autofocus wrote:
the clouds are what they are, and unfortunately they did not have much coloration or details in them to start with..so, a transplant would certainly help. And, sorry, I can't agree that over exposures are easier to fix than underexposures. If data is lost, aka blown out by over exposures, there is no recovering from that scenario, 255 is lost data, totally gone. If you are metering off a dark area, or a dark subject, and go by that meter reading and shoot, you will assuredly overexpose some parts of the image. Blown skies are one thing, but blown faces is when it really becomes a problem. Picture the following, you're shooting a wedding and it's time to shoot the grooms men, all in black tuxedos and leaning against a black limousine. If you set your camera's exposure off the meter, or shoot it in some auto mode, you will wind up with gray tuxedos, a gray limo, and blown out faces. The solution in that kind of situation is to manually underexpose the shot. BTW, it's just the opposite for very bright, or predominantly white subject matter. In that case you would want to overexpose the shot...it's all about reading the light and being smarter than the meter.
the clouds are what they are, and unfortunately th... (
show quote)
You are correct..... When I say ettr, I should say, in cases like this, landscapes ...but not point of blowing out anything. That would be worthless....
I may get a chance to take photos at a local Luxery car dealer with models next week. That will, I'm sure, have models in white dress and white car, or black dress and black car..... This and weddings, as you say are different than landscapes, which is what I shoot mostly.
Thanks again for the feed back and suggestions. It's just that I've not seen skies like mine before, they look so fake, like water color.....I didn't notice it when I took the photo 20-25 years ago...... But never look at my photos at 100% back then... Makes a big difference when you do.