Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;-jeffB, post: 4073770, member: 27832&quot;]Back when I started, this wasn&#039;t the case. In RAW images, Canon cameras were definitely recording valid pixel levels at least a half-stop or more beyond the point that was flagged as &quot;overexposed&quot; on in-camera preview, and on the histogram displayed in Camera Raw Photoshop import. I was skeptical, too, but I was working in a medical imaging lab, and I verified it with our image-processing tools.</p><p><br /></p><p>If I&#039;d used the in-camera JPEG, or used default settings in Camera Raw, I would&#039;ve gotten an image with those values pegged at 255, and it would have been as you say. But bringing them in as 16-bit data, not only was there valid data in the highlights, overexposing that way was the <i>best</i> way to maximize shadow detail and minimize noise elsewhere in the image.</p><p><br /></p><p>Again, though, this was the mid-2000s. I would hope that Canon has progressed to a point where this is no longer necessary, and ideally no longer effective at all. It certainly seems like my 6DII does a better job nailing exposure on its own than the Digital Rebel or 30D ever managed, and you can imagine how much better noise levels are now. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie1" alt=":)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in