On 24/09/2015 17:31, NY wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 23/09/2015 13:41, NY wrote:
8

But set against that is the fact that if you *are* willing to learn from
your mistakes, the fact that all your photos are free means that you can
experiment, and you can see instantly which is the right exposure in a
situation where an automatic meter would be fooled. Admittedly, because
the exposure latitude of digital is less (it is very easy to overexpose
and irrecoverably burn out details in the highlights) you *need* to get
the exposure more correct,

Are you shooting in RAW?
I ask because modern digital sensors have a higher dynamic range than
most films available. The range is chopped off to make the JPEGs and
you may then lose shadow or highlight detail. Its where the HDR images
come from, compressing the middle of the range rather than the ends.
If it is consistently over exposed then there is probably a metering
fault.

My compact camera doesn't have the option of shooting in RAW.

I bought one that did and they are difficult to find.

My SLR
does and I have set it to take both JPG and RAW for every photo. I still
underexpose by 1/3 stop on both cameras for the benefit of the JPG, but
I don't think it affects the RAW (I could be wrong on that).

It should affect both but 1/3 of a stop isn't really much unless you are
on the limit.

Occasionally I've had to go back to the RAW and have been amazed at the
amount of extra shadow and highlight detail I've been able to retrieve.

The RAW image usually contains 3-5 stops worth of extra image data.
The JPEG is limited to 8 bits per colour while the RAW is 12+ bits
depending on the sensor.

I also, when I am not in a hurry, try to look at the histogram and make
sure that only a small proportion of pixels are peak white or jet black
because these will be clipped. And I set the display to show brightly
coloured pixels (the equivalent of zebra stripes on a TV camera's
viewfinder) to show up any peak white pixels to help with exposure.
Sadly because the SLR only has an optical viewfinder, this aid is only
visible when reviewing photos that have already been taken, but for
anything critical I check and retake if necessary.

In the days of film, I was gobsmacked by how much extra detail could be
retrieved by scanning a negative than was visible in the print,
especially when printed in a cheap lab which uses auto settings, rather
than when things are hand-printed (which costs the earth).

Prints are awful quality, the best white you can get is about 95%
reflection and the best black is about 5% reflection so the dynamic
range is far less than the range of transmitted light through a slide or
negative and digital has even more dynamic range.