Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For what its worth, I disagree with this. If you read the article, you will notice that all this does is, in effect, is lower ISO. Well, if you are selling your picture to National Geographic by all means expose right, tweak to the left. But for us normal Joe's... blowing out a photo does not make sense. Read what the article says... 'right' is not always correct. More "info" does not make a better picture. Moderator cut: personal remarks kdog, not everyone is selling their shots. Most are not worried beyond 72 pdi. Exposing right may fit a few... but not the many. For those who want a great 8x10 to share with the family... better to go left than right in RAW.
Moderator cut: personal remarks
You contradicted yourself. On one hand you say that the technique isn't necessary unless you're selling pictures to National Geographic (and what's wrong with that?) On the other hand, you claim it doesn't produce good results. So which is it? If you read what I wrote, I said when in doubt, expose to the right. I certainly never stated that it's for all situations. Moderator cut: personal remarks
Last edited by Alpha8207; 09-22-2008 at 08:39 AM..
Reason: BTW
That's where the histogram comes in. It's hard to go wrong when you see that the histogram is correct and agrees with what you see in the LCD.
On the other hand, I agree that bracketing your shots is ALWAYS good advice when the shot is important. You can't go wrong there, except for filling up your CF cards faster. I still do it myself when I'm in too much of a rush to review my shots.
There are many new and different features, while the historgram is a useful tool, I'm trying not to rely on it from the cam's POV vs. how the picture opens in my photostudio. It's the same for IS, I never had it before, so it's easier for me to keep that setting turned off.
There are many new and different features, while the historgram is a useful tool, I'm trying not to rely on it from the cam's POV vs. how the picture opens in my photostudio. It's the same for IS, I never had it before, so it's easier for me to keep that setting turned off.
Great. Like I said previously, do whatever works best for you.
Moderator cut: orphaned-the exchange you are referencing has been removed
I read the article real quickly. I think (I think I can think) the article specifically mentions that the shot is taken in RAW. There was a section on the link that mentioned the difference in the histogram with the concentration on the right and it being weighted in the center. The article says, take a shot with as much of the histogram on the right WITHOUT blowing your highlights or having your red warning light blink. With the RAW editor, it mentions that it is easier to strike the balance between signal and noise (S/N ratio) using your gamma adjustments and levels (I use levels a lot), normalize the shot before thowing it into Photoshop. It also said that if it does not make a difference to the particular shot, then that's good. In some shots, it may make a difference.
I'm actually going to try it to see what it means. Unfortunately, I can't post a RAW file. Maybe I'll convert both to JPEG's and see if the difference is noticeable.
Last edited by Alpha8207; 09-22-2008 at 08:39 AM..
First shot with the new Canon. I have yet to install any hardware. I had to buy a card reader. Taken on full auto(hasn't read the manual yet) at 8:15pm, getting a little dark. I'll read the manual tonight/tomorrow at work. I couldn't wait so I took the camera out after the battery charged.
There is so much to learn on this! Can't wait to fiddle with the manual settings.
Great shot.
Hope you can get a lot of constructive advice from your fellow posters here.
I've always been told that underexposing your shot is much better then overexposing. I tend to agree.
It's not a question of overexposing versus underexposing, both of which are bad. The purpose of shooting to the right is to allow you some latitude to adjust the exposure perfectly after you've taken the shot. The reference I posted does a very good job of explaining the technique
I'll cut in to make a lens suggestion if you don't mind.
If you get into macro (close up) or portrait photography, the Canon EF-S 60mm macro lens is an excellent lens to own.
It works on the 20D through 50D models as well as the Rebels (not full frame models such as the 5D or 5DMII, though). It's an incredibly sharp and well made lens for the price (around $400). Some of the stock photo work I do is done with this particular lens, and I don't think I've ever had an image rejected that I took with it.
Pic I took today with it quickly just goofing off with some Autumn flowers...
You can get it at Wolf/Ritz, though they probably charge more than B&H does. LINK.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) the article specifically mentions that the shot is taken in RAW. There was a section on the link that mentioned the difference in the histogram with the concentration on the right and it being weighted in the center. The article says, take a shot with as much of the histogram on the right WITHOUT blowing your highlights or having your red warning light blink. With the RAW editor, it mentions that it is easier to strike the balance between signal and noise (S/N ratio) using your gamma adjustments and levels (I use levels a lot), normalize the shot before thowing it into Photoshop. It also said that if it does not make a difference to the particular shot, then that's good. In some shots, it may make a difference.
