On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 05:06:55 PDT, Olaf Greve wrote:
>1-The 2 stops underexposure + shadow compensation which if this will all be
>added up, which may or may not be the case (does anyone know this?), would
>yield something like a 4 2/3 stops underexposed picture (or at least a 2
>stops underexposed picture if these two compensations are not added up). So
>without any bolts (that have a high light intensivity) it might make sense
>that you don't see anything. This to me seems to be the most likely
>explanation.
Hmmm, it's possible that after I may have inadvertantly used both
spot/shadow and compensation, which would indeed get me severely
underexposed slides. I'll agree that that's the most likely
explanation.
However, it still seems like I should have gotten SOMETHING,
particularly on the shots where I flashed the nearby tree.
BBB
-
B.B. Bean - Have horn, will travel
bbbean@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Peach Orchard, MO
http://www.beancotton.com/bbbean.shtml
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|