Please no lectures about Raw being better, etc. I'm trying to learn this camera and most of the time, if I set it right, it takes beautiful pictures. So lets not get into all the controversy here. I'm just trying to analze a shot. Will you help me?
OK, #1 I could have knocked it down to -.7, but don't think that would have done it. Maybe ISO 200 would have helped. Guess I could have metered for the highlights and done shadow/highlight to bring up the shadows. But at the time it didn't seem like it was such a contrasty scene. Guess I was mistaken!
There is an overhead ceiling window that shines on the table where the blown area is. I hesitate to say "highlights" because this was a tan teashirt and a green table that was completely blownout. This has happened to me with landscapes too where there is significant contrast. It seems like the metering of this camera isn't as good as I would have hoped. I have had 2 other DSLR's and many digital cameras over the last 6 years, spent alot of time shooting, being here, and in PS. Am I just getting more sensitive to highlight control and dynamic range, or does this camera have more problems than others? I used to take shots with my first camera, the C2100, and it had some problems in this area, but I consistently took some great shots in high contrast situaltions, without much fiddling with the camera.


ISO 400, exposure comp -.3, f4.5,1/60 sec., eval metering, Program mode. I think set to Vivid.
http://antara.smugmug.com/photos/175416906-L.jpg
--
Antara
http://antara.smugmug.com