I don't agree with your conclusion about digital and backlit vegetation.
But you must recognize that (unlike negative film) digital is totally
unforgiving about overexposure. It's much more like shooting slide film
in that respect. Pay careful attention to the RGB histogram and, if
shooting JPEG, don't let any color channel bump up against the right
hand edge. Shooting raw will give you some more leeway but, even then,
caution and post-processing for highlight recovery will be required.
I rarely use my camera's meter (preferring the histogram instead) but I
think Moose's fairly standard practice is to set a -2/3 compensation on
his cameras to avoid the problem of overexposed highlights. He'll
correct me soon if I'm wrong. :-)
Chuck Norcutt
Brian Swale wrote:
>
> I also took several shots with my OM4Ti and Zuiko 35~105; mostly not on
> tripod as it happened, due to the rush to grab a spontaneous shot.
>
> Last week I had prints made, and the detail, contrast and saturation are a
> considerable improvement on the digital screen version.
>
> At the very least, it seems that digital can not handle backlit vegetation
> very
> well at all. I came to a similar conclusion after photographing large oaks in
> their autumn dress a couple of weeks ago, in a Christchurch park.
>
> Brian Swale.
> http://www.brianswale.com
> Mobile 0064 21 143 4249
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|