It's not bad for a RAW image. Good RAW images don't necessarily look good. They have to preserve the highlights which you've done here. The whites have detail. Now turn up the exposure just a little bit. Don't try to correct the exposure of the midtones, look only at the hgihlights. If the histogram starts to go off the end of the scale, you've gone too far. Once you've set the highlights, set the shadow detail. Turn it up or down until the blacks have just a bit of detail. If you hold down the option (alt) key while doing exposure and shadow, the image will reveal out of range areas against black. Once shadow and exposure are set, adjust your midtone values with brightness. This is where you'll get rid of that underexposed look. Finally, adjust the contrast to get rid of any muddy look in the midrange. Use hue and temperature to correct color. Add or subract saturation if necessary. Click okay and adjust sharpness in Photoshop using normal techniques. Paul
> To answer all three of your posts: > I did nothing in RAW conversion so you could see the > untouched image, looking at the histogram it looks > quite underexposed to me. Am I reading it wrong? > I tend to wonder myself about the color sensitivity > of the D's meter. > Seems full sun and flash give 90%+ accurate exposures > while any "out of the ordinary" lighting is inconsistent. > Has anyone else noticed this? > > Don (Off to work now, back later) > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 10:33 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: Speaking of exposure.... > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Don Sanderson" > > Subject: Speaking of exposure.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any ideas what went (or I did) wrong? > > > > You underexposed your shot. > > I bet the colour response of the meter sensor isn't linear. > > > > William Robb > > >
