They are definitely on the over side but not something that was readily
discernible looking at the histogram. The histogram on most shows a
mostly empty area on the upper two fifths of the graph but with a thin
red line running along the base line and popping up as a little pip at
the end indicating what I interpreted as minor hot spots in the red.
Well, it's more than minor. You may reasonably conclude that the image
background is overexposed but what you see is about what I saw with my
eyes and that was my guide doing the post-processing.
Chuck Norcutt
Ken Norton wrote:
> This discussion about inverse-square and so on, is wonderful and everything
> and we might even be able to improve our photography in some manner, but all
> it takes is one scientist-wannabe here on the list quoting from Einstein's
> Theory of Relativity to throw our conclusions off.
> I agree that this must be a "5D" issue as it works just fine on my Olympus
> equipment.
>
> Oh, and back to Chuck's original issue--if he is having to pull back the
> exposure to keep the faces from burning out, then the exposure is actually
> on the "over" side. In looking at his posted images, I'd suggest that the
> exposures really are a bit on the hot side and the background, as pretty as
> it is, is actually too bright. A "proper" exposure, as a general rule, is
> one where the skin is about one-stop brighter than mid-tone. What Chuck is
> doing is exposing for the shadows and compressing the highlights to keep the
> skin from blowing out.
>
> AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|