DPReview.com is closing April 10th - Find out more

Gave The GX7 MkII Another Go...

Started Sep 25, 2019 | Discussions thread
cameralight Regular Member • Posts: 379
Re: Tiny images with no exif data
7

MrALLCAPS wrote:

jhunna wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

jhunna wrote:

I don't consider them underexposed. I see them as exposed for Post processing, where you expose for the highlights, and pull the shadows in pp. This sort of exposure gives you the best chance at recovering the most details in pp.

No, it clearly doesn't. This could be exposed at least one stop brighter, maybe two, and the highlights could be recovered. This would give far more latitude in the shadows. Even with my a7RIII, I would never expose this way, planning to push shadows at least three full stops. The results will always be badly compromised.

That said there is a balance, I would have given up a bit of the highlights to recapture more of the shadows. But I am familiar with the limitations of that sensor. Even so, he was still able to recover a usable photo in the end.

Not really. Even after processing, his shadows are all blocked up, and this is what he's complaining about. User error, plain and simple.

Now you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. You first paragraph says the same thing I say in my second paragraph, and then you disagree with my second paragraph.

I just ignore his comments, he's looking to pick a fight that i refuse to entertain. His comments are laughable, because he's taking it away from the topic and making it personal.

As a matter of fact, is there a block/ignote function? Im on my phone.

You are free to ignore him if you like, but that would be a pity, as Jacques seems to be one of the more level-headed and knowledgeable posters on here. He has given useful advice, and everything he has said is quite correct.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow