Actually, considering the light angle and balance, not a bad exposure, IMHO. Your 'corrections' appear to me somewhat flat or dull. Allowing a degree of contrast together with some surgical use of levels or dodging, might satisfy your eye.
Jack --- Rick Womer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Today I was finally able to do some shooting with my > new-to-me ist D. I used the highest-quality jpeg > setting (raw will have to wait a bit). > > Most of the pix were nicely exposed, but some of them > were badly underexposed, even though the scenes didn't > seem especially challenging and no exposure > compensation was set. > > Two examples are here, along with copies whose levels > I adjusted in PE2 to show that the information is > really there: > > http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=583164 > > (ist D, DA16-45, iso 200, multipattern metering, f/11 > @ 1/180) > > Can anyone tell me what's happening? Is this typical? > > Otherwise, the camera handles nicely, and I can use it > with my glasses on (a very nice thing indeed). TTL > flash exposures hoover, as others have noted. There's > dust on the sensor, but our cats make the house so > dusty that I don't want to try to clean it here. > > Rick > > > > http://www.photo.net/photos/RickW > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
