From: David J Taylor on

"Wilba" <usenet(a)CUTTHISimago.com.au> wrote in message
news:006292a2$0$26912$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com...
> Worth a look for a discussion of 13 images and their histograms -
> http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/exposure_and_histogram.htm

Thanks for that pointer. I agree with most of their comments, with the
possible exception of:

http://www.juzaphoto.com/shared_files/articles/exposure_and_histogram/exp-2.jpg

which I would not describe as "a completely overexposed photo" - depending
on what was in the sky area. Perhaps there's some blue sky there, but it
looks more like white cloud to me. It would have been useful to show it a
stop less exposed, but with the gamma increased to restore the grass and
trees.

Just looking at most of these pictures is enough to tell the experienced
photographer whether or not they are correctly exposed - there's no need
to view the histogram to confirm what your eyes tell you.

Cheers,
David

From: Wilba on
David J Taylor wrote:
> Wilba wrote:
>>
>> Worth a look for a discussion of 13 images and their histograms -
>> http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/exposure_and_histogram.htm
>
> Thanks for that pointer. I agree with most of their comments, with the
> possible exception of:
>
>
> http://www.juzaphoto.com/shared_files/articles/exposure_and_histogram/exp-2.jpg
>
> which I would not describe as "a completely overexposed photo" -
> depending on what was in the sky area.

English is a second language for the author of that page, so it's possible
that the words come out subtly different to what he intended.

> Just looking at most of these pictures is enough to tell the experienced
> photographer whether or not they are correctly exposed - there's no
> need to view the histogram to confirm what your eyes tell you.

Yeah - if you can view them under good conditions.


From: Paul Furman on
foaming at the mouth troll wrote:
>
> I've come to the conclusion, that not one of you have ever used a camera
> with any decent live preview in it (as is available in all P&S cameras). Or
> that you've just never used any cameras at all.

Yes, that's a nice feature. I'm not sure I'd trade for all the other
compromises but it's a nice feature.


> JPG files from the camera that can't reflect the camera's RAW dynamic
> range.
>
> Live previews that you can't see the colors and tonal ranges before you
> press the shutter.
>
> Nope. Not one of you have ever touched a real camera. You're all just
> useless trolls mentally masturbating each other with your envisioned mental
> problems.
>
> .
>


--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam
From: Wilba on
Paul Furman wrote:
> foaming at the mouth troll wrote:
>>
>> I've come to the conclusion, that not one of you have ever used a camera
>> with any decent live preview in it (as is available in all P&S cameras).
>> Or
>> that you've just never used any cameras at all.
>
> Yes, that's a nice feature. I'm not sure I'd trade for all the other
> compromises but it's a nice feature.

You don't have to trade - it's widely available now in DSLRs, e.g. the last
three models of Canon's Rebels.


From: David J Taylor on

"Wilba" <usenet(a)CUTTHISimago.com.au> wrote in message
news:02ea3854$0$1354$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com...
> David J Taylor wrote:
>> Wilba wrote:
>>>
>>> Worth a look for a discussion of 13 images and their histograms -
>>> http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/exposure_and_histogram.htm
>>
>> Thanks for that pointer. I agree with most of their comments, with the
>> possible exception of:
>>
>>
>> http://www.juzaphoto.com/shared_files/articles/exposure_and_histogram/exp-2.jpg
>>
>> which I would not describe as "a completely overexposed photo" -
>> depending on what was in the sky area.
>
> English is a second language for the author of that page, so it's
> possible that the words come out subtly different to what he intended.

Agreed.

>> Just looking at most of these pictures is enough to tell the
>> experienced photographer whether or not they are correctly exposed -
>> there's no
>> need to view the histogram to confirm what your eyes tell you.
>
> Yeah - if you can view them under good conditions.

... otherwise it's just the composition you can check. If in doubt, the
histogram provides valuable extra information.

David