Hi Ken, In Don's image the whitest whites are very close to pure white and approaching overexposure. You can see them in the histogram as well. Because they are such a minor part of the image, they're only represented by the narrow line running across the bottom. With more exposure they would have been off the scale. This is a correct exposure for RAW. If he were shooting jpegs, the camera probably would have compensated with more brightness and a bit more exposure. But since he was shooting RAW, the meter cut things off at the point where the highlights wouldn't be clipped. Of course the midtones are all pushed down in the scale and have to be brightened. But that's the nature of RAW images. They are different than jpegs. That's the point. They give the photographer control. The first priority with RAW is don't clip the highlights on exposure. The midtones will frequently look underexposed. Don also needs to pull the shadows up a bit to get them off the far left just a tad. Once the midtones are brightened and the shadows adjusted, the image will probably need some contrast tweaking to separate the highs and lows a bit. But the exposure is correct.
> >You can't really generalize about how a histogram should look > Agreed, I wasn't generalizing, I was talking specifically about his histogram > and his image. > > >Don's exposure is pretty darn close for RAW > Don't know what that means. Either the exposure is right or it isn't. His > image > didn't appear to have the correct exposure as posted. His histogram seemed to > agree with that. There were white shirts in the image and I assume there were > black features in there somewhere. I also assumed that he wanted the whites > white and the blacks black. If the exposure was properly captured, the whites > should look white and the blacks should look black. I don't understand how > the > capture mode (Raw, JPEG, Tiff etc) has anything to do with proper exposure at > time of capture. > > Can you educate me? > > I'm teacheable, I think..... > > Kenneth Waller > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: May 20, 2005 2:08 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Speaking of exposure.... > > 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 > > > > > > ________________________________________ > PeoplePC Online > A better way to Internet > http://www.peoplepc.com >
