From: John McWilliams on
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

> Your camera's metering will see the snow bank as middle
> gray with the black dog grossly underexposed and noisy.
> It will see the coal bin as middle gray, and the cat
> will be overexposed with clipped highlights.

Sure, if you use any one of a number of averaging schema. Many would
choose spot metering, or simply adjust manually.

--
john mcwilliams
From: Floyd L. Davidson on
John McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>
>> Your camera's metering will see the snow bank as middle
>> gray with the black dog grossly underexposed and noisy.
>> It will see the coal bin as middle gray, and the cat
>> will be overexposed with clipped highlights.
>
>Sure, if you use any one of a number of averaging schema. Many would
>choose spot metering, or simply adjust manually.

And what is that??? ETTR... (Probably by another name,
but the same thing.)

BTW, if you shoot a black dog sitting on a snow bank,
and meter with a spot meter... what you get is either
the coal bin result (from metering on the black dog, and
over exposing the snow) or the snow bank effect (from
metering on the snow and under exposing the dog).

The whole point that whether you use the histogram or in
some other way do it by hook and by crook, you *must*
"simply adjust manually", which is what the OP was
saying could be avoided.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd(a)apaflo.com
From: nospam on
In article <87bpkbguhl.fld(a)apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson
<floyd(a)apaflo.com> wrote:

> BTW, if you shoot a black dog sitting on a snow bank,
> and meter with a spot meter... what you get is either
> the coal bin result (from metering on the black dog, and
> over exposing the snow) or the snow bank effect (from
> metering on the snow and under exposing the dog).

only if you don't know how to use a spot meter correctly.
From: The The Clueless on
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 02:27:39 -0400, John A. <john(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote:

>On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 08:13:42 -0500, To The Clueless
><ttc(a)cluesforclueless.org> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 15:53:32 +0800, "Wilba" <usenet(a)CUTTHISimago.com.au>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>DPreview's tests of the 450D show around 1 to 1.5 steps between the JPEG and
>>>raw curves on the highlight side
>>>(http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos450d/page21.asp - "RAW headroom"
>>>section). Combine that with the typical -1/3 to -2/3 exposure compensation
>>>required to get a good ETTR histogram with that camera, and you have
>>>something in the region of two steps headroom, similar to my experience.
>>>They said they got "perfectly usable results" even with -3 or -4
>>>compensation in PP, but I can't vouch for that.
>>
>>Proving yet again that DSLRs can't get it done properly in the camera to
>>begin with. If your RAW editing can easily outdo the JPG that the camera
>>creates from that RAW data, then there's something seriously wrong with
>>your camera, or more likely, there's something seriously wrong with you.
>>
>>I use P&S cameras that also provide 12-bit RAW data. Except for a
>>fractional margin of more detail from the RAW data (useful only at very
>>rare times), nearly the exact same dynamic range is contained in the RAW
>>data as is presented in the camera's native JPG file. If your camera can't
>>also provide that then there's something seriously wrong with your whole
>>photography paradigm.
>
>Says more about the RAW quality in a P&S. Specifically it says their
>designers never intended for them to produce better than jpeg quality
>output, so only included sensors minimally more than good enough for
>that.

If that's how you're going to justify that your camera can't recreate in
the JPG file the same dynamic range as is captured by the RAW data, but
that you CAN if you do it later on your computer, you've got some serious
mental issues to contend with. Your chosen camera is fucked up. Plain and
simple.

From: John McWilliams on
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> John McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>> Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>
>>> Your camera's metering will see the snow bank as middle
>>> gray with the black dog grossly underexposed and noisy.
>>> It will see the coal bin as middle gray, and the cat
>>> will be overexposed with clipped highlights.
>> Sure, if you use any one of a number of averaging schema. Many would
>> choose spot metering, or simply adjust manually.
>
> And what is that??? ETTR... (Probably by another name,
> but the same thing.)

No, it's not EttR; it's correct exposure for the scene.

> BTW, if you shoot a black dog sitting on a snow bank,
> and meter with a spot meter... what you get is either
> the coal bin result (from metering on the black dog, and
> over exposing the snow) or the snow bank effect (from
> metering on the snow and under exposing the dog).

No, that's not what I'd get.

> The whole point that whether you use the histogram or in
> some other way do it by hook and by crook, you *must*
> "simply adjust manually", which is what the OP was
> saying could be avoided.

Histograms are of little use with exposures of subjects with extremes in
contrast or very high or very low lighting conditions, sunsets being
their own special case.

--
john mcwilliams