On 5/1/2012 6:17 AM, Brian Swale wrote:
> ...
> This is not clarity of light. It's simply failure to read the
> histogram. You've been told the same thing repeatedly. Why can't the old
> dog learn a new trick?
> I guess there's some truth in that. I never look at the histogram 'in camera'.
So, you choose not to use the best tool for proper exposure of digital images -
and then complain when the exposure is
wrong.
> Possibly battling the wind in my face, and waiting for a flash of sun also
> didn't help, but - I've never used the histogram.
>
> Having read your comments, and gone back to FastStone, I see that it 'is'
> possible to amend highlights and shadows.
But - it is not possible to recreate highlight detail that has been clipped!
And this raises another issue. FastStone only works in 8 bit. Yes, it can
(apparently) edit Raw files, but really, it
processes them into 8 bit, without any control over that process, then edits in
8 bit and saves as JPEG.
I know PS is too expensive, and would probably drive you crazy. But how about
something cheaper that does good Raw
conversion and will edit in 16 bit? I don't much like LightRoom, but many love
it, it comes with a great Raw converter
built in and will do more than FastStone, better and in 16 bit.
PS Elements is under US$100 and is capable of doing a much better job than what
you are using. You can download 30 day
trial version of both.
Do I recall that you also choose not to shoot Raw? Raw is really essential when
shooting to retain highlights by
reducing exposure with exposure compensation. I won't go into the math, but you
really want mid and low tones retained
in 16 bit for when you bring them up later. I don't know how much help is is
with E-Thingies, but shooting Raw generally
allows some recovery of highlights.
>
> In instances such as the horse in poplars, I 'did' have the EV set at -0.7,
> and
> I have learned when photographing poplar etc leaves in autumn to avoid
> lighting angles where digital is unable to cope, and to use film instead, if
> the
> composition at a bad light angle remains attractive.
That is a Big Duck! MISUSED digital may be unable to cope. And you've already
copped to misuse. ;-) Film is a choice,
but not the only one that can do the job properly.
Just try it! Shoot Raw, use the histogram to avoid blown highlights,use a real
Raw converter and editor. I can't believe
you won't be amazed at what your camera can do!
> In general, I detest having black 'colour' in a crucial part of the image - or
> even perhaps at all in a colour image.. It doesn't bother me if whites at the
> edge of an image are blown out.
Aaargh! I was afraid Chuck's usage would cause mis-understanding. When he said
blacks and whites, he was not referring
to neutral colors. He was talking about bright and dark colours, highlights and
shadows.
Ardent Highlights Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|