Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hark" data-source="post: 738981" data-attributes="member: 13196">There is a concept called Dynamic Range. I'm just going to stick your toe in the water to initiate the concept to you. Our eyes can see a wide range of brights and darks all at once, but unfortunately our cameras aren't able to capture this entire range in one image. The sensors aren't quite there yet. If you've ever heard of HDR, it mean High Dynamic Range. When doing HDR photography, it involves taking several images in succession to capture brights, mids, and darks over several images. Then those images are combined together in Photoshop or some other program to yield a similar image to what we see with our eyes. As far as my image, the sky was even brighter than it appears in the first image. So in that case, the sky still wound up being underexposed a little. However, because the camera can't capture the entire dynamic range in the image, the shadows (meaning the underside of the hawk) are reasonably exposed.During post processing, when we raise our exposure - especially the shadows - we run the risk of introducing more noise into those shadowed areas. So overall I was happy with the exposure because the shadows have enough detail and wouldn't require raising the shadows/exposure a great deal. However, I can easily increase the brightness of my sky if I wanted because it was very bright.So when I calculate just how much over exposure to dial in, I have to keep in mind how the shadows will appear. Theoretically I could have shot the image at 0 EV and increased the exposure during post processing. Photoshop and other programs (such as Lightoom) have become much better with raising and lowering exposure of RAW files. Jpegs won't allow nearly as much latitude for adjustments to exposure. And again, that's because RAW files have a greater dynamic range than jpegs.</blockquote>

Verification