlights, because the eyes are drawn primarily by highlights while skipping over blacks. However, my camera is excellent at capturing several stops more black detail than it needs, while clipping whites, so oh well.

Of course, if your subject is black that's another story.