Oh great! I'll make sure to check it out soon and report back.
Also, it just came to my mind that the app has already supported numbers below 0.1% since a long time. Namely, it allows setting it to 0%. It's just values between 0% and 0.1% that were not possible. By the logic that 0.001% is computing exposure based on 400 pixels (and thus subject to noise and other small image variations), 0% bases it on just a single pixel and is thus even more strongly affected by these issues.
In practice I traditionally kept bouncing between 0% and 0.1% depending on what types of images im culling, and almost never using anything higher. So my past usage pattern suggests that the problems that come with basing exposure on just a few pixels were a worthwile tradeoff for me in the past, even in the extreme case of just a single pixel, and that the optimal setting for me is somewhere in between.
Oh great! I'll make sure to
Oh great! I'll make sure to check it out soon and report back.
Also, it just came to my mind that the app has already supported numbers below 0.1% since a long time. Namely, it allows setting it to 0%. It's just values between 0% and 0.1% that were not possible. By the logic that 0.001% is computing exposure based on 400 pixels (and thus subject to noise and other small image variations), 0% bases it on just a single pixel and is thus even more strongly affected by these issues.
In practice I traditionally kept bouncing between 0% and 0.1% depending on what types of images im culling, and almost never using anything higher. So my past usage pattern suggests that the problems that come with basing exposure on just a few pixels were a worthwile tradeoff for me in the past, even in the extreme case of just a single pixel, and that the optimal setting for me is somewhere in between.