Which sentences do you find misleading?
April 10, 2023
638
-
-
It has been proven that pictures of cats work better than pictures of mugs!
-
Im going to wash my ute 😁 see if my last post works 😎
-
😂🤣
I must be on the wrong forum, i thought i was on a photography forum. No wonder im being called a troll and getting in the sh.....t. my bad everyone i will not pick my camera up again a take a photo ,ooops image .🙄 -
That's ok. Many people have found what I posted very clear and unambiguous and accurate. Whether they accept it or not is their choice to make.
-
No-one is disputing that is how you determine if the image lightness is acceptable or not. That is your choice to make.
I set exposure* differently to the way you do as described earlier.
That's fine. Many people do that as well. But it's not the most accurate way because if you sat 10 different people in front of your monitors and ask them to calibrate them using their eyes, you most likely will end up with 10 different sets of monitor settings suited to each individual's eyes.
If you are happy with your images and prints that's all well and good. Just keep doing what works best for you and other people can continue doing what works best for them 🙂
* exposure - amount of light that struck the sensor per unit area while the shutter was open
** optimal exposure - the maximum exposure* within dof and motion blur requirements without clipping important highlights.
*** under exposed - more exposure* could have been added with the DOF and blur constraints still being met without clipping important highlights. -
I do it every weekend. I'm almost exclusively at f/5.6 when photographing birds in-flight. The lens is wide open. I use a 1/2000 or higher shutter speed with no clouds in the sky. I slow things down to 1/1600 when a very dark bird (e.g. turkey vulture) flies by or when conditions are slightly overcast.
At this point, all I need to do is look at the weather conditions and I know exactly what my exposure settings are going to be. They meet my creative goals for depth of field and rendering of movement. They maximize exposure within those goals. They're correct.
I have no idea if this is the only way to determine a good or correct exposure. I doubt that it is. But it's how i roll :)
-
exactly , until you get into clothing which i shoot a few clothing sponsored dancers in my studio and my colours and brightness of those colours have to be perfect. especially Fluro colours , must admit my sony a74 is fantastic for colour reproduction when shooting extremely colourful costumes. nothing worst than bright fluro light green turning into yellow.
-
That is pretty much the general principle I follow as well for BIF except I'm usually at around f/8 for DOF needs. But that's just my preference.
But in the situation you describe where you have changing conditions I set a minimum shutter speed as well. So in the situation you describe with changing cloud conditions I would set 1/1600s, or the slowest I knew I can still freeze motion at, minimum shutter speed. That way if it became very bright suddenly, the camera automatically compensates by setting a faster shutter speed to 1/2000s or whatever it needs to prevent highlight clipping.
-
Mechanical Engineer here, BS & MS. Nice to meet some "normal" people!
I was required to take 3 semesters of physics, the last was the equivalent of quantum mechanics for dummies (non-physics majors). I learned everything is just a fuzzy ball of probability. I'm the guy who is supposed to work with gears, engines, pumps, and piping. Who thought up that requirement?
-
Actually, believe it or not, I had never heard of the „exposure triangle“ until I came across this discussion. Now I have met it, it reminds me of the Bermuda Triangle.
David
-
I absolutely believe you. If you learned before the invention of the 'triangle' you would be unaware of it. I only became aware because I found people telling me that I didn't know anything about exposure because the triangle. It didn't take very long to work out that there was a correlation between those that didn't know anything about exposure and those that adhered to the triangle.
-
If it was engineer against physics major, I'd have less problems with this posting. I have done math against software engineer professionally. But some ideas here sound more like philosopher against photographer.
-
I'm intrigued to know which ideas you mean. I haven't seen anything put forward which isn't either accepted as core photographic theory since the end of the 19th century or isn't just the basics of how modern digital technology works.
-
Sadly, there's a third group who know it's wrong and teach it anyway.
Sherm -
I have been setting exposure via the histogram for years. I shoot a picture, check the histogram, adjust shutter and aperture so it's up against the end stop without clipping any important highlights I wish to retain texture in. If insufficient exposure is indicated by spare room on the right side of the histogram, I reshoot. Mirrorless cameras with preview histograms make this quicker and easier. I also have zebras set to the highest value my camera supports (105%). The caveat is lack of confidence in the jpg histogram. I always think there is probably room to boost exposure even higher for raw shooting, but I never quite have the nerve to deliberately clip. I don't care what the preview image looks like, I sort out the tones in editing.
Judging by the contents of this thread, that probably means I've been doing it right all along. At least I hope so 🙂
-
Well.......right or wrong seems to be a hotly debated issue 😊 .......but it's certainly the way I set exposure* now 👍
Fwiw, in my experience I know I have about 1/2 a stop of extra exposure* after the camera's histogram shows clipping before the actual raw data is clipped.
* exposure - amount of light that struck the sensor per unit area while the shutter was open
** optimal exposure - the maximum exposure* within dof and motion blur requirements without clipping important highlights.
*** under exposed - more exposure* could have been added with the DOF and blur constraints still being met without clipping important highlights. -
Let me have a go at interpreting this picture with an example. My wife accidentally set her camera to ISO4000, then shot 2 week's worth of wildlife photography in blazing Namibian sunshine. The resulting images are very noisy, despite the intense sunlight.
So, what she did by setting ISO4000:
i) boosted amplification, resulting in slightly reduced read noise in the shadows.ii) She also told the camera to underexpose by 6 stops (and boost brightness to disguise this) resulting in a massive increase in the contribution of photon shot noise and thus a commensurate reduction in SNR. This also increased the risk of clipping.
EDITED: Conclusion: The increase in shot noise vastly outweighs the reduction in read noise, significantly lowering SNR, hence the excessive overall noise despite the bright sunny conditions.
Do I have that about right?
Cheers
Dave
