tried RAW -- it's rubbish !

Well I tried setting my 2007 bought K10D to the famous RAW to see what it's all about -- I heard you can get back highlight detail in RAW but not in JPeg -- it's not true !! I took a shot at a 2nd B'Day party using my Mecablitz 43CL3 flash , ISO 400 and f5.6 set and bounced the flash off wall and ceiling but the face is over-exposed -- I tried to 'Recover the Highlights' in my FastStone Image Viewer as my PhotoShop 7 does not work the 'RAW DNG 'files and all I got was worse contrast as I lowered the highlight detail and no extra detail at all -- here is a JPeg saved from the 'RAW' DNG file .

Peter, although it is possible to recover some highlight detail, in RAW, a blown highlight is a blown highlight which means there is no detail to recover.

One of the key 'recovery strengths' of RAW is the ability to pull detail from shadows. That's why the advice (for digital) is to expose the highlights correctly as you can always adjust the shadows in PP.

This is fairly standard advice for shooting in RAW.

I thought all Photoshop were able to convert DNG files. Did I miss something somewhere?

Always going to retrieve more detail in the newer K bodies than the old k-10 which doesn't have the dynamic range of the newer bodies...

If the highlights are blown in RAW, they would have been in JPG as well, and there's no way back no matter what file format is used.

With the greatest respect to a seasoned and very capable photographer, you must'ha got it wrong.

In RAW, you have about plus and minus 3 to 4 stops latitude to recover detail, the same just is not so with JPG.

I agree with what has been said above. I would also add from my experience that there does not seem too be as much tolerance for highlights as there is for shadows. For this reason I tend to pay more attention to maintaining highlights.

Hence the expression "Expose To The Right (ETTR)". If you ensure the highlights are not blown you can recover shadow detail more easily. Blown highlights are blown for good, no matter what camera/lens/software systems you use.

Many Thanks -- I bow to your Superior Knowledge -- back to Darkroom where I can easily 'Burn In ' a Face ---

Peter, I've always taken the view that on film negative stock we exposed for the shadows and on reversal stock we exposed for the highlights. Digital is like reversal .

Totally agree with Ken. Pretend your digital shots are on transparency film and you won't go far amiss.

Its ironic to an extent isn't it - transparency had supposedly less 'latitude' than negative, and exposure had to be more carefully managed, but RAW supposedly does not

The dynamic range is a different issue Nigel. With transparency film, the shadows might go pure black. With digital, the shadows will be full of usable information.

The issue being discussed is ensuring that the highlights are not blown out. It's actually very easy to achieve this with digital cameras and getting easier. The MX-1, for example, shows the blown out highlights before the shot is taken, rather than needing to check the playback image.

Ah !! I have been using 'Transparency Film' since FERRANIACOLOR and AGFA CT 18 in the late 1950's -- maybe the over-exposure occurred because the sitter was a long way off the background and the flash sensor picked up the dark background.

At least we don't have to suffer the sorrows of Orwochrome any more!

Having spent years using slide film I found exposing to the right fairly natural. Having given up on slides (I used to take them for lecture purposes but now I can use a scan of a negative film as easily as a scan of a slide) I'm finding the latitude of print films a bit of a luxury. Kodak Ektar can be a bit fussy, however.

Cheers, Kris.