Bob, you've not been paying attention ;-)) This has been discussed here several times. I'll let Godders explain it because he does a much better job than I with this technical stuff. However, when he and I got together last year, when I had my first DS, he showed me what he'd been talking about, and my exposures and results immediately improved.
We're not talking about exposing so much "over" as to blow the highlights, but exposing enough "to the right" in order to take advantage of the way the sensor records. Under exposing to prevent blown highlights can create noise and lose detail (especially in the shadows). And, as Aaron mentioned a little earlier, you still want the correct exposure, but the correct exposure is often greater than one might think. You've still got to understand how the sensor captures light, just like we had to know how to work with film, especially B&W and slide film. Here's one link of many that can be found in many places that touches on the subject: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml Further, what may appear to be blown highlights are not always so. Those areas can be recovered in Photoshop (and, I assume, other similar software). However, as photographers we have to know the range and limits of our tools, or those tools which are available to us. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Bob Sullivan > Godfrey, > You've got to explain this. > Digital sensors can't give any detail in overexposed highlights. > You can recover details in underexposed areas with post processing. > So don't you want to avoid blown highlights at all costs? > Regards, Bob S. > > On 7/4/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > > However, underexposing in RAW by 0.3-0.5 EV is exactly the wrong way > > to go. In general, with the *ist DS, I find my average exposure for > > RAW capture requires +0.3-0.7 EV additional exposure compared to JPEG > > or slide film. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
