CJ - Why are you entertaining this moron? He doesn't have anything positive to say about anything/anybody. He doesn't have any idea of what photography is all about. Tom Baker C J Morgan <cjmorgan@...> wrote: Anthony G. Atkielski wrote: > The EXIF data for virtually every photo shows deliberate underexposure > of up to 2 stops. Okay, I see what you're saying. Quite normally, I tend to underexpose 1/3 stop from whatever the ISO marker is. Digital shooting, in that regard, much more reminds me of what it was like to work with transparency film than when I used negative film (when I use to shoot neg film, for example, quite normal that I use to over-expose by 2/3 f/stop). Beyond that, there were times where I was shooting on this trip where I didn't altogether trust what my lightmeter was telling me (lightmeters can read light, but they can't interpret what they read). And so in those moments if there seemed to me a discrepency between what the lightmeter said and what the scene was showing me (perhaps reflecting more light than the "average" scene), then I'd perhaps bracket my exposures, and decide later on which final image seemed the most workable. And so yeah, sometimes it was just the case that the image I most found workable was the one which was 1 or 2 f/stops underexposed relative to what the lightmeter suggested was the exposure to shoot at. ************ > Most photos have been retouched to lighten or darken > certain areas as well. Oh yes, absolutely. Mother nature's lighting does not always co-operate exactly the way I want her to. So not altogether unusual that I will do some burning or dodging in different areas of my image so that I get something which I am personally more pleased with. And that part of it grew out of my decades of working in a physical darkroom (spending more hours and even years in the dark than I'd care to admit), and so that part of my image making just carried on when I left the physical darkroom for the digital darkroom (which at least allows me to sit in front of my computer screen rather than sending seemingly endless hours standing in the dark hunched over chemical trays). So hopefully that better answers the earlier question. But the earlier answer also still stand as to why they are the way they are -- my holiday... so I got to make the images the way I wanted. And that's the way I make my images today. CJ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page. Please follow these basic guidelines: - Include your full name with your message. - Include the address of your website, if you have one. - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short. - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header. - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames - Complete your Yahoo profile. - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Message
Re: [Digital BW] too many digi-shots? Re: B&W vs. Color
2003-11-30 by Tom Baker
Attachments
- No local attachments were found for this message.