I never test people.
Repro - is making reproductions (of, say, paintings).
I use stacking to effectively lower ISO to something like 6; I use magenta filters on the flashes to get better exposure of red and blue channels (but I do it for outdoors too when needed, putting a filter in front of the lens or into the filter compartment), I can use multi-spectral images, and in certain cases - if a document is fragile, and flashes are out of question - monochrome camera with 5 to 9 colour filters.
May 9, 2023
810
-
-
Kind of like the dismissing of someone else's honestly held views as pedantry.
I say exactly what you're missing - that a goal and a means of achieving that goal are different things.
No, it's just saying what you seem to think. I can't say for certain what you think because I'm not telepathic. So I just have to say how it seems to me, There's no insinuation that you're daft to think so.
That's not what's happening at all. I'm trying my best to interpret what you're saying and telling you how I interpret it. If that's not a correct interpretation of what you meant, then we have a communication issue, which is exactly what I've been talking about. If I get it wrong, just clarify what you meant.
I'm not trying to get you to admit that you have the wrong conception of what ETTR is. I'm just saying that we have different conceptions, and that has caused a miscommunication. Then I tried to understand what your interpretation is, but you didn't like that either.
OK, but that's wasn't 'ETTR as I was interpreting it, and I think as many would interpret it. But if that's your definition of good exposure, I think you're missing some important things. A good exposure needs to be compatible with your pictorial and operational constraints. If the exposure you choose doesn't deliver that, you can't really call it a 'good exposure' - which I think was the point that I made several posts back.
The method misses completely meeting pictorial and operational constraints. Keeping in base ISO is not always a good idea, You've now introdused the histogram, which is the core of what I understand as the ETTR method, which you seemed to be denying earlier. The histogram is often misleading for raw exposure, and there are other, often simpler ways of achieving this goal (for instance, spot metering off the highlights with appropriate offset or calibration of the meter).
If you include the use of the histogram, yes. You shouldn't ever assume that 'anyone' knows what you mean, because they really don't, unless your communication skills are superb. Most of the communication errors here have been cause by failure to use precise terms. The context in no way covers inaccuracies and neither are they minor. Your interlocutor is not telepathic, so you need to say what you mean clearly, and if asked for clarification, give it.
Nothing I have said has been ad hominem. It's all been about what you say, not who you are. Things like 'category errors' are explaining why I disagree with what you say. What you appeared to be saying included a category error, therefore I cannot agree with it. That's how discussion works.
And I'm not responding to your added rather offensive request. -
perfect. because i had the slightest of zebras flashing.
-
No, because you've set the camera that way. Zebras are only an imperfect indicator.
-
Totally agree
-
😂🤣Now your finally getting how they drive up post numbers 😁
Jims reply from another post is a good example
It think that's entirely situational. If I were faced with the kinds of assignments that you are, I might do pretty much the same as you do (although I think I'd probably use lower ISOs in dim light).
If you were doing the kind of work I do, you might work more like me. 🤨
what kind of work😵💫
-
oh no i didnt, i took the image based on the histogram not the zebras 😁 i only checked the zebras,
so the histogram is NOT recorded from the jpeg file. you guys got it all wrong. -
-
Hilarious! Especially when "NOT" is in caps, unlike the rest of the text ...
-
Nice work Jim.
-
It is isnt it. I think the camera manufactures know what they are doing. raw histogram requests 🤣😂
what a fluke stumbling upon the larger histogram on my sony cameras . i never use that screen. -
Now take a shot of a bunch of red flowers "based on the histogram" just like you did for that prior shot and post the screen grabs for the in-camera live histogram and the Fast Raw Viewer histograms of the flower shot just like you did for the prior shot.
-
Or even better, deep blue flowers.
-
'They' don't have to do much, Don. You make a sterling contribution. Thanks.
-
did that yesterday a red lunch box and a yellow leaf.
Btw red flowers are mid tones 😂🤣 -
Im a flower shooter. deep blue flowers 😂🤣
-
Which histogram failed you? Are you saying that clipping isn't because you set the camera to clip but because some histogram tricked you? Maybe let's have a look at the raw file...
-
Either would do just fine but I suggested red flowers because they're easier to find and DXOMark indicates that the red channel is weaker than the blue channel in the A6300. Donald is already avoiding the request, so I wouldn't hold my breath.
