Quote:
|
For instance take a picture of a person standing in front of a window, (on a sunny a day). Prior to taking picture note the individual. Then take a picture. You will see the resulting image have the person look as if they are hidden in a shadow.
|
Not if you spot-meter for the subject instead of the background. Then you will have the correct exposure for the subject, with the background overexposed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by =X=
That is exactly the point I make. The eye has the ability to capture all of that information and register it and compensate without any human awareness. Digital cameras (CCD) have very narrow resolution and low light depth, compared to the human eye.
...
Again the same amount of light that enters the human eye enters the camera, but the final image of the camera is far worse than what was seen with the naked eye.
=X=
|
I can only repeat what I already said in my post which you do not include in your quote. Your reasoning only makes sense if the amount of light coming from the PRS-700 is at the sensitivity threshold of the camera, and if that coming from the PRS-505 is well above the threshold. Looking, at the posted pictures, this is not the case. There was ample and uniform ambient lighting for the shots. We are looking at face-on, side-by-side images taken with one shot, i.e. we are making a relative comparison using one photo, and all things were equal as far as the camera was concerned. I am not now comparing what the eye sees and what the camera sees, just what the camera sees.
In fact, since your post made me think about this more, I am now quite convinced that the difference in the 700 and 505 that the original photos show is real and not an artificial one.