Paul, thanks for the explanation. A few questions tho - >If he were shooting jpegs, the camera probably > would have compensated with more brightness and a bit more exposure.
The camera compensate? You mean the photographer? >But since he was shooting RAW, the meter cut things off at the point where the highlights > wouldn't be clipped. Do you really mean meter? I guess the most important thing I got from your response was that the histograms of the same scene, shot in Raw and JPEG will be different. Thanks for the education Kenneth Waller ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 3:23 PM Subject: Re: Speaking of exposure.... > 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 > > >
