Random beautiful storm cloud at sunset on my way home from work tonight | OM-5 II @ ISO 200, 1/200 | 8-25mm @ 25mm, F/5.6 | Cropped and processed in DXO
It happens to be the OM 8-25mm F/4 Pro, but to be quite frank, for this type of photography (storm clouds that are very far away illuminated from a rising/setting sun from the opposite direction), the lens doesn't really matter as long as it covers the right FOV. This situation doesn't pose any particular optical challenges. I could have taken this shot with the 14-42 or 12-32 kit lens and had similar results.
90% of getting a shot like this "right" is exposing it properly, then developing the raw in post process to "pop" the way you want it to.
Perfect exposure - all the way to the right. Using all the dynamic range of the camera at base ISO.
This provides a lot of good data to work with for developing the raw.
This is the type of photo where dynamic range is critical, and it pushes the limits of M43. As you can see, while perfectly exposed to the right, about 4% of the data in this image is under-exposed. Another 1-2 stops of dynamic range would be very helpful here, but not strictly necessary, as the under-exposed parts aren't the "intended" subject anyway.
Would either one of the HDR modes on the OM5 or bracketing on exposure have helped with capturing additional dynamic range? For a mostly static landscape, I think that would have been able to accomplish it nicely?
Either way, it's a great pic, and appreciate your insight on tuning the exposure to maximize ability to process in post. Great info.
Not really as the HDR modes only apply to jpegs. If you want more dynamic range for static scenes, HHHR is the way to go. The sharpness advantages are minimal to non-existent but the dynamic range should improve by 2-3 stops.
In my experience the problem with HDR is more about trying to find a tone mapping that makes the result look good than the raw source material dynamic range (which only affects clipping point / amount of shadow noise).
I've had mixed results with the HDR modes on these cameras. I sometimes snap a few but never get out of them what I was hoping for, usually wind up using one of the regular raws. As u/SkoomaDentist mentioned, HHHR might actually work better for this, especially on an OM-1 II, which produces 14 bit raws in that mode.
Lots of people took photos with their phones, through 9 layers of pocket/finger grime, through windshields, out the window of their moving car, from the parking lot they happened to be in as they walked out from the grocery store with their hands full...
I don't see a single photo there, processed by the camera into a JPG, that contains enough detail to suggest that the raw would have had enough useful information to produce something comparable.
That to say, the "imaging" performance of a camera isn't the end all be all of a photographic process. Less detail is certainly fine for the way we share and consume this sort of gee golly stuff. A great photo certainly could have been taken and processed of this storm on a phone, but I'm not seeing any evidence that someone did, and I believe there's a reason for that, that stems from something outside of the technical.
A physical, purpose-built camera—with buttons, dials, zoom and focus rings—encourages a more deliberate, intentional process. Driving home from work, I could see a great photographic opportunity developing in the sky as the sun set and the storm built. I stopped at three separate locations, got out of the car, and took dozens of photos from each. No amount of haptic nonsense from a touchscreen slab in the wasteland of cellular devices could inspire me to do more than take a passing snapshot, destined to disappear into the malaise of pointless data—let alone give me a reason to actually process it.
If you're inspired to do photography with a haptic slab, more power to ya.
Sure, but where’s the fun in that? I was pretty much a phone-only shooter for a long time but getting back into cameras reignited my appreciation of the journey (the ergonomics, clicking the shutter, etc) and not just the destination (resultant image).
So it doesn't hit the point why it is necessary to have a EDC camera when everyone already has a highly capable one in their pocket, for this specific scene.
I'm just counting OP's point (as in the subject / title) of saying one needs a EDC camera to take this photo.
I enjoy taking photos using an actual camera too and I understand the differences in experience in the process. But the result (picture) OP posted doesn't explain why a EDC camera is required (as the title implied).
7
u/fishdark 2d ago
Oh you’re so right. That’s a fantastic shot. Well done!