Re: Re[2]: Santa Pics
The more contrtasty ones look best on my screen. I'm not sure which were subjected to auto levels. However all of them would print just fine with a tweak in PS. Paul On Dec 18, 2003, at 8:59 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote: Are you saying that the ones that look alright are the unmanipulated ones or the ones that had auto levels done? I didn't change stops at all. One thought is that the Gossen meter is reading reading slightly off. My question still stands: Is it better to slightly underexpose on the DSLR? -- Best regards, Bruce Thursday, December 18, 2003, 4:26:42 PM, you wrote: PS Many are very nice, but some appear to be underexposed. Did you give PS your flash time to recycle? Did you change stops? PS Paul PS On Dec 18, 2003, at 6:40 PM, Tanya Mayer Photography wrote:
Re: Re[2]: Santa Pics
I think with the Pentax software you can only batch process the same changes to a group of RAW images. That's the way I've done it anyway. Christian - Original Message - From: tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 12:57 PM Subject: RE: Re[2]: Santa Pics Just out of curiousity...how hard is it to batch correct a group of raw files with the Pentax software? Bruce, many of my flash photos are slightly underexposed as well, but it's very easy to correct when batch converting. With the Canon software you click on a folder and it displays all the raw files in that folder as thumbnails. You can see which ones need a little exposure compensation and you can change it *before* you convert. I think this is an important distinction and is one reason I don't use BB exclusively. With BB, you need to convert each file that has changes, or convert a group that has the same changes. You can't say, convert a group of files that have various exposure compensations. I guess the question is - can you apply various exposure/wb settings to files before conversion? If you change settings for one file do you have convert it before you move on to the next file or will it remember your settings when you convert the whole folder? Am I making sense here? tv -Original Message- From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 8:59 PM To: Paul Stenquist Subject: Re[2]: Santa Pics Are you saying that the ones that look alright are the unmanipulated ones or the ones that had auto levels done? I didn't change stops at all. One thought is that the Gossen meter is reading reading slightly off. My question still stands: Is it better to slightly underexpose on the DSLR? -- Best regards, Bruce Thursday, December 18, 2003, 4:26:42 PM, you wrote: PS Many are very nice, but some appear to be underexposed. Did you give PS your flash time to recycle? Did you change stops? PS Paul PS On Dec 18, 2003, at 6:40 PM, Tanya Mayer Photography wrote:
Re: Re[2]: Santa Pics
On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 12:05:37PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My question still stands: Is it better to slightly underexpose on the DSLR? -- Best regards, Bruce I think so Bruce.You have a better chance to fixup an underexposed than over,or so i've been told by those in the know. A dissenting voice: http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l
RE: Re[2]: Santa Pics
-Original Message- From: Pieter Nagel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 12:05:37PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My question still stands: Is it better to slightly underexpose on the DSLR? -- Best regards, Bruce I think so Bruce.You have a better chance to fixup an underexposed than over,or so i've been told by those in the know. A dissenting voice: http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml I don't know that I'd call that a dissent, it's a discussion of what a perfect exposure would be. I think an assumption of our discussion has been that we'd *prefer* a perfect exposure, but if we have to err, err on the side of insert your opinion here. tv
RE: Re[2]: Santa Pics
Yes it is best to slightly underexpose on the DSLR. Keeps the threat of blown out (over-exposed) highlights down. Blown out highlights translate to no ink on paper, completely lacking in detail. Under-exposure can usually be made to print normally with a little correction. Len * There's no place like 127.0.0.1 -Original Message- From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 7:59 PM To: Paul Stenquist Subject: Re[2]: Santa Pics Are you saying that the ones that look alright are the unmanipulated ones or the ones that had auto levels done? I didn't change stops at all. One thought is that the Gossen meter is reading reading slightly off. My question still stands: Is it better to slightly underexpose on the DSLR? -- Best regards, Bruce Thursday, December 18, 2003, 4:26:42 PM, you wrote: PS Many are very nice, but some appear to be underexposed. Did you give PS your flash time to recycle? Did you change stops? PS Paul PS On Dec 18, 2003, at 6:40 PM, Tanya Mayer Photography wrote:
RE: Re[2]: Santa Pics
According to Epson, and the pros that run their Print Academy, if you shoot in RAW, you can squeeze out an 11 stop range. I'm trying but it does take some work to get that good. By the way, they get those results using Photoshop 7 and the Epson 2200. Len * There's no place like 127.0.0.1 -Original Message- From: Bob Rapp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 9:18 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Re[2]: Santa Pics What is the latitude with digital? Bob -Original Message- From: tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] He was shooting digital. Generally it's better to underexpose if you're not sure you can nail
Re: Re[2]: Santa Pics
you don't understand the assertion nor the article. they are saying the same thing. don't overexpose in digital. Herb - Original Message - From: Pieter Nagel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 2:34 PM Subject: Re: Re[2]: Santa Pics A dissenting voice: http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml
Re: Re[2]: Santa Pics
on 12/19/03 2:59 AM, Bruce Dayton at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My question still stands: Is it better to slightly underexpose on the DSLR? Well, according to what I read on Luminous Landscape (dot-com) you want to expose to the right of the histogram, or to greater exposure side, but without over-exposing. This is because more detail is recorded on the higher end than on the lower end. Of course, don't take my word for it... Here is the article: http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml -- Jon Glass Krakow, Poland [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sometimes the majority only means that all the fools are on the same side.
Re[2]: Santa Pics
Kids? I didn't see any kids! Where were they? vbg Bruce Thursday, December 18, 2003, 3:42:06 PM, you wrote: TMP Bruce, I just looked at that site - are ALL of those kids in your FAMILY?!?! TMP OMG, the Daytons are a very busy mob aren't they?!?! TMP tan.
Re[2]: Santa Pics
Are you saying that the ones that look alright are the unmanipulated ones or the ones that had auto levels done? I didn't change stops at all. One thought is that the Gossen meter is reading reading slightly off. My question still stands: Is it better to slightly underexpose on the DSLR? -- Best regards, Bruce Thursday, December 18, 2003, 4:26:42 PM, you wrote: PS Many are very nice, but some appear to be underexposed. Did you give PS your flash time to recycle? Did you change stops? PS Paul PS On Dec 18, 2003, at 6:40 PM, Tanya Mayer Photography wrote:
Re: Re[2]: Santa Pics
My very unscientific opinion so far is that it's best to overexpose rather than underexpose. Bill - Original Message - From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 8:59 PM Subject: Re[2]: Santa Pics Are you saying that the ones that look alright are the unmanipulated ones or the ones that had auto levels done? I didn't change stops at all. One thought is that the Gossen meter is reading reading slightly off. My question still stands: Is it better to slightly underexpose on the DSLR? -- Best regards, Bruce Thursday, December 18, 2003, 4:26:42 PM, you wrote: PS Many are very nice, but some appear to be underexposed. Did you give PS your flash time to recycle? Did you change stops? PS Paul PS On Dec 18, 2003, at 6:40 PM, Tanya Mayer Photography wrote:
Re: Re[2]: Santa Pics
I generally over expose on purpose - I prefer the effect, and it is almost always salvagable if something goes too wrong, but under is a whole other story... Bill said: My very unscientific opinion so far is that it's best to overexpose rather than underexpose. tan.
Re: Re[2]: Santa Pics
for print film, you have err on the side of overexposure. Herb - Original Message - From: Tanya Mayer Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 9:39 PM Subject: Re: Re[2]: Santa Pics I generally over expose on purpose - I prefer the effect, and it is almost always salvagable if something goes too wrong, but under is a whole other story...
RE: Re[2]: Santa Pics
-Original Message- From: Tanya Mayer Photography [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I generally over expose on purpose - I prefer the effect, and it is almost always salvagable if something goes too wrong, but under is a whole other story... He was shooting digital. Generally it's better to underexpose if you're not sure you can nail it. Overexposure burns out highlights, underexposure is fairly easily salvaged. tv
RE: Re[2]: Santa Pics
What is the latitude with digital? Bob -Original Message- From: tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] He was shooting digital. Generally it's better to underexpose if you're not sure you can nail
Re: Re[2]: Santa Pics
a bit less than color print film with normal sensors. Herb - Original Message - From: Bob Rapp [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 10:17 PM Subject: RE: Re[2]: Santa Pics What is the latitude with digital?
