Thanks for talking this through, Chuck.
According to the histogram on the RAW file, I could increase the
exposure by another .3 and still retain all the highlights. I have
tried this with both the +0.3 and 0.0 EV versions (i.e. to a total of
+0.6 overall). So you're right, of course, that a starting positive
compensation of 0.5 or more would have blown the highlights, but only
on the highest exposure version.
And you're right that the result is up to me: it's good to have a
choice :-)
Chris
On 2 Feb 2009, at 20:18, Chuck Norcutt 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.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|