Well, I should think just about any camera can keep you out of blown
highlight territory if the user sets the proper exposure. But, of
course, the camera can help or hinder that judgment. I think the E-1
only has a luminosity histogram and I assume the 510 has an RGB
histogram as well. Like the proverbial average depth of the lake, the
average luminosity can be a misleading figure. The RGB histogram will
go a long way toward keeping those whites white and not crossing the line.
Chuck Norcutt
Bob Whitmire wrote:
> Y'know, when I first looked at this shot and posted it, I was
> thinking about sharpness, and how the replacement 510 was apparently
> working as it was supposed to. But I looked at the shot again later,
> and it occurred to me that the highlights in this image have held
> particularly well. The shot was taken a few minutes shy of 2 in the
> afternoon, the absolute witching hour for photography in these parts.
> I did very little post processing from the original raw file. I've
> shot a lot of boats in the past few years, and blown highlights on
> white hulls are _always_ a problem. Maybe it's just me, but I'm
> thinking this 510 may be better at holding them than my E-1. As I
> recall, this flies in the face of the common wisdom, but still . . .
>
> --Bob
> www.bwp33.com
>
>
> On Jun 29, 2007, at 3:22 PM, Bob Whitmire wrote:
>
>> A test image out of the new 510. Harsh sunlight at 2 p.m. Shot
>> RAW, with a wee bit of levels adjustment, some LCE, a modicum of
>> Smart Sharpen and downsizing to 800 pixels wide.
>>
>> http://www.bwp33.com/page10/page10.html
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|