Sorry, but I dont really dont understand this paragraph:
"I agree with Ken. If you have 7 stops of shadow detail and 3 stops of
highlight detail, I would definitely expose for the highlights despite of
the image will be underexposed, otherwise you´ll never recover the burnt
highlight detail. So the camera underexposes to keep highlight detail inside
the dynamic range. This is why I would be very pleased if you could explain
to me what you mean because the other way round isn´t true.
What do I mean with underexpose? After taking the picture, if I see a
straight line going up in the right part of the TFT screen (histogram), I
must underexpose the picture because I know highlights will be
unrecoverable."
So you have a certain dynamic range. For example, in the film days, right
before digital actually, I never used my meter. I knew what the dynamic range
for the film is and chose to expose for whatever I wanted...That took tons of
visualization tho...
Now lets go back to digital. What I am trying to say is that each picture is
individual and there are so many elements to be factored in. You might want to
preserve the highlights, or shadows.
Now, with the risk to get "the most annoying person on the planet" Ill admit
that this notion that you guess an over or underexposure is just crazy...Just
get the right tool, honestly.
What if you have a camera that shows you in real time what your exposure is? I
know, I know but believe it or not, it has been done before. You look at your
big bright screen and see if the highlights are clipping, for example. Or
might be that the shadows look muddy and/or grainy? What about the DOF? Is my
main subject exposed right, if I over/under expose it, would this create a more
powerful impact? You can have all this within less than a second just by
rotating a simple roller on the top of your camera. Oh and I forgot, how about
spotmetering anywhere on the screen just by moving a cursor.
Either I am missing the point, or we are just trying to figure out how to
battle the limitations of old tools, such as most of the current DSLRs. I have
enjoyed this technology for the past five and a half years and the camera I
talked about in my previous post has it. And it is implemented very well as
far as I can see. BTW, I tried to learn about the hystogram, but got too
impatient with it. Thought that it was pretty useless. My philosophy is that
any time you remove guessing from the equation, you become a better
photographer. But thats just me, you can keep chimping if you wish.
Now if the incarnations of the camera that I talked about bring a sensor that
shifts in order to correct perspective...that would be the perfect camera for
me...oh, and of course sealed body and a distortionless, non-interchangeabke
lens with constant max aperture of f2.0 throughout the range of 18-600 mm 35.
I know, I know, I have been sleep deprived for the last few years, better go to
bed and dream about this stuff while getting a real rest...
Best
Boris
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|