Chuck wrote>
> Brian, you are only fooling yourself. You have clearly not examined the
> histograms of these images... which are nearly identically overexposed.
> The whites of the clouds are completely blown. There is no detail in
> them whatsoever. And it's not failure of the camera to cover the dynamic
> range. The entire histogram is shifted to the right which is also leaving
> the deeper shadow areas overexposed. You have dark grays, not blacks to
> go along with your blown highlights.
>
> 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'.
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.
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.
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. That way the detail there doesn't pull the
viewer's eyes and attention away from the main subject. Maybe it should
bother me, but at the moment it doesn't.
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/
|