>>4014194Not only underexposed again (only slightly this time), but with motion blur and the appearance of being slightly out of focus. I'll give the benefit of the doubt on that last one and say it's a limitation of the sharpness of the lens + motion blur. I certainly wouldn't say any of that image is "sharp" at all. Also,
>I know what I'm doing, but I also just fix things in post because I don't actually know what I'm doing>>4014255>No, because a histogram describes the exposure of the photo. What you want your histogram to look like is subjective, but you have to know generally what you want it to look like in order to make an informed choiceFacts. Under / over is objective, whether or not that's what you want for the photo is subjective.
Bird guy, where do you think you are on this chart?
