[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] NeedleStack [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

My pleasure.

Intro.

Part 1. Review images with the histogram.

Part 2. Exposing to the Right.

Part 3. Using the histogram as you shoot.

Part 4. Interpreting histogram shapes.

0
1

[–] snurfle 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Either I missed something obvious, or the article contradicts itself.

FTA: "In digital imaging, overexposure is difficult or impossible to correct for at the editing stage - so with high-contrast subjects it is better to have an image that is stacked to the left, than one that it squeezed up tight to the right."

FTA: "half of the camera's possible gradations of tone are actually devoted to the brightest 20% of the image. If you underexpose the shot, even slightly, you are throwing away image quality."

OK - first off, citation needed for the "half / 20%" numbers. Secondly, the first statement suggests that underexposure is preferable, while the second statement says the exact opposite.

0
0

[–] NeedleStack [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

In the first statement it's warning that it's practically impossible to correct overexposure during post-processing. But it's possible to 'up' the exposure in post-processing. So it's 'safer' to take a photo that is barely underexposed/darker. But this is applicable in high-contrast situations.

But yeah, on its face it looks like the first statement is contradicted by the second statement. What I think the second statement is talking about are normal light conditions.