ChrisDM wrote:
I apologize Dan, I believe what you were saying (if I may attempt to paraphrase again), is that the quality of a capture is determined by the amount of the scene\'s information. And I would agree with that, although I don\'t believe that\'s the most efficient way to work. I have this crazy notion of trying to get the exposure closest to my vision in-capture. Call me old fashioned
Chris, thanks for the explanation.
To clarify my approach - as if it needs it at this point - I don\'t care one tiny bit what the sensor capture \"looks like.\" (The RAW file actually doesn\'t \"look like\" anything at all - it is just scene data.)
I care deeply about what the photograph I\'m trying to create will look like. Whatever gives me the best opportunity to achieve that goal is the \"right\" exposure.
That is surely not a radical or controversial idea by the standards of film or digital photography. It is the norm.
Dan
Feb 06, 2009 at 12:39 PM
Previous versions of danmitchell's message #6689159 « 5D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3 »
