How to get the best raw exposure, part 2

I used to use a dial-in BBS where we got points if we posted a message ending in the number 69, but you had to claim it by adding "69, dudes" (quoting Bill and Ted). You were not allowed to post banal messages to up your count; this was known as "fudging a 69" and would result in your point. Also, if you failed to make the "69 dudes" claim you could forfeit your point, though you were allowed to claim credit within the next couple of messages if you were ranting during your 69 (as in, "Oh, previous message, 69, dudes"). Post #6969 was worth a million points.

Want to pick up that tradition here? It wouldn't be the most immature thing we've seen in these forums. :)

Aaron

I think you have it backwards, it's the younger people that are more willing to learn, maybe even gullible, always willing trying new things, maybe reckless. Older people more unwilling to admit they were wrong, steadfast in their old beliefs, hostile to change, staying in the comfort zone.

On other forums I've been, I noticed some of the long time members becoming really angry and bitter and combative in recent years. They are like completely different people now compared to 20 years ago. Same will probably happen to me too.

Excellent (adventure), Aaron! At DPR, I would quite often post banal messages to up the post count so that I could fudge the coveted Last Word in a silly thread.

And specifically to respond to John's comment, since there's no actual highlight clipping in the clouds, the levels compression can certainly be managed. Just use a competent converter and editor such as ACR/PS and work in 16-bit mode. However, slamming down the highlights slider and calling it quits there won't suffice when the compression is this severe. You'll need to get a little more careful with the tone curves. I'm also surprised that John thinks there's not sufficient noise in the highlights to dither away any posterization as long as you stay in 16-bit mode for editing.

But you are not obnoxious, unlike some people around here. Those few we have here (who post more than anyone else) are not only ad nauseam, but also nauseating.

David

I am puzzled because it says that the file is of type .arw ...

I didn't have any trouble at all taming the highlights using ACR and not getting posterization.

OBTW, the exposure is just about perfect:

ARW files contain an embedded JPEG. FastRawViewer has an option to display embedded JPEGs together with their histograms.

None at all. Tried to show it here:
dprevived.com/t/how-to-get-the-best-raw-exposure-part-2/3224/post/36164/

I always assumed that the resistance to change seen in older people wasn't born out of bitterness, anger, unwillingness to admit error, steadfast beliefs and so on, but is more about protecting and enjoying the investment of the years, effort, expense and so spent on achieving whatever their current status is. Change threatens that hard earned status and is to be feared. The idea that changing outside circumstances might mean having to start from scratch is not appealing to people late in life after fighting hard all their life to get where they are.

As to where the nastiness seen in some older people comes from, my late father used to remark that in his experience, horrible young people eventually mature into horrible older people.

For another comparison of raw histograms vs camera JPEGs, see this:

www.pentaxforums.com/forums/32-digital-processing-software-printing/455353-comparison-pixel-values-raw-jpg-images.html

here is my squashed version.

And?

the sofware never lies 😁

as someone else pointed its a different file sort.

It never lies if you know how to use it and interpret the results.
As I said, 9 pixels are saturated. That's not clipping.

What?

you posted an embedded jpeg , when we clearly were talking about Raw Histograms.
BtW Im enjoying the program ,its a great tool.

embedded jpeg