>>2906563* At f/22 diffraction is murdering sharpness and detail. There's also terrible flare with that lens (filter on front?). Both are severely degrading IQ and without knowing about them one might think they're the result of the shadow push. (And what's going on with the spots? Is there actual dirt on your lens or sensor??? Clean that shit!)
* IMGP4396.dng is the file with an exposure close enough to ideal for trying to recover shadows yet hold the star burst of the sun in one frame. That said, you bracketed in 2ev increments. An exposure between IMGP4396 and IMGP4397 would have likely yielded the best shadow detail while still holding the sun burst.
* In ACR: +4 exp, -100 highlights, +40 shadows, and luminance NR of 10 (default color NR of 25) yields the attached screenshots.
* This equates to a 5ev shadow push, but you can't just dial in +5exp because ACR changes the entire exposure and you lose the highlights.
* Keep in mind that shooting with the sun high in the sky is much harsher than sunrise / sunset. Your sample is not comparable to
>>2906566 (for example). If it had been magic hour you could have probably given 2 stops more exposure and still held the sun burst. Note that IMGP4397.dng, with 2 stops additional exposure, has very little noise in the shadows.
* Even though the shadows are noisy in the processed IMGP4396.dng file, they are not blocked up, and the file is showing incredible latitude. I don't think color neg could have done as well. If there is a color film that could compare, it would be Kodak's Vision motion picture film, and/or Portra. B&W film could only do something like this if developed properly. Any B&W emulsion developed normally would blow out the sky if metered for the trees. If metered for the sky, the trees would be completely blocked up. Slide film...not even in the ballpark.
