|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/03/2005 10:34:01 AM · #1 |
Ok, I think I know these answers, but just want to make sure that I am jiveing.
1) I know that at work, DP's would rather be over exposed than under exposed on FILM because later at the lab, a technition can work around the over exposure to make it look better.
In the DIGITAL world does this hold true? or is there going to be alot of noise when adjusting your levels in post?
2) On my Canon, when in AV mode, I have been metering the grass for a neutral area for AF. I read somewhere where grass is around the 18% area of the grayscale.
Just recently....yesterday actually...
The question is this, I have been bumping my f stop @ a 1/2 hotter during AV mode, and on relly overcast days been going to 800 iso, and 1600 iso without any grain. How is this possible? Am I having an flashback from the '70s? Has my Canon been visited by noise fairies?
Thanks in advance for any responce.
|
|
|
|
06/03/2005 10:41:02 AM · #2 |
1) No! Quite the opposite...in digital, you need to expose for the highlights because blowouts are the major problem in digital. It's the shadow areas that can be rescued...perhaps because digital is a positive medium, rather than negative.
2) I don't know. I've heard of caucasian people using their hand...not sure if this works for all skintypes or not...
|
|
|
|
06/03/2005 10:51:27 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
1) No! Quite the opposite...in digital, you need to expose for the highlights because blowouts are the major problem in digital. It's the shadow areas that can be rescued...perhaps because digital is a positive medium, rather than negative.
2) I don't know. I've heard of caucasian people using their hand...not sure if this works for all skintypes or not... |
Question 1) ok, if the pix is too dark how can I rescue it? I noticed alot of noise doing levels, and the only option I have is to put that pix into my Noise Ninja to take out the noise and it looks OK, but not very natural.
Q2) I didn't do skin tones like I was normally before yesterday. Actually going off the grass, this pix are truely amazing as far as my histogram was concerned.
|
|
|
|
06/03/2005 11:05:49 AM · #4 |
There's a mild confusion running here, between "absolute" exposure and "relative" exposure. Let me explain:
It is true that, in absolute terms, it is better not to overexpose the highlights in ANY positive medium, most especially including digital.
However, when most people talk about "overexposing" they are referring to relative exposure; i.e. the exposure indicated by the camera. And if you meter an area that is a highlight and give the indicated exposure, then it is UNDERexposing the highlights by 2-3 stops. Therefore, in relative terms it's correct to say one needs to "overexpose" but in absolute terms this is not so.
In other words, to be perfectly clear, if you meter a predominately bright scene with a digital camera in averaging mode, you will have to ADD a stop or two of exposure to get the "correct" rendition of the scene, and many people call this "overexposing" although technically it is "adding exposure" to reach the correct level.
To answer Johnson's other question, grass is a decent approximation of a neutral zone 5. So is your hand in open shade, but it's less convenient to meter.
Robt.
Message edited by author 2005-06-03 11:06:47.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/18/2025 03:07:19 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/18/2025 03:07:19 AM EDT.
|
