Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/09/20
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]George, it's impossible to disagree with your opening line - obviously, whatever methods Doug's using he's getting great stuff. The question is - could it be even better? And I don't think anyone is suggesting blowing the highlights - the holy grail in digital exposure is to have that histogram right up to, but not over the edge, of the right side - and I'm perfectly free to admit it's a grail about as difficult to get to consistently as was the grail in the Indiana Jones movie.;-) B. D. On 9/20/06 10:11 AM, "Lottermoser George" <imagist3@mac.com> wrote: > And this is the bottom line, isn't it, your working methods give you > the results you seek. > > As far as dynamic range, loss of information, etc. All this can be > easily tested for those with an inclination to spend their time in > that way. And it's far easier and cheaper to test with digital than > with film. Set up a white card with strong texture. Fill the frame > with it. Make a series of exposures from burning it out to dead > black. There's your range of stops - right? When out in the field - > if that range is exceeded by conditions you've got to choose to > either loose highlights or shadows beyond the range. In the case of > digital I'll save the highlights every time - because I always find > stuff in the shadows I wouldn't have expected (ok almost always). > > Regards, > George Lottermoser > george@imagist.com > > > > On Sep 19, 2006, at 8:19 PM, Douglas Herr wrote: > >> In my experience with the DMR, setting exposure comp to -.5 or -1 >> sacrifices very little deep shadow detail if any. > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information