Bob Sullivan wrote: >I think I understand now. Like Shel said, I haven't been paying close >enough attention. I have underestimated how far to the right that I >should be pushing the histogram curve. I'll make some corrections now >that I shooting RAW.
Some things to keep in mind: 1 - The histogram on the camera is based on the embedded *JPEG* in the RAW file, not the RAW data itself. You actually have more highlight "headroom" than it shows. Use it! 2 - Even if you do overexpose a little, the red, green and blue channels clip (overexpose) individually. This is significant because a good RAW converter like Adobe Camera RAW can reconstruct lost data when only one or two color channels are clipped. In other words, it can approximate what the lost data "should" be based on the channel(s) that didn't get overexposed. If just one channel is clipped, this approximation is very good indeed and even when two channels are clipped, it can be good enough. I used to have my ist-D set to underexpose by 1/3 or 1/2 stop as my standard setting. Now I keep it on its default setting most of the time: On the rare occasions when I do get overexposed highlights, Camera Raw can almost always recover them and I benefit from lower noise levels all the time. It really makes a difference. (Note that I have the ist-D, not the DS or any of the later models - the metering is probably not *exactly* the same.) -- Mark Roberts Photography & Multimedia www.robertstech.com 412-687-2835 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
