You can't really generalize about how a histogram should look. If there are no 
highlights or deep shadows in a scene, the values may very well be bunched in 
the middle. Don's exposure is pretty darn close for RAW. The highlights are 
just showing good detail. They aren't grey. With digital RAW you have to expose 
for the highlights. I think the camera's metering scheme knows that. A lot of 
my RAW images would appear to be underexposed at first glance, but when the 
highlights are evaluated independent of the rest of the image, it's obvious 
that the exposure is correct. RAW images are not meant to be viewed in an 
unprocessed state any more than is a negative.
Paul


> >All of the shots that night with 3 lenses were underexposed
> >by 1 or more stops.
> 
> Looks like you're on the right track with your observation.
> 
> >Any ideas what went (or I did) wrong?
> 
> As you have described your captures, you should have added exposure 
> compensation 
> to you images in-camera.
> This histogram needs the captured data to be spread across the horizontal 
> axis, 
> not gathered as it is on the 
> LH side.
> In PS, setting the white point and dark point will minimize the color cast.
> 
> Kenneth Waller  
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Don Sanderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> Subject: Speaking of exposure....
> 
> Here's one of the (rather crappy) shots from the play Wednesday night:
> http://www.donsauction.com/pdml/UnderExp.htm with histogram.
> 
> Forgive the composition, the girl in the middle is the neighbor.
> (Had to shoot from the back, to short FL, yada yada, excuses.)
> And the lovely mixed Tungsten/Fluorescent/Sodium lighting. :-(
> 
> This was at ISO1600 on the D with Matrix (CW with this lens)
> metering. M200/4 at 4.
> 
> This is straight from RAW to web, full frame
> All of the shots that night with 3 lenses were underexposed
> by 1 or more stops. The other 2 lenses were FA's.
> Had the LCD off as usual so I never looked at the histogram.
> 
> Any ideas what went (or I did) wrong?
> 
> Don
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________________
> PeoplePC Online
> A better way to Internet
> http://www.peoplepc.com
> 

Reply via email to