[Leica] Exposure comp and the M9

[rgacpa at yahoo.com (Bob Adler)]

See last sentence:
http://tinyurl.com/M-histogram

 Bob Adler
Palo Alto, CA
http://www.rgaphoto.com




________________________________
From: Bob Adler <rgacpa at yahoo.com>
To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
Sent: Wed, April 28, 2010 7:09:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Exposure comp and the M9

Hi Geoff,
I thought that the M was just about the only camera that based the histogram 
on the raw data. Not sure where I read that, but I remember posting it on 
Michael Frye's site as a question as he was telling everyone how to set 
their camera to get a more accurate histogram for raw shooting. He agreed 
the M showed raw histogram. Maybe you can ask your Leica gang?
Best,
Bob
Bob Adler
Palo Alto, CA
http://www.rgaphoto.com




________________________________
From: Geoff Hopkinson <hopsternew at gmail.com>
To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
Sent: Wed, April 28, 2010 6:03:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Exposure comp and the M9

Stan I don't routinely underexpose but there are practical reasons why many
excellent photographers do and they consider the trade off reasonable.
Clearly it works.
To add to what Bob and Tina have said, while you can and probably will
routinely recover some detail in your shadows, at high ISO values,
underexposure then recovery worsens noise there. That may or may not be
significant and you can clip the shadows in Post to ameliorate that if
desired. Another trade off.
I would also add that in my experience, the clipping indication on your
camera LCD histogram is conservative as the preview is based on the jpg
conversion settings of your Raw file.

Obviously only you can be the judge by experience of what works best for you
with your equipment, technique, subjects and intended output.

Cheers
Geoff
http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman


On 29 April 2010 04:43, Tina Manley <images at comporium.net> wrote:

> I used to underexpose by 1/3 and sometimes 2/3 stop.  But I no longer do
> that.  LR3 is so good at recovering highlights that I don't worry about it
> anymore and I think the files are better exposed correctly.
>
> Tina
>
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Stan Yoder <s.yoder at verizon.net> 
> wrote:
>
> > The conventional wisdom with the M8 (which I followed) was to underexpose
> a
> > bit to make sure highlights weren't blown, then resurrect shadow detail
> in
> > post. Also, some felt that underexposing at high ISOs kept the noise
> down.
> >
> > So, to those of you with M9s, are you continuing to do that for either or
> > both reasons (assuming you did so with your M8s)? Or do you no longer
> find
> > it useful or necessary?
> >
> > TIA,
> > Stan Yoder
> >
> > BTW, great to meet some of you at the Savannah LHSA shoot.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Leica Users Group.
> > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Tina Manley, ASMP
> www.tinamanley.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>

_______________________________________________
Leica Users Group.
See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information



      

_______________________________________________
Leica Users Group.
See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information