[Charlotte]

Originally Posted by danpen

Charlotte, the recovery slider ... etc.

Thanks for the explanation Dan Good point about the noise + reason to err on side of overexposure. I think advice in this regard is split down the middle, some advise to "expose for the highlights + let the shadows fall where they will", whereas others advise, as you have, to expose for the shadows. Of course, in practice, it'll depend on which area it's important to retain detail as to which method to choose. But if a particular image is going to need shadow detail, then yours is the way to go, as there's nothing more unsightly than noise in an otherwise pleasing image.

I process all my RAW's in LR, then fine-tune the converted tiff's in CS3. So I'll stop looking for the recovery slider in CS3 then

[Markulous]

Originally Posted by danpen

Mark, great shot. A really interesting phenomenon (sp?) well captured.

Thanks, Dan - and a phenomenon (spell checked with the one in top right corner here!) that may also produce this one. The Brocken Spectre - sun behind and above casts shadow, often with the halo-like rings of a Glory (took this the year before the other two shots - on Pen y Fan)

[Gary Bagshawe]

Cracking shots!

[Rob Barron]

So, just to chuck the cat in among the pigeons and keep this entertaining argument going (anyone takes this too seriously gets a slap!) what happens if I take a picture of a sheet of pure white paper?

Assuming properly and evenly lit and nobody getting all pedantic about off-white shades and that stuff, every pixel would show as being 255, 255, 255 but are they burnt? Nope, because they are correctly showing the hue and luminosity of the image

Ooh, don't you just love me for that one?

Cheers,
Rob

[Charlotte]

Originally Posted by Rob Barron

what happens if I take a picture of a sheet of pure white paper?

or or both

[Markulous]

Originally Posted by Rob Barron

Assuming properly and evenly lit and nobody getting all pedantic about off-white shades and that stuff, every pixel would show as being 255, 255, 255 but are they burnt? Nope, because they are correctly showing the hue and luminosity of the image

Thanks, Rob! Exactly my point!
Actually, thinking about it, you can't prove burned (there's no measure) you can only suspect burned - and I will admit that it was a fair suspicion!

[simpbow]

To confusing for me, nice shots Markulous.

[Markulous]

LOL! Thanks anyway, Simpbow!

[Ali]

too early for the brain cell to even start to comprehend the discussion and I wouldn't know a clipped pixel if it smacked me round the chops!

But I do think these are beautiful shots.

[Markulous]

Originally Posted by Ali

too early for the brain cell to even start to comprehend the discussion and I wouldn't know a clipped pixel if it smacked me round the chops!

But I do think these are beautiful shots.

Your 'clipping' time will come - around about the time you say "This RAW is a doddle". So a week or so!

Thanks for the comment!