The PSCS RAW converter can recover some blown highlights, based on what's visible in other channels. But even losing some very extreme highlights is frequently a worthwhile tradeoff. Noise is greatly reduce when shadows are well exposed. Underexposure is more deadly than overexposure with digital. Paul > Godfre > You've got to explain this. > Digital sensors can't give any detail in overexposed highlights. > You can recover details in underexposed areas with post processing. > So don't you want to avoid blown highlights at all costs?rr > Regards, Bob S. > > On 7/4/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Sensors respond to light differently compared to film. Chapters one >> and two of Bruce Fraser's "Real World Camera Raw with Photoshop CS2" >> explains why there is a difference. As a result, exposure evaluation >> requires a different mindset and different settings. JPEG and slide >> film, although they are different, generally end up taking about the >> same exposure. >> >> However, underexposing in RAW by 0.3-0.5 EV is exactly the wrong way >> to go. In general, with the *ist DS, I find my average exposure for >> RAW capture requires +0.3-0.7 EV additional exposure compared to JPEG >> or slide film. >> >> Godfrey >> >> >> On Jul 4, 2006, at 7:09 AM, Jens Bladt wrote: >> >>> I didn't know there was a different mindset for digital - except >>> for trying >>> harder to avoid overexposure/blown out highlights. I usually regard >>> JPEGs as >>> slides, RAW as negs. >>> I have BTW noticed that I'm not the only one who normally >>> underexposes >>> deliberately by 0.3-0.5 F-stop. (I shoot RAW 99% of the time). >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >
-- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
