Ahhh - sigh - another original post that I didn't see. My take on the situation is similar to yours, Paul, although I don't see the "huge areas of black" that you note. What I do see are a lot of trees, the green of which appears a little bright for the type of tree it appears to be. I do think that the meter was reacting to the large expanse of green and boosting the exposure to provide more of a mid tone to the trees..
Now, about green: it's often said that green grass makes for a good reading in order to establish a mid tone in a photo. While this is a "good enough" generalization, it should be noted that grass is generally of a lighter shade/tone/hue (whatever) than many coniferous trees. Yes, some coniferous trees are of a lighter green, but many are darker, and to make a light reading from, or have your light reading influenced by, an area of trees that's darker or lighter than what's considered a middle tone, assuming that green is green, can create an exposure error. So, for some coniferous trees, you'd take a reading and then reduce the exposure, for others you'd open up a bit, and for others still, the reading should be adequate. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Date: 5/20/2005 7:24:31 PM > Subject: Re: Various manufactures look at exposure quite diffrently > > The openings in the trees create huge areas of black. That would throw > the exposure off somewhat, casing some overexposure in the foreground. > Would it make enough difference to cause the problem shown here? Hard > to say. Test your exposures with a color chart and a gray card in > diffuse light. > Paul > On May 20, 2005, at 7:08 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Hey gang. > > > > Getting back from day one of a 3 day horse show. > > Received my D2H back the other day, that went in for an over exposure > > concern. I had a > > chance to > > test it out to day,at the show,plus also read some of the posts from > > Unka Mikes original > > thread on > > exposure books etc. > > > > I have come to the conclusion that not all manufactures agree on what > > a good exposure is. > > See link below. > > > > http://www.caughtinmotion.com/paw/nikon_1.jpg > > > > No adjustment has been made other than resizing for web. > > > > Camera was set on iso 250 in Tv mode of 1/250. As you can see the day > > is very sunny. Even > > i have > > learnt(g)from the pdml that the exposure for this shot,using the S16 > > rule should have been > > in the > > neighbourhood of 1/250 and around f 11. > > > > The tech data from the camera was 1/250 F3.00. Close to -1.0 to -1.5 > > ev was needed. I > > can't seem to > > get across to some tech people that the camer work fine before they > > replaced the AE board > > last > > winter.<g> > > > > Now you tell me. Am i nuts,or so stupid that i cannot work a camera > > properly, or is there > > a problem > > with not only this, but 99% of the stuff i tested today. If i'm > > stupid, don't hold back > > folks:-) > > > > > > Sorry for the rant. I'm just royaly P#$O&^'D off today as you can wel > > imagine. > > > > BTW, I don't get this kind of exposure on my istD at all,nor the D1. > > > > Dave > > > >
