I believe that is is just a poorly written or edited article. It has a title
about "understanding the proper use of an exposure meter", but doesn't go into
any detail except to "point the meter at the camera" and "expose your images
correctly". Is this an article on the proper use of an indident meter or
digital capture. It's like the article doesn't know what it wants to be.
1. Digital capture certainly has a narrower latitude than color negative film,
so that's where he was coming from. But he said nothing about using the
in-camera histogram to manage your exposure, which is a MUST with digital
capture. It's like spot-metering the highlights and shadows to see whether
your transparancy film can record all the dynamic range of a scene. That's
what I've always done to see if my highlights will get blown or my shadows
blocked up.
2. I like RAW for the flexibility it offers in post-processing and for the
16-bit images that I get. I don't like using any of the currently available
programs to check my RAW files for sharpness, focus, composition, expressions,
etc. So now I routinely shoot RAW/JPG mode on my E-1, selecting a low
resolution, 1024x768 JPG to be captured along with the RAW file. Then I move
the RAW files to a subfolder when I transfer them to my PC. I look at the JPGs
to edit my shooting session, and then only convert the RAW files that I like.
If you screw up the capture of an image and blow the highlights, you can't
correct it, no matter what format you shoot, RAW or JPG. What's gone is gone.
For family-type photos, I set the camera to SHQ JPG and ignore RAW capture.
Prints up to 8x10 are just fine and I could easily go larger.
I just think that this guy is plenty happy with the results he gets from his
S2's JPG capture and poo-poos anything else.
3. Exposure metering - It looks like he was edited down. He mentions the
"facemast histogram", but that is something that has to be done on a PC, not
in-camera. So you screw up the exposure of a subject and find out about it
after you upload the images?! WRONG! Get it right the first time with an
indident meter or an in-camera spot-meter.
Skip
>
>Subject: [OM] Re: Digital exposure and workflow
> From: Winsor Crosby <wincros@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 12:29:57 -0700
> To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>I downloaded and read it. I really don't think that he knows what he is
>talking about. Here is why.
>
>He says that it is more difficult to get an accurate exposure with
>digital than film. That is not true. Accurate exposure is a product of
>the camera's metering system and the photographer. People who are
>sloppy with their exposure technique with color negative film and who
>depend on a processor to clean up their exposure will need to polish
>their skills just as they would if they switched to color slide film.
>What you have with a digital camera is a histogram that tells you
>exactly how you exposed the image and allows you make a correction if
>needed. It is seldom needed because modern multizone exposure meters
>are spot on in most cases.
>
>Raw vs. jpeg: (1)here is another area where he is just wrong if best
>quality is a goal. If your exposure is not exactly spot on you can
>adjust it in a raw image because it usually has 12 bit depth instead of
>8 without the risk of serious damage to the image. You can test this
>yourself and can see the difference easily in the histograms and
>sometimes in the image(look for zones with harsh transitions in the sky
>for instance).
>
>(2) All digital cameras have default settings in jpeg for sharpening,
>color, contrast that may not agree with your perception of the scene.
>Reality is that the processor in a camera is tiny and they take short
>cuts. Doing the adjustments on a raw image gives you the advantage of a
>processor and software that is not limited by the size and power
>requirements of being stuffed inside a camera. Sharpening out of
>Photoshop and detail is so much better than the jpeg that comes out of
>the camera.
>
>(3) Raw is not hard. It takes a few seconds longer than a jpeg to open.
>Other than converting it to 8 bit before saving the processing is not
>much different.
>
>(4) I think if you just want to download directly to one of those new
>PictBridge printers, jpeg is your best bet.
>
>
>
>Winsor
>Long Beach, California
>USA
>On Apr 7, 2004, at 11:14 AM, Tris Schuler wrote:
>
>>
>> I found this PDF from an article on the Fuji site. I'm pulled both
>> ways by
>> some of what's written, especially the writer's disdain for shooting
>> RAW
>> and then working with his files later (is time really that important in
>> most cases?), but there's food for thought either way--probably a
>> worthwhile read for anyone (thinking about) jumping into digital.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/3a2q8
>>
>> Tris
>>
>>
>
>
>The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
>To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
>
>To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
>List Problem"
>
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|