On 5/11/2015 2:52 PM, Tina Manley wrote:
Thanks, Moose. The original dng does not look terribly underexposed. I
can still see details in the shadows. Here it is:
http://www.pbase.com/tinamanley/image/160035214
You are confusing technical exposure to viewing exposure, to coin an awkward
phrase.
What you have is an exposure good for viewing right out of the camera, but that pushes the limits of the sensor system.
What I proposed is an overexposure corrected in post for viewing, one that lets the sensor system work better.
Any more exposure and there would be even more totally blown out.
I think only the bright lights, which are gone anyway. Remember, the overly bright building facade, etc. come back down
in post.
I've always resisted using higher ISOs but I guess I'll try and see if it makes
a difference.
Why? Even at ISO 3200, it's not as noisy as many of your great film shots in
the dark are grainy. :-)
I'm still not sure why you care about the banding, as it can apparently only be seen when the deep shadows are raised up
to very unnatural levels.
I need to get off this list madness and get ready to leave on a little trip tomorrow, or I would do some illustrations.
Maybe later.
Travelin' 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/
|