PhotoBanter.com - View Single Post

**John Navas[_2_]**

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 19:12:48 -0900, (Floyd L. Davidson)
wrote in :

John Navas wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 00:13:19 -0900, (Floyd L. Davidson)
wrote in :

John Navas wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 00:02:51 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote in
:

Floyd is correct. Nikon's blinking warning is extremely useful, in some
respects better than a histogram since it shows exactly which parts of the
shot are overexposed, which a histogram cannot do. For example, if the only
overexposure is on specular highlights there may be no need for
correction -- and a histogram wouldn't tell you that.

Specular highlights are actually easy to spot on a histogram as a far
brightness spike, whereas burned out highlights are a tail.

False.

You say that based on direct experience. No, wait ... you've

No, wait...

I have zero direct experience with the cheap camera that
you use, that is true. But years of experience with
multiple different cameras that use both a histogram and
a blink on over exposure LCD display.

You have zero direct experience with *any* sort of the
blink on over exposure LCD display that we are talking
about.

Guess what that leaves us with John?

An incorrect statement by you.

acknowledged zero direct experience ...
so you're guessing. And, unfortunately, wrong.

Is it necessary to be dishonest? That does tell us that
you *know* you are wrong.

Name calling concedes the point.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)