On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 4:35 AM, Bruce Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 6:23 PM, Ciprian Dorin Craciun
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Although I must make a small correction to my initial statement: I
>> was under the wrong impression that the RAW was **completely**
>> underexposed, which seems it was not the case. However in half of the
>> "higher" levels (from 1024 to 4095) there lies less 10% of the pixels,
>> meanwhile the midlevels (256 to 1024) contain almost 50% of the
>> pixels. (I've taken the red channel as the scene is dominated by red.)
>
> There's a huge difference between bright/dark images and
> over/under-exposure. And I've heard of pixel-peeping, but
> histogram-counting?
This is a good one "histogram-counting". :)
In fact it is histogram-counting only after the fact and only to
support my claim.
Although I must admit that I do tend to watch more at the
histogram and peep for blown pixels, than to watch at the actual scene
I got. Thus many times although I get decent exposure I find that the
scene was "compromised" by having included or cropped certain objects.
>> However my main statement that the JPEG is blown out, meanwhile
>> the RAW is somewhat underexposed still holds, as by looking at the
>> JPEG histogram you have the impression of an overblown red channel,
>> meanwhile the raw histogram says otherwise.
>
> This RAW image is pretty much perfectly exposed. Emphasis on
> _perfectly_. No clipping of highlights; trace clipping of shadows;
> data spread nicely across the entire histogram. It's a really great
> exposure -- and a very good looking plant too, by the way.
>
> An _excellent_ exposure.
The fact that it is an excellent exposure is because I've taken
about 8 shots with various compensation levels and selected this one
afterwards by looking on my computer on how "good" the exposure was.
However in camera I couldn't have been able to decide between at least
half of these exposures.
> Now, I stand by my original rebuttal: toss your UniWB crud and go
> shooting. What you need is less theory and more practice. :-)
I have a mixed feeling about this. :)
Ciprian.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
