Re: Speaking of exposure....

[Paul Stenquist]

Yes. Exactly. The RAW file is accurately exposed if the  highlights 
aren't blown out but are approaching the right side of the histogram. 
Of course there are situations (such as shooting directly into the sun) 
where one might overexpose intentionally. But for the average shot the 
RAW is correctly exposed when the highlights are white but not blown 
out. It may not look good in that state, but it will yield an excellent 
photograph when processed correctly. With a bit of practice, you'll see 
what I mean. And I think you'll find it quite interesting.
Paul
Paul
On May 20, 2005, at 5:12 PM, Don Sanderson wrote:

Thanks for all the replies everyone.
I've learned quite a bit. (I think) ;-)
I'll work with this in Photoshops ACR and see what I can do.
Paul, a question for you,
In one post you stated:
"RAW images are not meant to be viewed in an unprocessed
state any more than is a negative."
In another:
"I agree that a print isn't a good gauge of exposure accuracy,
but a digital file is a quite accurate measure. A RAW file is,
in fact, untouched exposure data."
I take this to mean the histogram IS, and the appearance
(of a RAW file)IS NOT, a good indicator of proper exposure.
Did I understand you correctly?
Don