I don't think that's exactly what's being said -- "accurate" exposure /does/ matter, it's just that accurate exposure can be defined as "capturing the entire range of the scene".
Suppose I've got a histogram with four segments and my exposure is entirely contained in the second segment (counting from the left). If I'd have kept all other things equal but increased my exposure time by a couple of stops or so and ended up with the scene entirely contained in the third segment, I'd have taken the same picture, only with a longer shutter speed -- either of those exposures could be "converted" to the other just by dragging the exposure slider in Photoshop on import of the pictures. One would likely be the "better" shot, though, due to having more or less motion blur, camera shake, whatever. Of course, this doesn't take into account non-linear response from the sensor, etc. or that many scenes have a range that exceeds the dynamic range of the sensor. That's my understanding, at least; someone please correct me if I'm wrong. -----Original Message----- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 9:55 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Zaninovic" Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > That's right, if you shoot raw and you captured all the info who cares > about the exposure, you can change exposure during raw > converting process and the result will be identical as if you compensated > the exposure correctly at the time of shooting. The > important thing to take care of is not to have blown highlights or shadow > go to pure black and matrix metering in flat light will > take care of that in most of the cases. I still would compensate for > black or white door but for the sake of discussion I don't > think it would make so much difference as you think. There you have it kids. Forget metering, accurate exposure doesn't matter anymore. Just fix it in Photoshop. William Robb
