I'm not an expert by any means of the imagination. I use the Huey for my desktop but it tends to turn laptops greenish. So I have a Spyder2 which I use on laptops.
Indeed there are some small hot spots in a couple of pictures, but that doesn't mean the images are overexposed. There are other parts of the image that may be more important.
In my case I'm not defensive about anything. I have enough cameras here where I don't have to show a bias for or against a camera. Ken showed some shots that some folks felt were overexposed. I disagreed and explained why.Is it being people defensive about XTi exposure, or is it people
being paranoid about underexposure and over compensating in
situations they dont have to.
I'm ready to accept that theoryLOL. Perhaps we have all gone mad
That's a fair question. When an area of a photo should have detail, yet none exists because it has been overexposed, we call that blown out. It's also referred to as clipping - max values for all three color channels. If you look again at the white tailed kite you might notice that where the sun is shining on the left side of the head the detail is lost and you have pure white. No matter what you might try in PP you will never recover the lost detail.
No, no aviary. Incredible as it may sound these were taken about 15 miles from downtown Los Angeles, Ca.
no? did they?Got the XTi on Wed. and didn't get a chance to shoot with it until
today -argh!
1st impression - it under exposes. Has anyone here mentioned that
before
No, it's not my monitor...I use several different ones depending on where I am and what computer I'm using. The shots are overexposed as confirmed by the comment below:I was beginning to wonder about that. I've taken 40k + shots with
the XT and shared many of them on line and no one has complained
before about my shots looking over exposed. I know what to look
for. I suspect average folks tend to crank up the brightness on
their monitors and use them as an extra light bulb in their room
In other words, your shots are overexposed but Michael thinks that's OK.With the number of complaints on this forum about about the XTi
underexposing, it seems people are getting very defensive about it.
There are some people that think it's a crime to have any areas of
your photos blown out. While it's nice to have detail in all areas
of a shot, there are simply times where the highlights are just not
significant to the photographer. It's all up to the individual.
I think you took some great shots!
Michael
My monitors are all calibrated and I don't turrn the brightness up very far at all.You don't even have to crank up the brightness. I had turned thefor. I suspect average folks tend to crank up the brightness on
their monitors and use them as an extra light bulb in their room
brightness down on my new laptop yesterday because I had found it
blinding, but it still showed overexposed images. It is now
calibrated and all is well.
Olga
As confirmed in the OP, I think it's the shooter over compensating because of paranoia about XTi underexposure. It's funny that the OP talks about monitor calibration, but then says in the same posts that he used the XTi's LCD in the field to decide on exposure issues. The proper way is to use the histogram features of the camera when you're in the field., or is it people
being paranoid about underexposure and over compensating in
situations they dont have to.
No, they are not. Only one shot has one small overexposed area (highlighted in red below). However, the same shot has more underexposed areas (highlighted in yellow).
