|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On Fri, 07 May 2010 09:43:14 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>> 1. My camera doesn't offer RAW format anyway.
>>
>> The same technique can be applied to JPEG as well, but you will run
>> into posterization much sooner.
>
> Indeed, I quickly discovered that it's usually hopeless to try.
Just depends on the tools and one's willingness to experiment.
>>> 2. Isn't under-exposure equally as bad as over-exposure?
>>
>> A slight under-exposure can usually be compensated for in
>> post-processing without too much quality loss. With over-exposure, some
>> detail is generally lost.
>
> A slight anything is better than a drastic something. ;-)
>
> If the image is too under-exposed, bits of it will be pure black. Same
> problem as if it's over-exposed.
Sure, that's why I only tend to slightly underexpose the image - I find I
get good results that way (and who argues with good results?).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |