Great post. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <pentax-discuss@pdml.net> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 1:58 PM Subject: RE: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
> No, accurate expose is that which captures the scene in the manner that > photographer wishes to portray it. If one captures the entire range of a > scene (assuming that it can be done, as some scenes, as you noted, are of a > contrast range that is outside the range of the film or the sensor that's > being used), the use of creative exposure, which may better be able to > express the story of the image, may be negated. Maybe you want to lose > shadow detail, or reduce highlights from bright to mid grey, or let 'em > blow out for a particular look. Exposure isn't just using matrix metering > to get all the information in a scene. Exposure is about using the camera > settings to enable the photographer to better tell his or her story. It's > a creative technique, just as good printing can be done creatively, or > manipulation in Photoshop or camera raw. > > And let's not forget scenes that are flat, and may need some extra contrast > to give them life. Here again we want our exposure to be creative, not > just what the meter tells us it should be. In such a situation not only > must the exposure be chosen carefully, but the choice of film or the method > of post processing by digital or chemical means must be considered as well. > > What makes this discussion even more interesting is the number of > participants who see the situation only through digital eyes and camera raw > and Photoshop adjustments. > > Shel > > > > [Original Message] > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <pentax-discuss@pdml.net> > > Date: 5/23/2005 8:47:53 AM > > Subject: RE: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > > > I don't think that's exactly what's being said -- "accurate" exposure > > /does/ matter, it's just that accurate exposure can be defined as > > "capturing the entire range of the scene". > > > > Suppose I've got a histogram with four segments and my exposure is > > entirely contained in the second segment (counting from the left). If > > I'd have kept all other things equal but increased my exposure time by a > > couple of stops or so and ended up with the scene entirely contained in > > the third segment, I'd have taken the same picture, only with a longer > > shutter speed -- either of those exposures could be "converted" to the > > other just by dragging the exposure slider in Photoshop on import of the > > pictures. One would likely be the "better" shot, though, due to having > > more or less motion blur, camera shake, whatever. Of course, this > > doesn't take into account non-linear response from the sensor, etc. or > > that many scenes have a range that exceeds the dynamic range of the > > sensor. > > > > That's my understanding, at least; someone please correct me if I'm > > wrong. > >
