Saturation

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> If I want saturated slides, I underexpose a little bit (1/3 stop).
> In negative, I can overexpose quite a bit (1 .. 1.5 stops).
>
> Is there such a technique in digital?

Not as such, no.

You can boost saturation in Photoshop, but it's not quite as simple as
simply cranking up a lever, because then you end up clipping; after all,
saturation really is just higher levels of one color compared to the
others, so if you increase too much, your highlights end up blown.

You *could* underexpose and then just compensate the exposure later in
Photoshop, but although that will get you some saturation, it will be
at the expense of quality.

What you want to do is learn some techniques in Photoshop to make the
colors look the way you want; it's rather like choosing certain kinds
of film to get the look you want, or processing film in a particular
way. There are a number of different ways in Photoshop to increase
color saturation, and the "saturation" control is not always the best
way (and just using that on its own with no attempt to control the
already-saturated areas is probably never a good idea).

> (If correct, then as a consequence RAW would be the best way to save
> the image, of course.)

Always.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

You can set adjustments for jpeg to increase saturation on the photos on the
Canon DSLR. What type of camera are you using??

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:cu8atm$sqg$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>
> If I want saturated slides, I underexpose a little bit (1/3 stop).
> In negative, I can overexpose quite a bit (1 .. 1.5 stops).
>
> Is there such a technique in digital? I'd assume underexposure as digital
does
> behave in some respects like E-6.
>
> (If correct, then as a consequence RAW would be the best way to save the
image,
> of course.)
>
> Comments?
>
> Cheers,
> Alan
> --
> -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
> -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
> -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
> -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> I know those techniques, but I'd like to have saturated images from the
> getgo in order to not lose other qualities while in PS.

Boosting saturation with in-camera processing won't be any different in
that regard. You'll just have less control over it.

> Your points above are just right however, in essence, once a color
> channel in R,G,B is at 255 on 255, then that's it, there is no more.

You can increase saturation by decreasing the levels of the other color
channels.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in
news:cu8atm$sqg$1@inews.gazeta.pl:

> If I want saturated slides, I underexpose a little bit (1/3 stop).
> In negative, I can overexpose quite a bit (1 .. 1.5 stops).
>
> Is there such a technique in digital? I'd assume underexposure as
> digital does behave in some respects like E-6.
>

Nope.

The reason that you get more saturated results for film
when exposing for a darker slide or negative is that film
is non linear.

What you shall do is expose for a noise free picture and
then increase the saturation in your photo editor.

And yes - RAW is the correct format if you want to be able
to increase the saturation.


/Roland

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Bob <FlintsTone@Valve.Amps> wrote:

> >(If correct, then as a consequence RAW would be the best way to save the
> >image, of course.)
>
> The RAW has a wider data range, so you can extract more from the shadows...

Since the sensor is linear, RAW has a wider data range for bright, and
narrower in the shadows. At least according to this guy:
<http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml>

I haven't experimented with this, but there it is.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

YoYo wrote:

> You can set adjustments for jpeg to increase saturation on the photos on the
> Canon DSLR. What type of camera are you using??

Tsk Tsk. RAW man RAW!
Tsk Tsk. I haven't bought my camera yet. Likely a Max 7D.
Tsk Tsk. Please don't top post.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Lisa Horton wrote:

> This is almost like two questions. There are the things you can do in
> camera, and the things you can do post capture. As you may remember,
> I'm a big fan of big saturation, and my digital images show it.
>
> In camera, it's still photography, and the same things that boost
> saturation for film (polarizer, lighting) will boost saturation in
> digital. Digital exposes much like slide film, so for maximum
> saturation you want to ensure there is no overexposure.
>
> In the computer of course there are a number of options available. I
> dislike extensive manipulations though, so I don't like to use tools
> like the saturation slider. I find that "proper" manipulations of the
> levels control not only corrects brightness and contrast, but gives me
> the level of saturation I'm looking for.

Thanks Lisa. The polarizer and lighting are very good points (and show you as a
photographer v. all these... others). 95% of the time the only adjustments I
need with a slide scan are levels and bright/contrast.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 10:39:40 -0500, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>Thanks Lisa. The polarizer and lighting are very good points (and show you as a
>photographer v. all these... others).

Alan, thinking along these lines, both Lisa 'the photographer' and you
missed another important factor - the subject. May I suggest you limit
your photography to pictures of Micky Mouse at Disney World. He's
quite saturated, as are his friends.

<g>

> 95% of the time the only adjustments I
>need with a slide scan are levels and bright/contrast.

The amount of saturation boost needed with digital seems to vary from
camera to camera. I feel the D70 nearly always needs a boost of around
5-8%. I get the impression that the Canon DLSRs don't need as much.
At the loss of 1 stop, I refuse to continuously wear a polarizer.

--
Owamanga!

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> 95% of the time the only adjustments I need with a slide scan are levels
> and bright/contrast.

With a slide scan you've already made the "adjustment" of choosing your
film and exposing it appropriately, so the comparison is not really
valid.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Owamanga wrote:

> On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 10:39:40 -0500, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>Thanks Lisa. The polarizer and lighting are very good points (and show you as a
>>photographer v. all these... others).
>
>
> Alan, thinking along these lines, both Lisa 'the photographer' and you
> missed another important factor - the subject. May I suggest you limit
> your photography to pictures of Micky Mouse at Disney World. He's
> quite saturated, as are his friends.

Tsk-tsk. Very bad dig. We've all seen washed out roses from overexposure (on
slide film). Usual culprit is relying on in camera metering. Dark rose leaves
drive the camera meter do overexposure ruining the photo.

>
>> 95% of the time the only adjustments I
>>need with a slide scan are levels and bright/contrast.
>
>
> The amount of saturation boost needed with digital seems to vary from
> camera to camera. I feel the D70 nearly always needs a boost of around
> 5-8%. I get the impression that the Canon DLSRs don't need as much.
> At the loss of 1 stop, I refuse to continuously wear a polarizer.

So, use a tripod. IAC a polarizer must be used with the light coming from the
right direction, so using it when the light and subect are not appropriate, it
just becomes a variable ND (of difficult to determine density). But you know that.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 14:42:49 -0500, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>Owamanga wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 10:39:40 -0500, Alan Browne
>> <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Thanks Lisa. The polarizer and lighting are very good points (and show you as a
>>>photographer v. all these... others).
>>
>>
>> Alan, thinking along these lines, both Lisa 'the photographer' and you
>> missed another important factor - the subject. May I suggest you limit
>> your photography to pictures of Micky Mouse at Disney World. He's
>> quite saturated, as are his friends.
>
>Tsk-tsk. Very bad dig. We've all seen washed out roses from overexposure (on
>slide film). Usual culprit is relying on in camera metering. Dark rose leaves
>drive the camera meter do overexposure ruining the photo.

What? when compared to the photographer vs 'others' dig, it pales in
comparison. ...okay, maybe it's a FOX rebuttal. Fair and balanced.

<g>

>>> 95% of the time the only adjustments I
>>>need with a slide scan are levels and bright/contrast.
>>
>>
>> The amount of saturation boost needed with digital seems to vary from
>> camera to camera. I feel the D70 nearly always needs a boost of around
>> 5-8%. I get the impression that the Canon DLSRs don't need as much.
>> At the loss of 1 stop, I refuse to continuously wear a polarizer.
>
>So, use a tripod. IAC a polarizer must be used with the light coming from the
>right direction, so using it when the light and subect are not appropriate, it
>just becomes a variable ND (of difficult to determine density). But you know that.

The Tripod doesn't stop the damn trees from moving does it?

So many photographic techniques seem to work better when the subject
is a dead person.

<g>

Lisa has a point, I'd never have considered using a polarizer Indoors
for example - where it's major advantage would be saturation.

But then I don't have to, I've got my photoshop slider :-)

--
Owamanga!

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Owamanga wrote:
>
> On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 10:45:44 -0800, Lisa Horton
> <Lisa091704@lisahorton.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Owamanga wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 10:39:40 -0500, Alan Browne
> >> <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Thanks Lisa. The polarizer and lighting are very good points (and show you as a
> >> >photographer v. all these... others).
> >>
> >> Alan, thinking along these lines, both Lisa 'the photographer' and you
> >> missed another important factor - the subject. May I suggest you limit
> >> your photography to pictures of Micky Mouse at Disney World. He's
> >> quite saturated, as are his friends.
> >>
> >> <g>
> >>
> >> > 95% of the time the only adjustments I
> >> >need with a slide scan are levels and bright/contrast.
> >>
> >> The amount of saturation boost needed with digital seems to vary from
> >> camera to camera. I feel the D70 nearly always needs a boost of around
> >> 5-8%. I get the impression that the Canon DLSRs don't need as much.
> >> At the loss of 1 stop, I refuse to continuously wear a polarizer.
> >>
> >
> >I missed nothing And yet you are correct that the subject plays an
> >important role. It is true that if one wishes to produce highly
> >saturated photos, highly saturated subjects will help.
> >
> >OTOH, I figure we're talking about generally increasing saturation,
> >regardless of the saturation level of the subject, and this is a valid
> >desire if one desires highly saturated photos.
> >
> >If you don't care for the highly saturated style of color photography,
> >more power to you, but why mock those who do like that style?
>
> Being a big fan of Velvia, and even use a CPL outside every so often,
> I'm not mocking anyone for wanting saturated photographs.
>
> If anything, I'm specifically mocking Alan for implying everyone else
> in the NG isn't a photographer. He has a point of course, the typical
> response in a digital photo newsgroup is to say 'Photoshop', which is
> very narrow minded.
>
> But, it might just be that color photography has shifted recently. Ten
> years ago, the vast majority of color shooters didn't bother to set up
> their own color dark room. Too messy / expensive / complex - whatever.
> Ten years before that, a much bigger percentage of the B&W
> photographers *did* use a dark-room.
>
> Photoshop is our new color darkroom, and nearly every serious DSLR
> user uses it, so maybe it's not a bad thing after all - as long as we
> remember keep the skills balanced.
>

I suspect our views in this area are similar. I, of course, use
Photoshop, and could be called a serious DSLR shooter, as much as I'm
serious about anything I wanted a color darkroom for years, but
couldn't make the space, or justify it economically given my volume and
available time. But with digital and PS, I've got my color darkroom,
and I do exactly what I've been wanting to do all these years.

As I mentioned, I dislike extensive digital manipulations, so I
generally restrict myself to manipulations similar to, perhaps even
analagous to, those performed in a traditional darkroom. Not that I
turn my back on new capabililities, my ND filter set hasn't seen the
light of day for quite a while

But also, since I dislike a lot of post-shooting work, I strive at all
times to capture the image I want, rather than one that will require
substantial processing to be what I want. Hence my emphasis on
traditional methods of boosting my beloved saturation.

Lisa

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 17:37:22 -0800, usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:

>Bob <FlintsTone@Valve.Amps> wrote:
>
>> >(If correct, then as a consequence RAW would be the best way to save the
>> >image, of course.)
>>
>> The RAW has a wider data range, so you can extract more from the shadows...
>
>Since the sensor is linear, RAW has a wider data range for bright, and
>narrower in the shadows. At least according to this guy:
><http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml>
>
>I haven't experimented with this, but there it is.

well.... I said that raw has a wider range, and you can indeed get more data
from the shadows... assuming that's what you want to do... and in comparison to
non raw 8 bit photos.

I'm simply talking about the difference between 8 bit and 12 bit - I didn't
mention anything about S/N ratio or which part of the range or anything else...

Its kind of like audio on a CD, half of the number range is wasted on the top
6db of music within the theoretical 96db range... If you go to 32 bit audio
instead, you will still waste half the numbers, but you will get to pick a
bigger and better range. A bad recording for example can still be noisy...

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Frank ess wrote:

> It is well known that the unstable _Minnie_ Mouse is the one who is
> _most_ satiated. After all, they did prove she was "F***ing Goofy".

My mother was wholly unimpressed with that joke. (this version:

Judge: "So, Mr. Mouse, I understand you want a divorve becasue Mrs. Mouse is crazy?"

Mickey: "No, your honor, 'cause she's f******* Goofy." )

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <cu8atm$sqg$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>If I want saturated slides, I underexpose a little bit (1/3 stop).
>In negative, I can overexpose quite a bit (1 .. 1.5 stops).
>
>Is there such a technique in digital? I'd assume underexposure as digital does
>behave in some respects like E-6.
>
>(If correct, then as a consequence RAW would be the best way to save the image,
>of course.)
>
>Comments?

With digital, the RAW data is linear, and under-exposing the shot only
adds to the noise and quantization of the image. You can darken and/or
saturate the image in software after the fact.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <cuamfp$bqo$4@inews.gazeta.pl>,
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>Thanks Lisa. The polarizer and lighting are very good points (and show you as a
>photographer v. all these... others). 95% of the time the only adjustments I
>need with a slide scan are levels and bright/contrast.

Wait a minute, Alan. Before you start implying complaints about
"others", you should review the fact that your original post asked
*SPECIFICALLY* about exposure. If Lisa's response was more what you
wanted, then she read your mind, and you did not communicate your
question properly to those of use who are telepathy-challenged.

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <1107906665.228108.174280@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote:

>For those who shoot jpeg files only, not really recommended, there is
>an user settable parameter for saturation.

.... which often clips the channel that already-saturated colors are in.

Case in point: red flowers. The Canon 20D has 1.87 stops of headroom in
the red channel which are clipped to 255 in a JPEG, even if you don't
use an aggressive saturation setting.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:

> In message <cuamfp$bqo$4@inews.gazeta.pl>,
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>Thanks Lisa. The polarizer and lighting are very good points (and show you as a
>>photographer v. all these... others). 95% of the time the only adjustments I
>>need with a slide scan are levels and bright/contrast.
>
>
> Wait a minute, Alan. Before you start implying complaints about
> "others", you should review the fact that your original post asked
> *SPECIFICALLY* about exposure. If Lisa's response was more what you
> wanted, then she read your mind, and you did not communicate your
> question properly to those of use who are telepathy-challenged.

While I do, sincerely, regret the way I posted that, the fact remains that use
of light is part of exposure. Lisa, and I like to think most of us who are
interested in the photograph (not the camera) do consider the quality of the
light and subject color as a more important part of exposure than simply
metering for the shot.

Cheers,
Alan



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Scott W wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>JPS@no.komm wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In message <cu8ir5$76q$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
>>>Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I know those techniques, but I'd like to have saturated images from
>
> the getgo in
>
>>>>order to not lose other qualities while in PS. Your points above
>
> are just right
>
>>>>however, in essence, once a color channel in R,G,B is at 255 on
>
> 255, then that's
>
>>>>it, there is no more.
>>>
>>>
>>>Not if you're shooting RAW. The way that the Canon 10D and 20D
>
> cameras
>
>>>work is that they use something like 2048 out of 4095 RAW levels in
>
> the
>
>>>green channel as 255 in the JPEG output, and the blue and red
>
> channels
>
>>>map differently depending on the color balance being used. The
>
> native
>
>>>color bias of the 10D is green, and the 20D, greenish-Cyan. For
>>>daylight WB, red might map 1150 to 255, and blue, 1600 to 255.
>
> That
>
>>>means that all the values in the RAW data above these values, up to
>>>4095, are clipped to 255 in the output. A good RAW converter or
>
> any
>
>>>number of commandline-based utilities or scientific programs can
>
> utilize
>
>>>all of the highlights that are clipped away.
>>
>>
>>Surely in converting, the highest values are converted (scaled) to
>
> 255 and
>
>>everything else is under that? (lose detail, not highlights)?
>
> You would like to think so but such is not the case.
> I don't know if the 2048->255 number is right, that seem a bit extreme
> to me
> as you are thowing away a whole stop, but this could in fact be right.

I don't see it as 'throwing away' anything in the high order bits. It's a
scaling function (AFAICT), so low order bits (shaddow detail) would be
sacrificed). I'm waiting for JPS' reply as he is quite knowledgeable in the
fine detail.


>
> What I do know is that if you shoot raw and jpg at the same time you
> will often get photos where the highlights are blown out on the jpeg
> but not the raw. My F828 does this a lot, I have done some testing on
> my 20D and it seems to do it as well. One of the reasons to shoot raw.

Yet another reason, yes, and disparate with the simple scaling that I assume.

Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:
>
> JPS@no.komm wrote:
>
> > In message <cuamfp$bqo$4@inews.gazeta.pl>,
> > Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Thanks Lisa. The polarizer and lighting are very good points (and show you as a
> >>photographer v. all these... others). 95% of the time the only adjustments I
> >>need with a slide scan are levels and bright/contrast.
> >
> >
> > Wait a minute, Alan. Before you start implying complaints about
> > "others", you should review the fact that your original post asked
> > *SPECIFICALLY* about exposure. If Lisa's response was more what you
> > wanted, then she read your mind, and you did not communicate your
> > question properly to those of use who are telepathy-challenged.
>
> While I do, sincerely, regret the way I posted that, the fact remains that use
> of light is part of exposure. Lisa, and I like to think most of us who are
> interested in the photograph (not the camera) do consider the quality of the
> light and subject color as a more important part of exposure than simply
> metering for the shot.
>

Your meter reading is a beginning, not an end.

Lisa

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Owamanga wrote:
>
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 10:06:49 -0800, Lisa Horton
> <Lisa091704@lisahorton.net> wrote:
> >
> >Your meter reading is a beginning, not an end.
> >
> >Lisa
>
> "Not an end, your meter reading, a beginning, young Luke" - Yoda.
>
> "Film is the path to the dark side. Film leads to expenditure.
> Expenditure leads to poverty. Poverty leads to suffering." - Yoda.
>
> "Pixels matter not. Look at me. Judge me by my size, do you? Hmm? Hmm.
> And well you should not. For my ally is the Digicam, and a powerful
> ally it is." - Yoda.
>
> "When 900 years old you get, I.S. you need too, hmmmmm?" - Yoda.
>
> "Once you start down the Photoshop path, forever will it dominate your
> destiny, consume you it will." - Yoda.
>
>

You sound awfully familiar at the moment

Although it's been pointed out that I'm prone to Yodaisms, I wasn't
intending for this to be one. I was just looking for a short simple way
to describe a concept that is not really simple or normally short to
explain. It's not just a saying, it's a movement: subjective exposure.

Lisa

Lisa

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:
>
> Lisa Horton wrote:
>> Alan Browne Wrote
>
> >>While I do, sincerely, regret the way I posted that, the fact remains that use
> >>of light is part of exposure. Lisa, and I like to think most of us who are
> >>interested in the photograph (not the camera) do consider the quality of the
> >>light and subject color as a more important part of exposure than simply
> >>metering for the shot.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Your meter reading is a beginning, not an end.
>
> That sounds so Zen like that I'm not sure I should even reply.

No reply is necessary, as a koan it's complete and self contained

>
> If I'm shooting a subject in unchanging light and from the same general
> direction, then I would sort of agree, once I determine the exposure, I'm off in
> manual mode and adjust from there as I see fit. But really, I don't think much
> of expsoure until the composition is thought out. Then how does the light look,
> what is it about the light and the subject that needs capturing which leads to
> how the exposure will be metered. You can spot meter different ways and get
> great variations in exposure setting. Something slide shooters learn (quickly
> or slowly) to control.
>

I think I see things differently. An important aspect of any potential
subject IS how it's lit at the moment. A scene can be completely
uninspiring in one light, yet sublime in different light.

Also, I see exposure, subjective exposure, as part of the composition.
Through subjective exposure, you determine how the subject or
composition will appear, in several important ways. Another way to look
at it is that there is, for every scene, a nominal exposure, which the
meter will give you, and your "correct" exposure, which may or may not
vary from the nominal exposure.

A pile of coal is a perfect example. A nominal exposure, as given by an
incident meter, will likely yield a photo that renders the coal as very
dark, even black, with minimal or no detail. A subjective exposure
would likely give more exposure to the sensor than the nominal exposure,
rendering the coal as a very dark grey, with substantial detail, making
a more satisfactory photograph.

Coming back to saturation, subjective exposure, being based on what the
photographer feels are the most important elements of the scene, can be
helpful in avoiding overexposure, which is, IMHO, deadly to saturation
when shooting digital.

Lisa

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:

>
> If I want saturated slides, I underexpose a little bit (1/3 stop).
> In negative, I can overexpose quite a bit (1 .. 1.5 stops).
>
> Is there such a technique in digital? I'd assume underexposure as
> digital does behave in some respects like E-6.
>
> (If correct, then as a consequence RAW would be the best way to save the
> image, of course.)


The link mentioned in another thread:
http://www.macworld.com/2005/01/do [...] eraraw.pdf
(slow loading) was a really good read.

It explains that RAW data is linear meaning that there is more info in
the light end than processed 'normal' image data so the goal is to
capture as bright as possible and darken later when converting the RAW
image. Shadows have less information in RAW and are more noisy. This is
separate from the issue of 8 or 12 or 16 bits and those distinctions
don't matter unless you plan to do further adjustments. 8-bit is plenty
for a final product but has less invisible data to stretch. RAW allows
more stretching to reach that final image.

I would assume in-camera jpeg with enhanced saturation/contrast/curves,
applies the adjustments to the RAW then converts to jpeg so that would
be the way to go rather than boosting saturation in a jpeg later if RAW
is not used. Shooting jpeg, you would want to get the exposure correct
without adjustments since it has less invisible data to stretch.