I don't know a freaking thing about the science involved, but some time back I
started fiddling with curves in RAW and I like what I'm getting out of my
printer. If you use curves in ACR, it provides the use of sliders rather than
having to grip the stupid diagonal line and jerk it around. I like sliders. <g>
The thing I like best about ACR curves adjustments is really those middle two
sliders, which seem to allow to bring up detail brightness and detail without
mucking up the picture.
But like I said, I know nothing about the science, even to the point of knowing
whether your commentary on Chris's pics is the appropriate place for me to
stick my $0.02 in. <g>
--Bob
www.bwp33.com
---- Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I think the camera got the uncompensated exposure exactly "correct". If
> you inspect the histogram of the baseline image (1/125 second) you will
> see that the tonal range of the image doesn't span the full range of the
> histogram. The shadow and highlight ends don't quite reach to the
> extremes. The whole histogram is quite nearly centered with both the
> shadow and highlight ends balanced at about 1/3 stop from from full range.
>
> The +1/3 compensation (1/100 second) has run the bright end of the
> histogram right up to the verge of being blown out. That would also be
> considered a "correct" exposure for one who follows the "expose to the
> right" philosophy (as do I). But that assumes you fully intend to work
> that image to extract something else from it and it works best with raw
> because there may be significant exposure change in post processing.
> But the difference in this case is only 1/3 stop and hardly worth
> worrying about.
>
> If you had set the exposure compensation to +0.5 or +1.0 you would have
> had a lot of blown highlights. An exposure compensation of +2 might
> have been required if (ala OM-4) you had spot metered the snow but, as
> it is, the normal metering is picking up a lot of dark trees and
> apparently making the right decision uncompensated.
>
> So, what's the right exposure? Probably the baseline. The image is
> improved by increasing the mid-tone brightness but that tends to push
> the highlights toward the end. If starting from the +1/3 it would
> probably be necessary to back it off a bit to keep the highlights from
> washing out as the overall brightness is increased.
>
> But I think the camera pretty much nailed it. Now it's only up to you
> as to how you really want it to look.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
> Chris Barker wrote:
> > Dear All
> >
> > Since we have just been discussing this, I have put a set of bracketed
> > shots on this gallery:
> > http://gallery.me.com/zuiko/100037
> > I set the E-3 for 3 shots at 0.3EV intervals with a baseline of 0
> > correction. It seems to me that the +0.3 has come out best, although
> > I have had to adjust the White Balance (I have it set to Daylight all
> > the time, rather than Auto). I used bracketing on purpose since I do
> > not often see snow here and I wasn't sure how to adjust the exposure.
> > I now see that I should have set it to +0.5 or +1.0 as baseline.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> > The scene is in the Reserve of the Royal Society for the Protection of
> > Birds (RSPB), not far from my home. My wife works there (for a
> > pittance ... :-)).
> >
> > Chris
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|