Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
You're overlooking the obvious: if they did it the right way, we couldn't have all this fun reading your post about how stupid they are
You're overlooking the obvious: if they did it the right way, we couldn't have all this fun reading your post about how stupid they are
You're overlooking the obvious: if they did it the right way, we couldn't have all this fun reading your post about how stupid they are
Not to mention how bored I would be without having things to complain about.
One thing that sprang to my mind when reading this:
- so camera sets aperture, say f/1.2, and ISO, say 100
- camera reads exposuring info from metering sensor and sets speed, say 1/250s.
- camera says to itself "f/1.2 will make my photo darker than it should be (ie, more than 2 stops darker than f/2.4), so i
An awful lot of electrons were terribly inconvenienced in the making of this post.
Gear Photos
The second one, because it will have less clipped highlights, less quantization error, and will take up less slightly space on the computer due to a smaller raw file size. Any other differences will be due entirely to the raw converter mishandling things. (Many raw converters, e.g. Adobe, tend to foul up the colors when you use exposure compensation. You can mostly work around it by using a 0 black point.)
If it were truly "useless" in the sense that the light from marginal rays at f-numbers faster than f/2 are lost at the sensor, you wouldn
In response to some of the posts here (including my own): Of course this effect is gradual, it
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote