expose for the highlights develop for the shadows in TOWN CREEK expose for the highlights develop for the shadows TOWN CREEK

expose for the highlights develop for the shadows in TOWN CREEK

expose for the highlights develop for the shadows TOWN CREEK

expose for the highlights develop for the shadows in TOWN CREEK.Iso is a judgment about what exposure will produce the best results, on average, with a particular medium of capture.
Iso is a compromise.
In 1965 it was 400.
Shrinking film formats increased the importance of grain and sharpness in overall quality.
The manufacturers decided the emphasis was too much on shadow detail at the expense of those, so asa values were redefined.
Negatives need sufficient exposure to produce shadow detail while not overly compromising grain and sharpness.
In many cameras the luminance capture range is weighted too far in favor of shadows.
Especially true as we notice loss of tonal separation in highlights a lot more readily than we notice it in shadows.
This needs to be institutionalized.
On my fuji finepix s6500, changing the current iso of 100 to iso 250 would be about right.
Both of these photographs were originally made in raw mode by my fuji finepix s65000 camera.
Both of these photographs were originally made in raw mode by my fuji finepix s65000 camera.
The one on the left was made at iso 100 with no exposure compensation.
I made a curves adjustment in photoshop to the image on the right, so that the shadows would have about the same brightness in both photographs, for comparison purposes.
So, which one would you say was correctly exposed?
There would be side effects.
A good one is that you get more lowlight capability.
The bad is that your pictures become noisier.
But, digital image noise is already better than comparable speed 35 mm film in many digital cameras, and it continues to improve with each generation of sensor.
Luminance capture is definitely not better than film in the highlights.
We need a new iso definition and we need it now.