<<One of the important things to remember is to trust the histogram *over* the visual preview on your LCD.>> I just want to second that and point out the importance of it...with preview windows having adjustable brightnesses you can really get tripped up if you don't pay attention and look at your histogram every now and again. You can have one rude awakening if you only check your exposure via the preview then go to open the image on your computer (with a calibrated monitor, I presume :o) ) and find it much too dark or too light. Been there, done that. Ugh. Lea ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Dyer-Bennet" <dd-b@xxxxxxxx> To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students" <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 1:11 PM Subject: Re: Fw: Suggestions and Recomendations needed > Tim Holmes <W8TAH@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Could some of you comment a bit more on the histograms. I am > > generally familiar with them in the at, as I understand it brightness > > is across the x axis and number of pixels at a given brightness is on > > the vertical axis. I am not, however familiar with how to interprete > > the results into better pictures. Again, this has been part of my > > intended course of study, but I am having to compress the schedule > > dramatically to get everything in before this shoot. > > The best way to learn it is to *look* at it. Doesn't have to be on > the camera; could be the histogram in your digital editor, looking at > your or other people's pictures. But do be sure to include UNADJUSTED > pictures. > > There's no "right" histogram. Like exposure, "right" is an artistic > judgement. > > However, if a big lump of pixels is cut off sharply at the lower end, > you're losing shadow detail. And if a big lump of pixels is cut off > at the upper end, you're losing highlight detail. (Often one must do > one or both; it's not artistically inherently bad. But it's useful to > know it's happening.) > > If there's nothing in the right (light) half of the histogram, you're > almost certainly underexposing (unless it's a very low-key picture). > > If you've got a white background, a non-white subject, and there's a > shaggy spike near the right end, you probably have under-lit your > background. > > If there are a couple of smooth humps, none of them cut off by the > extremes, and between them occupying the full range, you've probably > got the correct exposure (for a normal-type subject). > > One of the important things to remember is to trust the histogram > *over* the visual preview on your LCD. > -- > David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@xxxxxxxx>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> > RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> > Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> > Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> > > >
