Moose wrote:
> I just tried an exposure adjustment of -1 stop in PS. I suppose that's not
> quite the same as in camera, but it's what I have. As Chuck has pointed
> out, the image is low contrast, flat looking, as presented. Adding a bit
> of LCE, curves, etc. brings it right up.
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/BSwale/PA160549.htm>
I get the point. Yes, LESS exposure is better for that shot. Others taken of
that vineyard moments later with precisely identical settings in the camera
were considerably less exposed. But at home with time on my hands I didn't
like the composition nearly as much as the one I posted.
With all the camera settings at around zero variation for everything/anything,
it beats me why it produces such variable results. Or to put it in plain
English, I don't understand why the exposures should be so wildly different
when the same subject is nearly the same composition. Maybe that shiny
timber railing did it.
http://www.brianswale.com/zuikoholics/PA160549-Gibbston-vineyard-
poplars-1000.JPG
I didn't take a film back-up shot that day as I didn't really expect to take
many shots (brought no film camera with me).
Brian Swale.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|