Ready to graduate to DSLR

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Freedom55, Sep 17, 2005.

  1. No, I understand the method quite well, thank you.
    The camera captures your subject displaced from where you want it depending
    on where the highlights actually are, and moving the subject to where you
    want it aggravates noise (if underexposed) or may not be possible (if

    If you don't correctly meter the subject, you won't know how far it will
    have to be moved, and you won't know how much of a problem you have.
    No. It doesn't tell you how far they're blown out, and it doesn't tell you
    where your subject is falling in the histogram.

    Correctly metering the subject is a better tool.
    Everyone sees the value: some of us realize it's not a panacea.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Sep 21, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Freedom55

    Bryan Olson Guest

    Then please do not write what you understand to be wrong.

    What you wrote that I disagreed with was that the subject could be
    underexposed. If you now wish to retract that, and say your issue
    is sub-optimal noise when considering the main subject, please say
    so. I tried to be so careful in explaining this:

    The histogram method leads to a good subject exposure in
    the final image, in the sense of being neither under-exposed,
    nor over-exposed.
    Doesn't happen. The method keeps the subject within the sensor's
    dynamic range, and scaling, well, works.

    And some have a case so week, they have to insinuate others claimed
    what they did not.
    Bryan Olson, Sep 21, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Freedom55

    Alfred Molon Guest

    All these are workarounds, but framing with an SLR underwater is still
    Alfred Molon, Sep 21, 2005
  4. Freedom55

    Mark² Guest

    Mark², Sep 21, 2005
  5. The intensity of the highlights is unrelated to the intensity of the
    subject. Using the highlights to set the exposure will set the main subject
    at a different point from what you want in the end result.

    If that difference is excessively large, you're scrod.

    'Expose to the right' works sometimes, but not all.
    That still seems correct to me. I've got lots of snapshots with the subject
    poorly lit against a bright overcast sky. With a film camera, I wouldn't
    even take the shot, but bits are free. Placing the bright sky at +2 (zone
    VII, expose to the right) would leave the main subject hopelessly
    underexposed, even with a dSLR.

    Any time there are light sources, specular highlights, or sky in the image,
    (and probably other cases I haven't thought of), you _may_ have to let the
    highlights blow.
    Aggravating noise is the problem, and I pointed it out. It's even there in
    the quotes.
    If the exposure is so low noise is aggravated, that's not good subject
    exposure. Period.

    It doesn't place the subject where it needs to be, and thus compromises
    image quality. Sometimes, that'll be the right compromise, and sometimes it
    Subject overexposure will be a problem for strong primary colors (especially
    red) if you forget to check the RGB histograms.
    If you claim that the technique always gives the right answer, you're
    claiming it's a panacea. It's what the word means. And it's not.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Sep 21, 2005
  6. Can you give an example? For example, the lens in the Panasonic FZ20
    corresponds to 36-432 f/16 on full frame 35mm (when it comes to DoF).
    Hopefully, you have enough focus points that there is always on in the
    right place. Continuously selecting focus points doesn't strike me a
    particularly attractive.
    Philip Homburg, Sep 21, 2005
  7. Freedom55

    Neil Ellwood Guest

    Of course not. A dslr sensor is in a dslr camera, put it in a dfferent
    type of camera and it is no longer a dslr sensor but a sensor of the
    camera you put it in.
    Neil Ellwood, Sep 21, 2005
  8. Freedom55

    Chris Brown Guest

    It's ironic because you seem to be suggesting that "exposing to the right"
    is something new to do with digital photography, refering to "out of date
    film techniques", but exposing for the highlights has nothing to do with
    digital photography per-se, and is not a new technique. It's something that
    people have done for years with slide film which is intended for
    post-processing, rather than projection.
    The method you describe is simply pegging the highlights just below
    over-exposure. This is not remotely the same as "getting a good exposure in
    the final image". Indeed, blindly following this rule is likely to lead to
    underexposed images - the very thing your "expose to the right" mantra is
    aiming to avoid.

    Exposing to the right is nothing more than exposing for the highlights, and
    it's not a panacea, and it's not the same as getting a good exposure.
    Furthermore, it's not even something that a histogram enables you to do -
    the technique has been done for years by people using in-camera light
    Unlikely, as histograms have a nasty habit of showing white-balanced
    results, and I've yet to see a camera that offers "native" white balance.
    Chris Brown, Sep 21, 2005
  9. Freedom55

    Chris Brown Guest

    He understands it perfectly - you are either ignoring, or not understanding
    the underexposure pitfall that this technique creates.
    The histogram would be a very useful tool if "wanting to let the highlights
    blow out" was the goal, but it's not - the goal is ensuring good exposure
    for the interesting parts of the image, those that carry detail. The point
    that David and I have made is that we *don't care* if the highlights blow or
    not. They're going to be paper-white in the final image anyway!
    Chris Brown, Sep 21, 2005
  10. Freedom55

    Chris Brown Guest

    Huh? You are the one who jumped into the discussion holding up the LL
    "expose to the right" essay as your starting point. The claimed benefit of
    the technique described there is noise reduction!
    Only it does't - it can and will lead to underexposure in typical scenes.
    This has been explained to you multiple times, but you seem reluctant to
    address it.
    Chris Brown, Sep 21, 2005
  11. W.E. O'Neil skrev:
    As fas as I am able to tell, Alfred isn't talking about chimping.
    We had to make do with other solutions, of course - more or less
    satisfactory. But is just silly arrogansce to claim that the swivelable
    LCD hasn't given new apportunities for shots that would previously have
    been impossible.

    And the great innovation with the swivelable LCD is that it is _always
    there_. It is not an extra gadget that has to be remembered to be
    brought together with the rest of the camera. Nor is it a supplementary
    item whose purchase has to be decided based on an estimate of how
    likley you are to use it. It comes with the package, and is always

    If all shootings you ever do are carefully planned outings, when you
    know exactly what you want to shoot on a given occasion, this advantage
    is completely immaterial.

    But for the more opportunist kind of photographer, it is not

    Jan Böhme
    =?iso-8859-1?B?SmFuIEL2aG1l?=, Sep 21, 2005
  12. Skip M wrote:
    Yes, you have a good point, and I was unhappy on reflection with the "far
    greater". I would prefer:

    "Nowadays many P&S cameras allow as much if not more control than many of
    the most sophisticated SLRs from yesteryear."

    David J Taylor, Sep 21, 2005
  13. I'd be interested to know if you think that designing a lens of comparable
    zoom ratio is any easier for the smaller-sensor point-and-shoot cameras.
    What is it that allows an f/2.8 36 - 432mm (equivalent) zoom for the 5MP
    FZ20 when comparable lenses for DSLRs seem to be rare beasts, even
    allowing the 35mm lenses to be smaller aperture.?

    David J Taylor, Sep 21, 2005
  14. Freedom55

    Bill Funk Guest

    Guesswork is far different from saying it can't be done, as saying an
    LCD is indispensible would imply.
    Yes, using an LCD is *better*, but certainly not indispensible.
    History proves this.
    Bill Funk, Sep 21, 2005
  15. Freedom55

    ASAAR Guest

    But as I introduced the "yesteryear" qualification it's important
    to note that I was referring to an earlier timeframe. When I bought
    my first Nikon SLR (about 1962) there were no SLRs that had any of
    the sophisticated features of many of today's P&S cameras. That
    would occur later, and when SM tries to rebut my claim by speaking
    of his "wife's old Canon EOS10s", he only manages this by shifting
    the time goalposts forward, which he admits when he inserted
    Someday Nikon's F5 and F6 will belong to a "yesteryear", but they
    are not the 'SLRs lacking sophisticated featires' I was referring
    to, nor was Canon's EOS10s. My Nikon F didn't even have a light
    meter, although it had a few other relatively sophisticated
    features, such as interchangeable screens. SLRs of this era are the
    ones I was referring to, such as Miranda, Alpa and others. Since I
    didn't recall exactly which decade saw the introduction of more
    sophisticated SLRs I simply said "yesteryear". That's a dangerous
    thing to do in this newsgroup, where so many look for ways to be
    able to say "gotcha!". :)
    ASAAR, Sep 21, 2005
  16. To me, yesteryear is when I had a large and bulky 35mm SLR that I was
    reluctant to lug around everywhere. It's when I had to send film to be
    processed, and when I had to drag out the projector and screen to see the
    images. Even earlier, was when I had an enlarger and did all the dodging
    and burning by hand, and the chemicals smelled and went off with time.

    Yesteryear I had great fun with video and TV - not recording but
    closed-circuit. I loved it's immediacy and accurate reproduction. Later
    the same in colour (with the UK PAL system). Built my own video
    processing hardware.

    Now I have the colour reproduction I love, with the immediacy that suits
    me, and with the size and portability I want. I'm a happy bunny!

    David J Taylor, Sep 21, 2005
  17. Freedom55

    ASAAR Guest

    And yesteryear my pockets weren't large enough to hold all of the
    flashbulbs needed for indoor shots.

    And I'm sure the bunny is happy that it doesn't need to tote heavy
    power packs to be able to keep going, and going and going.!
    ASAAR, Sep 21, 2005
  18. Freedom55

    W.E. O'Neil Guest

    Who ever said, or where did you ever come up with the notion that proper
    "framing" is based only upon the extreme edges of the film, sensor or 100%

    "framing" with a viewfinder is not guesswork, unless you choose to guess how
    to allow for the 2 to 5% viewfinder crop (depending on your camera). Since
    most underwater photography involves shooting behind dome ports, anyone who
    shoots behind a port at or less than 10" diameter is going to have to either
    live with or crop, crappy corners. "Framing" within the viewfinder
    perspective is actually a boon, because you are already cropping out bad
    corners without cropping critical compositional elements.

    And when shooting behind a flat port, the (in my case) 2% viewfinder crop is
    irrelevant. I have never, ever based my composition on what the extreme
    edges of the viewfinder....and now that digital is here I am even more
    loathe to use the edges of the glass and sensor.

    Most underwater photographers use MF in certain LCD is
    worthless in this case.

    Most good housing viewfinders have an easily adjusted diopter ranger of -3
    to +3 for individual eye disparities...again an LCD is worthless in this

    When approaching almost any skittish animal underwater it is advisable to
    keep you body and gear compact. reaching out away from your body with arms
    extended will generally not be as inviting to an animal as will a compact
    posture.....again, an LCD is worthless, unless one wants to "chimp" , but
    then in order to chimp you cannot layout and avoid reef contact

    Now on the issue of using a mask against a viewfinder or whether or not
    viewing thru a viewfinder is difficult.

    Please see:

    Those viewfinders make LCDs look like phone video. There just isn't any
    comparison. And those viewfinders have a 1 1/2" diameter viewport. Brilliant
    magnification and incredible accuracy and contrast. And LCD doesn't come

    Bottom line for me is that grab shots and semi-critical photography can be
    done with an LCD. Outside of that they are worthless underwater. And because
    of all that it really seems to me that Alfred may be speaking on a subject
    he may not know much about.
    W.E. O'Neil, Sep 21, 2005
  19. Freedom55

    W.E. O'Neil Guest

    W.E. O'Neil skrev:
    Sure he is. His comment about the difficulty of putting a mask to a
    viewfinder confirms that, as does my experience with LCDs underwater. It's
    either one or the other.
    Not in my experience. Quite simply put.....a viewfinder with a -3 to +3
    diopter range.....1 1/2" viewport diameter.....and brilliance, accuracy and
    contrast as found in the Seacam and Subal viewfinders far exceeds anything a
    LCD will do underwater. Maybe you and Alfred haven't ever seen or used one,
    but they are far superior to any LCD on the market today housed for
    underwater photography. It's that simple.
    Oh, here we go :^)

    The question wasn't "apportunties for shots" previously impossible. It was
    about viewfinder crop and using a mask against a viewfinder ultimately
    making the LCD more valuable tool.

    Ever try to manage critical MF underwater with an LCD? Ever try to adjust
    the diopter range with an LCD screen? The whole claim regarding the
    superiority of an LCD vs. viewfinder in underwater photography is spurious
    at best. And as far as I can tell from both your comments are based upon
    something less than a full range of experience with products available to
    underwater photographer. I wouldn't argue that for grab shots the LCD is a
    nice component, but for critical photography it doesn't measure up to a
    quality viewfinder.

    You comment about my opinion being founded on "silly arrogance" is
    unfortunate. Maybe you can do better in future responses to me.
    W.E. O'Neil, Sep 21, 2005
  20. Freedom55

    Bryan Olson Guest

    Yeah, check it out.
    Sure. Noise is a problem anywhere in an image, and is
    most obvious in uniform areas. The method optimizes for
    noise in image overall, not just one area of interest.

    It gets hard to argue the real point when people are falsely
    claiming problems that are not there, or claiming one thing
    and switching to another when the specific claim is challenged.

    Which part of the scale control doesn't work for you? What happens
    to your meter result when you change the ISO?
    Bryan Olson, Sep 21, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.