It's a lot simpler to learn your evaluative or matrix metering and adjust where necessary. Sort metering is OK if you want to faff about and tinker. More and more I'm seeing this forum is populated by theorists not photographers.
-
-
[/quote]
Because you simply don't need to in most situations! Again and again on these forums I'm seeing simple tasks re-invented with complicated solutions that appeal to theorists and that are simply laughable to actual photographers.
[/quote]Hmmm . . . I'm an actual photographer. I'm pretty pragmatic. No one has ever (mis)identified me as a theorist! And I like the method.
Rich
-
Yes agreed, but the premise on these forums is geared to theory whilst setting up shots at leisure. What it lacks, to the tune of 100%, is any reality to photographers who actually work for a living or need to be geared up for the "decisive moment". So, this is a theory site for gear heads. A photography forum it is not!
-
Lately, I've been doing what I'll call "engineering photography". Pictures of components and assemblies of a vintage railcar, to be used in crafting replacements some time from now. They (mostly) don't give a crap about white balance, but they're very concerned that objects can be discerned. In difficult lighting, I have to expose creatively to preserve highlights for that reason. Oh, some of the images are for determination of color for painting, those need careful determination of white balance and also depend on not blowing highlights so good RGB measurements can be had.
Yep, each use case in photography has its particular considerations.
-
Knowing how a camera works is something that many photographers like to figure out, knowing how a camera works can put that cameras performance into the bracket for a cameras that can cost 2 and 3 times more.
Take the OP understanding what the raw file is doing anyone with a 1.5 cropped camera can duplicate the very image quality he is seeking.
We know this because the very raw histogram he provided show he is underexposing the image one stop the very difference you will see from cropped to FF -
That's because they were never 'simple tasks'. Choosing the optimal exposure for your shot has never been simple, which is why there is so much mystique and discussion about it. Finding an exposure that will do, depending on what your standards are, is much simpler.
-
Yes they are simple tasks! No, it's not about "your standards". It's about getting the job done consistently for your clients and/or yourself with minimum of fuss. That means being an artist first and foremost. But it also means learning your tools TO A MEANINGFUL LEVEL to get the shot. It DOES NOT mean needing a degree in nuclear physics to press the shutter.
Unfortunately this forum is already showing a decided bias towards theory folk, without a photograph to illustrate their musings.
It's already become a bit too tedious, frankly. Continue like this and this forum will die.
-
Like 78% of statistics are
I've seen plenty of photographers, particularly product and studio workers, and also people working in mixed light outdoors, spend a good portion of an hour trying to set the exposure, something that they could do much more quickly of they understood raw histograms and how to use RD. Truth is, most professionals I know were either self-taught or learned their trade in an art school, where 'theory' tends to mean semiotics, which isn't a whole load of use working out your exposure.
No-one ever said that's what it meant. Plenty of professional photographers are successful without ever really knowing how to optimise exposure. Or for that matter, knowing anything about semiotics.
-
OK, if finding the optimal exposure is so simple, try explaining how to do it in a couple of sentences.
-
In short, they worked it out and wouldn't know a raw histogram if it bit them on the ass. Exactly my point.
-
Worked what out? Probably not how to set an optimal exposure. It's a fact of life that many people make a perfectly decent living without doing a particularly good job, or finding places where they can work in their comfort zone (which is always sensible).
-
-
I'm pretty happy with the Z 6's highlight-weighted matrix metering. It does require manual attention to the tone curve in post, but I've crafted my workflow to make it quick and (relatively) simple. I'm going to try Iliah's technique to see if it can't be used in at least some of my capture use cases.
DPReview really had a good mix of practitioners and theorists, IMHO. And I think they need each other; theorists help the practitioners understand the digital imaging gonkulator, and practitioners keep them relevant. Jury's still out on DPRevived, methinks, but a lot of the folk I came to respect on both sides of it are here now...
-
Easy. 100% minus Ansel Adams.
-
Almost choked on my coffee…😂
-
I don't need blinkies, when in a hurry I simply use ISO Auto and -1EV. Faster, and doesn't get in the way of composing the shot.
-
AA. I like him, and he is so full of life.
-
Will 8 bullet points do?
- Shoot Raw
- Use M Mode with auto ISO
- Adjust aperture and shutter for appropriate dof and motion stopping, to the most light you can get for lowest ISO.
- Use ETTR with the above, as appropriate.
- Optimise your raw file in post.
- Don't bother looking at the raw in RD ... you've already taken the shot.
- Don't read any more irrelevant bull on here, go take more photos......
- Photography is art, artists never obsess over raw files. Ever. Under ANY circumstances.
