Warp wrote:

>   Have you ever heard of film exposure times and overexposures?
> Overexposure is not always a mistake in photography, nor is it in
> raytracing either.

Slightly OT, but:

In my opinion "overexposure" or "underexposure" is allways a mistake and 
not intentional. "Increasing exposure" or "decreasing exposure", on the 
other hand, IS intentional and gives the desired result and the result 
is then a correctly exposed image. And all this relates allways to the 
usage of a light meter which gives some initial values for shutter speed 
and aperture that we can alter.

In your image, it is hard to say whether it is overexposed or 
underexposed or both/neither. The scene itself (expect the sun) is maybe 
underexposed as there is no detail in the trees. The sun is overexposed 
because it is very bright. The whole scene is probably quite correctly 
exposed to give desired effect. With small P&S digital cameras it is 
quite common that deepest shadows are "blocked" (ie. black, no detail) 
and brightest highlights are "blown out" (white, no detail). With good 
B&W film it is possible to capture a wider dynamic range with some detail.

> Letting the Sun overexpose the photograph was completely intentional 
> and in fact gives a good photographical effect.

Actually sun is not "overexposing the photograph" but sun "gets 
overexposed in the photograph".


Severi

Post a reply to this message