I don't think anyone would dispute that the absence of detail in that
shot is somewhat undesirable. But as Bruce said, these are basically
proof conversions. I'd like to see him go back to the RAW, crank the
brightness all the way up to 150, then turn the exposure down until the
midtones are just right. That might very well restore some detail in
this highlight.
Paul
On Sep 8, 2005, at 1:47 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Since a picture is worth a thousand words, this may add graphically to
what
Godfrey said, and with which I agree.
http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/blown.jpg
Shel
[Original Message]
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
One of these days you are going to define it so I understand it?
Exactly
what
is a blown highlight?
