Yes, it is a matter of preference. Some photographers find artistic
expression in extreme contrast representations or high-key work. A
blown highlight isn't necessarily a mistake, although there are cases
where a shot would quite obviously be improved if more detail were
represented in a highlight.
Paul
On Sep 8, 2005, at 1:37 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 9/7/2005 10:34:20 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here are some ways to define and understand the term:
- A "blown highlight" is a highlight area where you wanted *some*
detail (like the subtle texture of a white shirt) but there is none:
it's basically blank white in the image.
- In Zone System parlance, a blown highlight would be a Zone IX
exposure that missed and overexposed by about a stop.
- In 8bit grayscale parlance, all pixel values in an image range
between 0 and 255. A blown highlight is any area where you wanted to
render some detail that has an average pixel value over 220. (I set
Zone IX areas to have pixel values between 185 and 220.)
Hope that helps. :-)
Godfrey
===============
Yes, it does. Thanks.
I would think it's partly the photographer's preference then. Sometimes
he/she may not want detail. Like the duck shown recently, which
someone else later
said was "high key".
I feel another survey coming on. :-)
Marnie aka Doe Although I should report the results of the second to
last
one first (re exposure survey).
