On 25/09/15 11:44, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 24 September 2015 20:36:15 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
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.

So what is the advantage of RAW, and what is the equivalent in film.
Of course I have a pretty good idea as I know a bit about photography and taking snap shots.

RAW is equivalent to having a negative. i.e. (in principle) a record of
the light level falling on each pixel of the sensor. JPEG is lossy
compression you cannot recover the lost detail.



--
DJC
(–€Ì¿Ä¹Ì¯–€Ì¿ Ì¿)