10D overexposure and adjust in PS raw-image converter?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by David Ellis, May 8, 2005.

  1. David Ellis

    David Ellis Guest

    Bruce Fraser's white paper at

    http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/linear_gamma.pdf

    makes the case that half the information in a digital capture is in
    the fifth, or highest, stop. And some digital cameras can capture and
    image that is overexposed, thereby driving image information into that
    often little-used last stop. The highlights, apparently blown out, can
    be recovered in Photoshop's raw image converter.

    Using a Canon EOS 10D, I've tried this with some amazingly good
    results and some poor results. I'd like to hear about your 10D
    experience in this area.

    --David
    David Ellis, May 8, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. David Ellis

    dylan Guest

    "David Ellis" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Bruce Fraser's white paper at
    >
    > http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/linear_gamma.pdf
    >
    > makes the case that half the information in a digital capture is in
    > the fifth, or highest, stop. And some digital cameras can capture and
    > image that is overexposed, thereby driving image information into that
    > often little-used last stop. The highlights, apparently blown out, can
    > be recovered in Photoshop's raw image converter.
    >
    > Using a Canon EOS 10D, I've tried this with some amazingly good
    > results and some poor results. I'd like to hear about your 10D
    > experience in this area.
    >
    > --David


    I quite often adjust the gamma of the photos, from 10D or other cameras,
    usually between 1.2 and 1.5 in PSP. Can really bring out the detail but not
    sure about the accuracy of the result compared to the original.
    dylan, May 8, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. David Ellis

    Guest

    David Ellis wrote:
    > Bruce Fraser's white paper at
    >
    > http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/linear_gamma.pdf
    >
    > makes the case that half the information in a digital capture is in
    > the fifth, or highest, stop. And some digital cameras can capture and
    > image that is overexposed, thereby driving image information into

    that
    > often little-used last stop. The highlights, apparently blown out,

    can
    > be recovered in Photoshop's raw image converter.


    I've always wondered how this could be possible. 12 bits of
    information, if highlights are blown out then surely that means the
    level is at 4095 and can go no higher. How could you possibly 'recover'
    extra information from this?

    However ... after seeing this I finally understand why:

    "... so cameras show the histogram of the image after processing using
    the camera's default settings. Most cameras apply a fairly strong
    S-curve to the raw data so that the JPEGs have a more film-like
    response, with the result that the on-camera histogram often tells you
    that your highlights are blown when, in fact, they aren't."

    I'm a little miffed that my very expensive camera cannot accurately
    inform me of truly blown highlights.
    , May 9, 2005
    #3
  4. David Ellis

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >The highlights, apparently blown out, can
    >be recovered in Photoshop's raw image converter.


    If only one channel is clipped then any RAW converter can salvage some
    data and reconstruct something. If two channels are clipped they can
    still salvage a little bit but with more guesswork and less accuracy.

    If all three channels are clipped then there's nothing any RAW
    converter can do about it.
    Bill Hilton, May 9, 2005
    #4
  5. David Ellis

    David Ellis Guest

    On 9 May 2005 12:06:48 -0700, wrote:

    >David Ellis wrote:
    >> Bruce Fraser's white paper at
    >>
    >> http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/linear_gamma.pdf
    >>
    >> makes the case that half the information in a digital capture is in
    >> the fifth, or highest, stop. And some digital cameras can capture and
    >> image that is overexposed, thereby driving image information into

    >that
    >> often little-used last stop. The highlights, apparently blown out,

    >can
    >> be recovered in Photoshop's raw image converter.

    >
    >I've always wondered how this could be possible. 12 bits of
    >information, if highlights are blown out then surely that means the
    >level is at 4095 and can go no higher. How could you possibly 'recover'
    >extra information from this?
    >
    >However ... after seeing this I finally understand why:
    >
    >"... so cameras show the histogram of the image after processing using
    >the camera's default settings. Most cameras apply a fairly strong
    >S-curve to the raw data so that the JPEGs have a more film-like
    >response, with the result that the on-camera histogram often tells you
    >that your highlights are blown when, in fact, they aren't."
    >
    >I'm a little miffed that my very expensive camera cannot accurately
    >inform me of truly blown highlights.


    The 10D practice of showing a jpeg histogram, in spite of capturing in
    raw format, makes using a +1 exposure bias tricky because at the time
    of shooting the amount of information spilled into the sixth stop (if
    you'll allow that technical leap) cannot be gauged by viewing the LCD.
    I wonder if the $8000 EOS-1Ds Mark II offers better information.

    With the 10D I've captured about 200 files using +1 exposure bias (+2
    is too extreme) and evaluative metering. About 10% of those have
    pixels where at least one channel has a value of 255. Bill Hilton
    pointed out, "If only one channel is clipped then any RAW converter
    can salvage some data and reconstruct something." When two channels
    are blown out, I'm finding the PS RIC reconstruction produces lower
    quality than I would like, but it would be quite acceptable for
    vacation snapshots.

    For the files where the +1 exposure bias worked as expected , the
    extra stop of dynamic range yields highlight detail in a sunny outdoor
    scene shot through a window while showing shadow detail for the
    interior room without flash fill. I've only achieved this before by
    layering and masking in Photoshop two precisely-aligned images, one
    exposed for highlight, the other for shadow. A tricky business if one
    is shooting a basketball game. :=)

    However, as "dylan" commented ("...not sure about the accuracy of the
    result compared to the original."), I'm seeing problems with loss of
    detail in yellow highlights even when the red and green channels are
    clipped in very few pixels.

    I may not be enough of a scientist to correctly evaluate what's
    happening, but this kind of dynamic-range gain is a most interesting
    topic. Hopefully someone who has done similar experiments, or found
    reports on the topic, will chime in.
    --David
    David Ellis, May 9, 2005
    #5
  6. David Ellis

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >David Ellis writes ...
    >
    >The 10D practice of showing a jpeg histogram, in spite of capturing in


    >raw format, makes using a +1 exposure bias tricky ...
    >I wonder if the $8000 EOS-1Ds Mark II offers better information.


    I have a 1Ds and a 1D Mark II and I don't trust the histogram on those
    either, for the same reasons. You eventually learn there's a 'fudge
    factor' and only go so far to leave a bit of working room.

    >With the 10D I've captured about 200 files using +1 exposure bias ...
    >this kind of dynamic-range gain is a most interesting topic.


    Here's another write-up on this which you may find interesting (I
    haven't read the Fraser link yet so not sure how much is duplicated)
    .... http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

    >Hopefully someone who has done similar experiments, or found
    >reports on the topic, will chime in.


    I ran some tests trying to decide if it were better to shoot metered at
    a low ISO or to shoot with exposure compensation at higher ISO (ie, ISO
    100 vs ISO 200 @ +1 vs ISO 400 @ +2 vs ISO 800 @ +3), with the
    overexposure compensated for during RAW conversion (note you can only
    do this with low contrast scenes since with a full tonal range you
    start to clip with the + compensation). My conclusion was it made
    little difference in image quality whether you shot at ISO 400 @ +2 and
    adjusted during RAW conversion compared to shooting at ISO 100 at 0
    compensation. The problem with +2 as you note is that you get close to
    the right edge of the histogram and can clip a channel, so as a
    practical matter if I have exposure room on the histogram to go +2 or
    +1 I would just as soon lower the ISO instead and shoot at 0 (ie,
    metered) at the same shutter speed.

    You can check your camera to see if you get the same results ... here
    are two links showing what I got ...

    http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/iso800_200.jpg (shot a gray card at
    800, 800 -2 exposure +2 RAW conversion, 800 +2 exposure -2 RAW
    conversion and at 200. All should give roughly equivalent exposures
    but note the 800 -2 exp/+2 RAW is the noisest, 800 @ 0 second noisest
    (as predicted by the "expose right" articles), and 800 +2 exp/-2 RAW is
    pretty similar to the ISO 200 shot, noise-wise.

    http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/iso800_100.jpg ... 800 +3 exp -2.2
    RAW to get the exposure right vs ISO 100 metered ... looking at the
    histograms you can see you are getting close to the clipping point at
    +3 with nothing brighter than a gray card so any scene that would have
    a decent range of tonal values would already be clipping. It's simpler
    for me to just lower the ISO and shoot as metered since I get the same
    end results (maybe a little smoother at 100 in this sample ... YMMV
    depending on your camera and RAW converter).

    Pretty easy to run your own tests with your camera and a gray card.

    Bill
    Bill Hilton, May 10, 2005
    #6
  7. David Ellis

    Paul Furman Guest

    Bill Hilton wrote:
    >
    > I ran some tests trying to decide if it were better to shoot metered at
    > a low ISO or to shoot with exposure compensation at higher ISO (ie, ISO
    > 100 vs ISO 200 @ +1 vs ISO 400 @ +2 vs ISO 800 @ +3), with the
    > overexposure compensated for during RAW conversion (note you can only
    > do this with low contrast scenes since with a full tonal range you
    > start to clip with the + compensation). My conclusion was it made
    > little difference in image quality



    It's not a big difference but I tried loading your test shots in
    irfanview & boosting the contrast way way way up and there is a very
    obvious differnce if you exaggerate it enough. But I agree, I can't tell
    without that exaggeration, except of course the underexposed one. It may
    be though that with a low contrast scene, you *would* want to increase
    contrast significantly.

    Here's my test on a D70 enlarged 200%:
    <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/expose-right>


    > whether you shot at ISO 400 @ +2 and
    > adjusted during RAW conversion compared to shooting at ISO 100 at 0
    > compensation. The problem with +2 as you note is that you get close to
    > the right edge of the histogram and can clip a channel, so as a
    > practical matter if I have exposure room on the histogram to go +2 or
    > +1 I would just as soon lower the ISO instead and shoot at 0 (ie,
    > metered) at the same shutter speed.
    >
    > You can check your camera to see if you get the same results ... here
    > are two links showing what I got ...
    >
    > http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/iso800_200.jpg (shot a gray card at
    > 800, 800 -2 exposure +2 RAW conversion, 800 +2 exposure -2 RAW
    > conversion and at 200. All should give roughly equivalent exposures
    > but note the 800 -2 exp/+2 RAW is the noisest, 800 @ 0 second noisest
    > (as predicted by the "expose right" articles), and 800 +2 exp/-2 RAW is
    > pretty similar to the ISO 200 shot, noise-wise.
    >
    > http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/iso800_100.jpg ... 800 +3 exp -2.2
    > RAW to get the exposure right vs ISO 100 metered ... looking at the
    > histograms you can see you are getting close to the clipping point at
    > +3 with nothing brighter than a gray card so any scene that would have
    > a decent range of tonal values would already be clipping. It's simpler
    > for me to just lower the ISO and shoot as metered since I get the same
    > end results (maybe a little smoother at 100 in this sample ... YMMV
    > depending on your camera and RAW converter).
    >
    > Pretty easy to run your own tests with your camera and a gray card.
    >
    > Bill
    >


    --
    Paul Furman
    http://www.edgehill.net/1
    san francisco native plants
    Paul Furman, May 10, 2005
    #7
  8. David Ellis

    Guest

    Bill Hilton wrote:
    > Here's another write-up on this which you may find interesting (I
    > haven't read the Fraser link yet so not sure how much is duplicated)
    > ... http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml


    That's where I originally learned the "expose to the right" technique,
    but the article places a lot of faith in the histogram that the camera
    presents:


    "But, we all know (or at least should by now) that the worst sin in
    digital imaging is to blow out the highlights - just as it was when
    shooting slide film. Once they're blown (past the right-hand edge of
    the histogram) it's bye-bye data."
    [...]
    "The simple lesson to be learned from this is to bias your exposures so
    that the histogram is snugged up to the right, but not to the point
    that the highlights are blown. This can usually be seen by the flashing
    alert on most camera review screens. Just back off so that the flashing
    stops."


    That's what I've been doing - if I see the camera indicating blown
    highlights after the shot I will usually take the shot again with a
    slight negative exposure correction... unless it's something
    difficult/obvious like the sun hiding behind a tree branch.

    One suggestion I've seen on another forum is to set your in-camera
    defaults to produce a flatter, lower contrast image which will show a
    less aggressive histogram. I'm going to do some experimenting with this
    today, modifying the in-camera settings and trying various levels of
    overexposure to see what happens.

    > I ran some tests trying to decide if it were better to shoot metered

    at
    > a low ISO or to shoot with exposure compensation at higher ISO (ie,

    ISO
    > 100 vs ISO 200 @ +1 vs ISO 400 @ +2 vs ISO 800 @ +3), with the
    > overexposure compensated for during RAW conversion (note you can only
    > do this with low contrast scenes since with a full tonal range you
    > start to clip with the + compensation). My conclusion was it made
    > little difference in image quality whether you shot at ISO 400 @ +2

    and
    > adjusted during RAW conversion compared to shooting at ISO 100 at 0
    > compensation.


    For normal exposure times it probably doesn't make much difference, but
    I've found that if you're planning to have your shutter open for
    minutes, longer exposures at a lower ISO have less noise than shorter
    exposures at a higher ISO. Makes sense: I believe that higher ISO in
    camera is achieved by cranking up the analog gain.
    , May 10, 2005
    #8
  9. David Ellis

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >Paul Furman
    >Here's my test on a D70 enlarged 200%:

    <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=­go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/ex­pose-right>


    These seem a good bit noiser at 200% than the 1D Mark II shots I posted
    at 400%, at least to my eyes.
    Bill Hilton, May 10, 2005
    #9
  10. David Ellis

    David Ellis Guest

    On 9 May 2005 20:03:14 -0700, wrote:

    >Bill Hilton wrote:
    >> Here's another write-up on this which you may find interesting (I
    >> haven't read the Fraser link yet so not sure how much is duplicated)
    >> ... http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

    >
    >That's where I originally learned the "expose to the right" technique,
    >but the article places a lot of faith in the histogram that the camera
    >presents:
    >
    >
    >"But, we all know (or at least should by now) that the worst sin in
    >digital imaging is to blow out the highlights - just as it was when
    >shooting slide film. Once they're blown (past the right-hand edge of
    >the histogram) it's bye-bye data."
    >[...]
    >"The simple lesson to be learned from this is to bias your exposures so
    >that the histogram is snugged up to the right, but not to the point
    >that the highlights are blown. This can usually be seen by the flashing
    >alert on most camera review screens. Just back off so that the flashing
    >stops."


    I also learned "expose to the right" at luminous-landscape. But the
    "Just back off so that the flashing stops" troubled me because
    retaining the flashing is precisely what's required to gain the
    benefits of using positive exposure bias in the camera and negative
    exposure values in the raw image converter.
    >
    >
    >That's what I've been doing - if I see the camera indicating blown
    >highlights after the shot I will usually take the shot again with a
    >slight negative exposure correction... unless it's something
    >difficult/obvious like the sun hiding behind a tree branch.
    >

    It is the high-contrast scene that utilizes the expose-to-the-right
    technique.
    <snip>

    Because of my limited experience with this subject, I had trouble
    relating to the 18% gray test targets in the other article. A regular
    photo is easier for me to follow.

    At www.ellisisle.com/raw_image_tests see a single raw file, processed
    a variety of ways. After exposure the 10D's Info LCD had lots of
    flashing. I suggest you open all four .htm files on screen together,
    each in a tab or its own window, for comparison purposes.

    The images show the difference between dealing with apparently
    blown-out highlights in Photoshop Curves (2.htm) and dealing with them
    in the raw image converter (3.htm and 4.htm). The latter provides
    highlight detail recovery in an apparently overexposed image that
    cannot be achieved with Photoshop Curves.

    The broad tonal range in 4.htm is dependent on having the 10D's
    blown-out highilght indication flashing.
    --David
    David Ellis, May 11, 2005
    #10
  11. David Ellis

    Paul Furman Guest

    Bill Hilton wrote:

    >>Paul Furman
    >>Here's my test on a D70 enlarged 200%:

    >
    > <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=�go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/ex�pose-right>
    >
    >
    > These seem a good bit noiser at 200% than the 1D Mark II shots I posted
    > at 400%, at least to my eyes.



    Yep, they are indeed! Less than 1/4 the price though. I would love to
    see this kind of test done under controlled conditions for a bunch of
    different cameras. It is very revealing. This plus a crop of a
    complicated scene would make an extremely valuable comparison chart.


    --
    Paul Furman
    http://www.edgehill.net/1
    san francisco native plants
    Paul Furman, May 11, 2005
    #11
  12. David Ellis

    Paul Furman Guest

    David Ellis wrote:
    >
    > It is the high-contrast scene that utilizes the expose-to-the-right
    > technique.



    Hmm, interesting, I see what you mean from the example.


    >
    > At www.ellisisle.com/raw_image_tests see a single raw file, processed
    > a variety of ways. After exposure the 10D's Info LCD had lots of
    > flashing. I suggest you open all four .htm files on screen together,
    > each in a tab or its own window, for comparison purposes.
    >
    > The images show the difference between dealing with apparently
    > blown-out highlights in Photoshop Curves (2.htm) and dealing with them
    > in the raw image converter (3.htm and 4.htm). The latter provides
    > highlight detail recovery in an apparently overexposed image that
    > cannot be achieved with Photoshop Curves.



    The real surprise in that set is between 2 & 3
    http://ellisisle.com/raw_image_tests/2.htm
    http://ellisisle.com/raw_image_tests/3.htm

    I'm confused though because the dark interior areas are the same in
    these two. This doesn't make sense.


    >
    > The broad tonal range in 4.htm is dependent on having the 10D's
    > blown-out highilght indication flashing.



    4 has the shaded areas lost in black which is what I would expect.


    --
    Paul Furman
    http://www.edgehill.net/1
    san francisco native plants
    Paul Furman, May 11, 2005
    #12
  13. David Ellis

    Guest

    INteresting and educational discussion! Thanks.

    On Sun, 08 May 2005 04:18:34 GMT, David Ellis <>
    wrote:

    >Bruce Fraser's white paper at
    >
    >http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/linear_gamma.pdf
    >
    >makes the case that half the information in a digital capture is in
    >the fifth, or highest, stop. And some digital cameras can capture and
    >image that is overexposed, thereby driving image information into that
    >often little-used last stop. The highlights, apparently blown out, can
    >be recovered in Photoshop's raw image converter.
    >
    >Using a Canon EOS 10D, I've tried this with some amazingly good
    >results and some poor results. I'd like to hear about your 10D
    >experience in this area.
    >
    >--David
    , May 11, 2005
    #13
  14. David Ellis

    Guest

    In message <>,
    Paul Furman <> wrote:

    >Yep, they are indeed! Less than 1/4 the price though. I would love to
    >see this kind of test done under controlled conditions for a bunch of
    >different cameras. It is very revealing. This plus a crop of a
    >complicated scene would make an extremely valuable comparison chart.


    It would be more illuminating about the camera *hardware* if you looked
    at the RAW data. Every RAW conversion is different. You can look at
    the red and blue channels of the RAW as a simple bitmap; the green is a
    little special with bayer, and must be rotated to make a normal bitmap.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , May 12, 2005
    #14
  15. David Ellis

    Guest

    In message <>,
    "Bill Hilton" <> wrote:

    >I ran some tests trying to decide if it were better to shoot metered at
    >a low ISO or to shoot with exposure compensation at higher ISO


    I asked once before, but you never replied; what are you measuring with
    a grey card? A grey card tells you almost nothing about *posterization*
    of the shadows, the biggest enemy of low RAW levels.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , May 12, 2005
    #15
  16. David Ellis

    Guest

    In message <>,
    wrote:

    >One suggestion I've seen on another forum is to set your in-camera
    >defaults to produce a flatter, lower contrast image which will show a
    >less aggressive histogram. I'm going to do some experimenting with this
    >today, modifying the in-camera settings and trying various levels of
    >overexposure to see what happens.


    That pretty much works with the Canons, as far as that goes. -2
    contrast in the camera (set for JPEGs) pretty much has the clipping
    point of the histogram right about where the most sensitive color
    channel will clip with a white highlight (if the WB setting is correct).
    That is usually green, and the blue may go another half stop, and the
    red may go another stop, with "daylight" balance. Red goes further with
    the cooler WB settings, and the blue goes further with the warmer ones.
    Theoretically, you could put a cyan-blue filter on the camera, and shoot
    greyscale scenes with much more than 12-bits of luminance levels, but of
    course, the highlights will be red-sensitive only.

    Of course, a true RAW RGB histogram would be so convenient, but the
    manufacturers don't seem to care if we can optimize our exposure.

    In fact, the flash units for most digitals should give off magenta
    light. I've put magenta filters made from "Flomo" transparent binders
    over my 550EX, and had a grey card give RAW levels within 10% for all
    three channels. The manufacturers are sleeping, and dreaming about
    digital "film". Where are the tungsten and daylight lens filters,
    adjusted for CFA sensitivities?
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , May 12, 2005
    #16
  17. David Ellis

    Paul Furman Guest

    wrote:
    >
    > A grey card tells you almost nothing about *posterization*
    > of the shadows, the biggest enemy of low RAW levels.



    When I (heavily) boosted contrast in his samples, posterization was the
    big noticeable difference.

    --
    Paul Furman
    http://www.edgehill.net/1
    san francisco native plants
    Paul Furman, May 12, 2005
    #17
  18. David Ellis

    Bill Hilton Guest

    > John P Sheehy writes
    >
    > I asked once before, but you never replied; what are you measuring
    > with a grey card?


    I thought it was obvious ... measuring noise.
    Bill Hilton, May 15, 2005
    #18
  19. David Ellis

    Guest

    In message <>,
    "Bill Hilton" <> wrote:

    >> John P Sheehy writes
    >>
    >> I asked once before, but you never replied; what are you measuring
    >> with a grey card?

    >
    >I thought it was obvious ... measuring noise.


    I know what you're trying to measure. I am asking why you think this is
    a comprehensive test for the issue of variable ISO with fixed exposure.

    The alleged (and real) benefit of shooting at ISO 1600 and +2 as opposed
    to ISO 400 and 0 EC is for the shadows; mainly the deeper shadows, *OR*
    low-contrast midtones and highlights restored to high contrast with PP.
    In other words, it is to avoid posterization.

    Exposing a grey card is not *supposed* to show the more important
    benefits. Also, you never know how much the RAW conversion obliterates
    detail along with noise, if there is no detail that you can lose.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , May 15, 2005
    #19
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Steve Hoffmann

    RAW converter comparisons with Canon's 10D

    Steve Hoffmann, Jul 29, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    368
    badgerfish
    Jul 30, 2003
  2. Steve

    Sony S85 Overexposure

    Steve, Oct 18, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    422
    Steve
    Oct 19, 2003
  3. LoneShadow
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,195
    Ray Murphy
    Nov 25, 2003
  4. Ted Rogers

    Canon Raw Image Converter for 10D

    Ted Rogers, Apr 24, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    1,033
    Steve Hoffmann
    Apr 26, 2004
  5. Dave

    olympus D-390 overexposure problem

    Dave, Jul 29, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    361
Loading...

Share This Page