"Exposing to the right" is over exposed, what now?
in [Photoshop]
|
From: Porte Rouge on 10 Oct 2009 16:07 On Oct 10, 1:57 am, fl...(a)apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: > And how you can say "nothign to do with the increments > by which the camera's controls change the exposure" and > then describe camera controls changing the > exposure... is amusing. I think he meant the increments on the controls are arbitrary(1/3, 1/2, or 1 stop for each click on the dials.
From: Floyd L. Davidson on 10 Oct 2009 16:15 Porte Rouge <porterougeman(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Oct 10, 1:57�am, fl...(a)apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: > >> And how you can say "nothign to do with the increments >> by which the camera's controls change the exposure" and >> then describe camera controls changing the >> exposure... is amusing. > >I think he meant the increments on the controls are arbitrary(1/3, >1/2, or 1 stop for each click on the dials. But that does happen to be *exactly* where the term "stop" came from. -- Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd(a)apaflo.com
From: Porte Rouge on 10 Oct 2009 17:37 > >I think he meant the increments on the controls are arbitrary(1/3, > >1/2, or 1 stop for each click on the dials. > > But that does happen to be *exactly* where the term "stop" came > from. I'll let you and Alan figure out where "stop" came from. The amount of change in exposure per click on the dials on my DSLR is arbitrary, I choose how much I want.
From: Wilba on 10 Oct 2009 19:41 Porte Rouge wrote: > >>> I think he meant the increments on the controls are arbitrary(1/3, >>> 1/2, or 1 stop for each click on the dials. >> >> But that does happen to be *exactly* where the term "stop" came >> from. > > I'll let you and Alan figure out where "stop" came from. > > The amount of change in exposure per click on the dials on my DSLR > is arbitrary, I choose how much I want. Right. And those increments have nothing to do with what I was talking about - you get that, don't you? :- )
From: DRS on 11 Oct 2009 04:11
"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd(a)apaflo.com> wrote in message news:87d44vn1t3.fld(a)apaflo.com > sigh... <sigh(a)noaddress.com> wrote: [...] > Obviously there *is* a huge volume of information > available in a histogram; and very little of it has > anything at all to do with setting exposure. E.g., the > *contrast* information does *not* help set exposure. Nobody ever said it did. That straw man with you are obsessed has been exploded several times. The only thing setting contrast to minimum does (in this context) is expand the histogram so that it more accurately depicts the dynamic range in the Raw image so that the photographer can make a more informed decision about what if anything to *subsequently* do to the exposure. Everybody can see it except you and that is the only claim that has been made for it (except by you). |