Wabbit Loc: Arizona Desert

Hey Doc ..... it's even harder to bare right without blowing out highlights which are not recoverable .....

..... any highlights that could possibly benefit in any way are only useful using Raw which require considerable time in post processing .....

..... And can only be seen when zoomed in 100% which only pixel peepers do .....

..... Don't take my word for it, try it yourself, then you'll realize why it's called Raw ..... I like my meat cooked Doc .....

..... no one can see any difference with the naked eye which makes baring right Wrong doc ..... Why increase the odds of blowing out ya pic when ya don't gain anything .....

f4frank

For those who say underexpose you'd be correct, if your still shooting film.
For those who've moved to digital, over expose, but not to the point of clipping any highlights.
Please, take a moment and go to the web and type in ETTR.
Then take a few minutes and examine the images that are displayed which shows more noise in the dark areas when you underexpose an image using digital.
But then again it really doesn't matter if you keep your images in jpg or you make them 4x6, 5x7 or even 8x10. If however you want to take your underexposed images to 16x20 or 20x24, then take a look at the noise and the difference in the tonal range in the dark areas as compared to an image over exposed but not to the point of clipping highlights. AMAZING DIFFERENCE.

Wabbit Loc: Arizona Desert

Hey Doc ..... ya full of poppycock ..... you couldn't tell the difference even if ya had a loupe .....

Singinman Loc: Newport News, VA

I've read a lot of photo books. One, I do not remember which, that I have verified in my own experience said shoot RAW because, in RAW, blown highlights can often be recovered.

Color is governed by 3 data channels. JPEG compressed the data so that blown highlights remain blown. RAW data is not. Therefore, your RAW processor has all the data available for manipulation. If the data for two of the three channels is correct (not overblown) the processing algorhythem uses the correct data in two channels to calculate the correct data for the third channel. With Elements just move the recovery slider until blobs become details. It works most of the time. In light room just hit auto and adjust exposure if needed.

Just remember, in RAW (98%) of every picture will need some post processing. I shoot RAW because I have a Pentax. My first Pentax, did not have default JPEG settings to my liking. So, I tried to find my own settings. I discovered a phenomenon called brilliance. Every pixel was its own little sun. I found I could fix brilliance with about an hours effort on each picture. My conclusion was that I was too ignorant to shoot JPEG. I'll take my meat RAW and on those occasions when highlights are blown, I'll control them in post processing.

f4frank

Wabbit;

Cute rabbit, sad that you aren't capable of carrying on an adult conversation without throughing insults.

Wabbit Loc: Arizona Desert

Hey Doc ..... then ya gonna love this frank .....

Nightski

Wabbit, you wascal! You're getting yourself in deeper here. :roll:

BJS Loc: Co

I agree with Nightski. I myself just purchased last week the book Byron Peterson's understanding exposure and also understanding flash. Both are very good books.

Nightski

Ahh...understanding flash. There's my next book. :)

f4frank

Hey moron !

How about we get together in the desert and play a real game, I'm only about 2.5 hours west.
Oh Ya! your probably don't know west from east, after all that desert heat there's nothing left except dust.

I'm sure everyone loves a coward who has to hid behind cartoons.

Looking forward to seeing more of your stupidity.

Wabbit Loc: Arizona Desert

Hey Doc ..... wouldn't wanna disappoint ya now Francis so pucker up there doc .....

Nightski

http://www.rags-int-inc.com/PhotoTechStuff/ETTR/ Frank, is this the article you are referring to? It's pretty deep for me, that's all I can say.

Wabbit Loc: Arizona Desert

Hey Doc ..... the title of the article is "The ETTR Myth" ..... hum, I wonder why ..... ehheh, no I don't doc

Nightski

:thumbup: