You are providing further proof supporting my point at:
dprevived.com/t/why-is-so-much-nonsense-talked-about-telephoto-compression/3111/7/#post-42930 🤣🤣
Nope 😊 Exposure is the amount of light that struck the sensor per unit area while the shutter was open.
But there are many people who still have the misconception that exposure is how light or dark an image looks on the medium the image is being viewed on.
It's like Lord of the Flies in here. The sad part is that without you quoting anyone, I can't tell to which user(s) you have addressed your remark.
Aaron
Ok, thank you for clarifying because I can get results I am happy with without necessarily having "proper exposures" (using your words).
The "proper exposure" for me is the maximum exposure* within dof and motion blur requirements without clipping important highlights.
Setting ISO higher than necessary was the most common way I got exposure* wrong when I first started out even though the image lightness was what I wanted.
* exposure - amount of light that struck the sensor per unit area while the shutter was open.
Can you just put this thread out of it's misery?
And maybe ban a couple of people?
My query in my op was answered in the first 10 posts of this thread :-D 13 days ago!!
From my point of view this thread can now be locked:-)
I'm out.
Okay, that is for you, and I think that's fine. However, I would say that for me attaining a maximum exposure is ideal but not necessarily what I would call "proper." Iliah mentioned latitude, and I would say a "proper" exposure is within the sensor's latitude, and that latitude depends on the intended output (1000 pixels has a lot of latitude while filling up my 4K monitor has quite a bit less).
That's fine :-) I am just posting what exposure and "proper/optimal" exposure mean to me when I use them in sentences so there is no misunderstanding.
Both terms mean different things to different people.
The Eizo monitors do not have a spectrophotometer built-in, they have a colorimeter for automated self-calibration; but it is still pretty slick. For anyone that isn't clear on the difference an excellent general overview of display calibration devices can be found here. The automated self-calibration was innovative enough for Eizo to receive an Academy Award for Scientific and Technical achievement. The automatic calibration originated in Eizo medical monitors which is a much larger market for them.
The accuracy and uniformity of Eizo monitors can be seen in the tests from German language website Prad, translated thanks to Google Translate. The built-in colorimeter is calibrated at the factory with an extremely accurate and sensitive spectrophotometer as is the monitor. The built-in sensor can also be correlated by the user to an external measuring device for accuracy and consistency across multiple monitors.
The software included with the monitors has most of the advanced features a user is likely to want. But there's also the easy method for setting up calibration and soft proofing as demonstrated in this video. It shows how the automatic calibration sensor and software work.
Thanks for that. In the specs it just says "sensor", and I assumed it was a spectro. The only downside of using a colorimeter for this application that I can see is that you're stuck with one set of color matching functions.
Back in the 90's I used Barco monitors. I think the same thing was true for them.
I have the CG319X. My only problem with the software is that the updates come thick and fast. I can't figure out what's so complicated about the app that it needs to be updated so often.
In such applications colorimeters often work better than common (X-Rite) spectros as colorimeters have less shadow noise. At some point Mr. Rodney and I did independent tests, and that was our conclusion.
Haven't heard anything from Andrew recently...
BTW, Barco is still in business, but they seem to have left the photo editing market.
"All good.
Andrew"
Worked for Barco, with Barco, in Barco (CZ+Belgium). Weird bunch! ðŸ¤
