How to get the best raw exposure, part 2

Your enmity of theory [about a 100 posts here alone] does not cease to amaze

My contribution has been about balancing science over practical implementation. What’s your contribution and/or objection exactly?

My posts on this thread have been about balancing the science against real world implementation.

You seem to have a personal beef with that vs folks banging on to the nth degree of pixels blown.

Fine, carry on 😂

It told me I must stop using tripods for studio scene ;)

Nope you still don’t get it Jim. You are focused on getting a great shot, whereas I have no option than to capture the shot. The decisive moment.

OK, to be fair I work in a specialised sector. Film sets. Next week I’ll be shooting inside a dark nightclub and outside too. At any moment I might be asked to do some actor headshots. I’ll be given 3 minutes for that, maybe less. I need to adapt and quickly.

What I’m saying would also resonate with every wedding photographer and a lot of event photographers too.

So, with respect, no I don’t want a stand, I don’t want a tripod, and I’m certainly not gonna worry about optimising my raw files.

I have 3 priorities:

1. Nailing the decisive moment instantly.
2. Nailing the decisive moment instantly.
3. Nailing the decisive moment instantly.

Your priorities and needs are different which is fine.

I was referring to www.dpreview.com/news/9982372929/canon-powershot-pro-70-added-to-the-studio-scene

You are not talking about what I'd call studio work. It sounds like you're talking about what I'd call location work.

OK, I give up. I have all my lighting equipment in the back of my van, just in case. It lacks a tripod or any kind of camera stand.

It’s not that I’m right and you are wrong.

But it’s abundantly clear to me that you have no grasp about such real world scenarios. Nor should you need to to be fair.

But the flip side to that is that folks like me don’t have the pure science knowledge, but we understand it and adapt it to our needs.

Some folk on this thread (not you Jim) seem to take pride in implying folk like me are stupid.

You kinda get it Jim. Some are obsessed with technical stuff to the expense of anything else,

Far from it. You make a living out of this, so it begs the question about who is the clever one in here. Just IMO is all.

Danny <---- getting back to simple basics that work.

If you are happy with your "good" photos that's great. Just do what works best for you that meets your requirements as other people do what is best for them.

You seem to be struggling to cope with people wanting to and being able to produce better than just "good" photos.

Far from it. The only thing I struggle with is a thread with over 600 posts arguing about ETTR, blown pixels and the like.

This technical nitpicking doesn’t make a good photograph.

The folks who are struggling on this thread are the ones who think a technically perfect raw file is the defining factor of making a good photograph.

It’s not!

If you think my views mean that I’m “struggling to cope with people being able to produce better than just "good" photos” then I’d suggest that you are so way off the mark that it’s time for you to take a step back and have a quiet moment of reflection about your views.

I have not seen anyone here advance that assertion.

.
.
.
"But it’s abundantly clear to me that you have no grasp about such real world scenarios. Nor should you need to to be fair."

On the basis of what evidence could you possibly make such a statement? If you actually were familiar with Jim's work you would be embarrassed to have said that.

"Some folk on this thread (not you Jim) seem to take pride in implying folk like me are stupid."

I haven't been a contributor to this thread until now. But I've seen no such behavior from anyone.

"You kinda get it Jim. Some are obsessed with technical stuff to the expense of anything else"

Again, I've seen no such thing.

But what if that were true? What in the world would be "wrong" with a thread of purely technical information about exposure and the way that digital sensors react to light?

Among all the other threads that exist on the forum? How does that harm you? Why does that offend you?

And, most importantly, why wouldn't you simply acknowledge such a thread for what it is it and use it as a reference source to benefit your own photography?

Authoritative works on photography do exist, devoted only to technical matters. Do you write complaints to those publishers?

Rich

Jim, you and I have debated robustly and you’ve been really good at trying to get your head around my world and folks like me. I’ve tried to put myself in your headspace too.

But as for the rest of the noise on this thread, it should be clear that many of the posts do advance that assertion. Albeit dressed up in a subtle and indirect delivery that screams out loud “we know best and anyone who disagrees is stupid”

Thank you for reinforcing my point with every single point in your reply. A perfect example of taking sides because you like the science and talking down to me in the process, trying to make me out as an idiot.

All said without providing a counter debate.

Genius!

My crime is bringing the real world back into this kind of scientific rutting contest.

On the old forum I wouldn’t be allowed to.

Here you can do it and it ruffles feathers. A dose of reality sends some folk into meltdown now.

ETTR can make a much better than "good" photo especially in low light conditions. The benefit of ETTR in good light is not so much. But no-one is saying everyone must use ETTR for every shot. In some situations it just isn't practical to ETTR to its full benefit.

That is you opinion as is obviously your right to have but I haven't seen anyone say that a technically perfect raw file is the defining factor of making a good photograph. It can be a factor but not the defining factor.

No-one is forcing you to read or contribute to this thread so it shouldn't be of any concern to you if those interested in the topic do.