Adobe's Camera Raw Forum and DNG Forum: http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/[EMAIL PROTECTED]@.3bb6a85c
http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/[EMAIL PROTECTED]@.3bb5f0ec I don't visit there often, but if they're anything like the Photoshop forum, they are a GREAT resource for information about the formats and the programs. Shel > [Original Message] > From: E.R.N. Reed > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >I am not sure I've followed everything in this discussion, but on the whole > >my RAW files usually look slightly or more than slightly underexposed. Doesn't > >bother me because it means I have more to work with. Easier to lighten than > >darken. Hard to correct blown highlights. (The exception is when I shoot backlit > >subjects, but I am going to have to use exposure compensation more, which I > >haven't been.) > > > >Have people been saying this type of behavior, underexposed look, is sort of > >deliberate? > > > > > > > Not directly answering your question, Marnie :-) (your question being, > "have people been saying ... ?) but you might visit this site > http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/ps_pro_primers.html > and check out the papers whose titles contain the word "Raw." > (I have them printed out and in a binder for frequent review.) > > ERNR
