![]() Worked great on my D750, but not at all on my M10, as there was no spot metering. On a different topic, our tool for highlights has been to spot meter to find them, then do 1.7 stops over-exposure, and take the image. Why does PL5 have a tool to display what I incorrectly used to thing of as “blown out” shadows? The most “blown out” shadow is something that is black, and why don’t I just ignore that tool completely? I used to “know” why I used it, but based on what I’ve learned since then, I don’t see how it’s helping me. I guess I should look at the histogram in PL5, but isn’t that based on jpg? I guess what I really need is a tool that will look at the finished file, show me blown highlights, and perhaps even a “finished” histogram of the image I’ve finished editing, and will post here, or send by email. dop to allow people to see my edits, in the raw file. I realized that - but as far as I know, there’s no way to send the. Your screenshot is showing the RAW NEF file without any edits. it amplifies both the signal and the noise in the sensor output). There is a noise penalty, especially if you/the algorithm has to raise the ISO to get the shot (i.e. The latter approach works mainly because recent digital sensors (I use a Canon R5) have a much improved capacity to capture data at the ‘shadows’ end of the spectrum. ![]() Here, I find the easiest (but maybe sub-optimal) routine is to allow my camera to set the exposure: perhaps raising EV by a half stop or so. For example: low-light, low-key, atmospheric shots where you need to maintain a high density of data in the part of the histogram that falls a stop or more below EV0 (‘middle grey’). There are, however, cases where a scene has no significant highlights (the exposure reference point in this method) where a different approach is needed. The idea, briefly, is to find a simply-implemented exposure routine that takes account of - and offsets - the (debilitating) insistence of all camera manufacturers on setting their ‘auto’ exposure algorithms to expose for the most saturated OOC JPEG (a snapshot of which appears on the viewing screen and which to which the camera histogram misleadingly refers) rather than for the optimum RAW image that most users of high-end cameras want to make.Īfter 5 years of following the practice recommended by Iliah - which needs the lowest-cost version of Raw Digger to make the initial calculations - I can say it rarely ‘fails’ to deliver an optimum raw image measured by useable raw data and minimum noise or over/under saturation. It could equally be entitled: “How to Minimise Noise and Maximise Signal at Any Exposure”. Iliah Borg, the author of Fast Raw Viewer and the maintainer of both Raw Digger and Raw Photo Processor ( : an eccentric but intriguing raw processor beloved in Russia), wrote one of the most useful articles I have ever read on the topic of ‘correct’ exposure for digital cameras: “How to Use the Full Dynamic Range of Your Camera”. Here’s a photo I edited in PL5, with lots of help for how to capture it, after checking the finished image Here’s the training video I just watched - there are many more: Would it be good to know how many pixels have blown highlights? Would it be good to have a histogram window like the one shown below available when wanted? …and second, that the folks who design PhotoLab consider adding some of these capabilities into the next version of PhotoLab. I hope two things happen - first, that my forum friends, especially read this and try it, Yikes! I learned a lot more about my file than ever before, and how Raw Digger can help me improve. I thought I was all set, until another forum friend wrote me to suggest I check my finished file with the tool RawDigger. With the help of several brilliant people in the DxO PhotoLab file, I’ve been following the advice and can now create better high dynamic range photos than eve before.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |