>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
