Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/03/03

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] IMG: Casual Portrait...now RAW
From: leowesson at gmail.com (leo wesson)
Date: Mon Mar 3 08:57:27 2008
References: <20080302223928.63377D7B@resin15.mta.everyone.net> <290D28E6-3A1C-4862-A13D-C4A8200DE35C@bigpond.net.au> <3cad89990803030211q3b1d96e9n2cd7c3973a7d2b91@mail.gmail.com> <BB95CA64-2518-4B81-98F3-AEB002A29EAC@cox.net> <3cad89990803030714i3f7723c6i1b7d25e77407f65d@mail.gmail.com> <435A5CFF-7C94-43E7-A599-3F73206CF221@cox.net> <3e7573d40803030841g31dc45b3r1635d55ac8399d7a@mail.gmail.com> <5C40FAD6-B247-4290-8636-E762F75306B1@cox.net>

Steve,

Yes, the histogram has a 0 and a 255, that's what's important and that's
what is affected by exposure. I'm not sure that there is a "right" in
digital.  Except for shooting raw, that's always right.  I will often
process my raw at different settings and combine them for extended details.
There are a lot of wrongs however...


Leo Wesson
Photographer/Videographer
817.733.9157

On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Steve Barbour <kididdoc@cox.net> wrote:

>
> On Mar 3, 2008, at 9:41 AM, leo wesson wrote:
>
> > Steve,
> >
> > In my experience, a digital neg has more latitude than a conventional
> > negative.  Plus 1, minus 1 stop, all well within the raw latitude.
>
> thanks Leo... so if I understand, the RAW IS affected by the light
> settings, it's just that there is sufficient latitude so that
> corrections can be successfully applied later...
>
>
> if it's not "right",
>
>
> as we do with film negatives...
>
>
> is this correct?
>
> Steve
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Leo Wesson
> > Photographer/Videographer
> > 817.733.9157
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Steve Barbour <kididdoc@cox.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Mar 3, 2008, at 8:14 AM, Jayanand Govindaraj wrote:
> >>
> >>> As far as I know, it is.
> >>
> >>
> >> I am somehow having trouble with this Jayanand...
> >>
> >>
> >> as this says that camera settings affecting the amount of light
> >> hitting the sensor, do not change the "negative"...
> >>
> >>
> >> but we all know that a true film negative is altered by these
> >> setttings.
> >>
> >>
> >> Since RAW is the digital negative, why is that not also affected ?
> >>
> >> Anyone ?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Steve
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Leica Users Group.
> > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
> best, Steve Barbour
> "I never wanted to be famous" out soon.
> kididdoc@cox.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>



-- 
Leo Wesson
Photographer/Videographer
817.733.9157

Replies: Reply from kididdoc at cox.net (Steve Barbour) ([Leica] IMG: Casual Portrait...now RAW)
In reply to: Message from afirkin at afirkin.com (afirkin@afirkin.com) ([Leica] IMG: Casual Portrait with Summilux 50 asph)
Message from hoppyman at bigpond.net.au (Geoff Hopkinson) ([Leica] IMG: Casual Portrait with Summilux 50 asph)
Message from jayanand at gmail.com (Jayanand Govindaraj) ([Leica] IMG: Casual Portrait with Summilux 50 asph)
Message from kididdoc at cox.net (Steve Barbour) ([Leica] IMG: Casual Portrait with Summilux 50 asph)
Message from jayanand at gmail.com (Jayanand Govindaraj) ([Leica] IMG: Casual Portrait with Summilux 50 asph)
Message from kididdoc at cox.net (Steve Barbour) ([Leica] IMG: Casual Portrait...now RAW)
Message from leowesson at gmail.com (leo wesson) ([Leica] IMG: Casual Portrait...now RAW)
Message from kididdoc at cox.net (Steve Barbour) ([Leica] IMG: Casual Portrait...now RAW)