Ready to graduate to DSLR

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

  1. Freedom55

    Bryan Olson Guest

    Then you mis-read. There was no claim, no suggestion,
    that the digital method was unprecedented.

    http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/msg/28e28a82fe826b65

    In this case, I referred to "One out-dated" film technique.
    And it's also the smart way to shoot digital.


    [...]
    Sigh. Right. The final exposure is set later.
    Uh, O.K., so don't follow it blindly.
     
    Bryan Olson, Sep 21, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Freedom55

    Bryan Olson Guest

    Once again you have me on a position I did not take.
    Now at least we're on a useful topic. The paper-white
    off-the-end areas are not the problem; the boundary is.
    Digital sensors do not gracefully degrade at saturation
    (though some novel designs may change that).

    "Expose to the right" does not mean to expose for specular
    highlights; likewise, if you know you have a blow-to-white
    sky, there may be many off-the-edge pixels. Just-maxing-out
    pixels are problematic, and the histogram at least shows
    their number.
     
    Bryan Olson, Sep 21, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Freedom55

    Bryan Olson Guest

    Right. The technique decouples the exposure at data capture
    from the rendering of the end result.
    No matter what you do.

    [...]
    And the histogram will help me do that without losing more
    data due to over-saturation.
    The technique minimizes over-all noise. Is noise in the forground
    or background as bad as noise in the subject? Hard to make a
    generalization, but it can be worse. Noise is most obvious in
    uniform areas that lack detail.

    [...]
    Not sure where you got the claim, but it wasn't me.
     
    Bryan Olson, Sep 21, 2005
  4. Freedom55

    Chris Brown Guest

    Here's what you said:

    "One out-dated rule from film photography, particularly from use
    of slide film, is to initially capture each image at an exposure
    level "proper" for final viewing. Digital images are far more
    flexible".

    And then you go on to link to the "expose to the right" essay on Luminous
    Landscape. It seems pretty clear that you seem to think this exposure
    technique is indeed a digital innovation. It's not.
    Not when following it blindly results in underexposed images, it isn't.
    ....and if you underexposed your image by "exposing to the right", then that
    exposure will be a bad one.
    But you've just been telling us how it ensures a good final exposure. If
    that's the case, then clearly blind adherence to it will always give
    you good (i.e. not underexposed) data. Which is it?
     
    Chris Brown, Sep 21, 2005
  5. Freedom55

    Chris Brown Guest

    But that's precisely what it doesn't do if you underexpose the image by
    incorrectly exposing for the highlights.
    If you expose for the highlights, and they are more than 2 stops above
    interesting detail in your image, then your image is underexposed and you'll
    need to push it, increasing noise.
    It's nto at all clear what you're talking about here.
    If I double the ISO, the meter halves the exposure time. What were you
    expecting to happen?
     
    Chris Brown, Sep 21, 2005
  6. Freedom55

    Bryan Olson Guest

    Yup, that's what I wrote. So you read in what was not there.
    What a mess. I didn't even call it new, though it is new in
    to digital in the use of the histogram. Please do not attribute
    to me what I did not say.

    It's what I've been writing, and not what you've been saying
    I've been writing.
     
    Bryan Olson, Sep 21, 2005
  7. Freedom55

    Chris Brown Guest

    Er no, I'm stating that letting the highlights blow is not *my* goal - my
    goal is getting a good exposure for the subject.
    Assuming we grant all of that, none of it addresses getting good subject
    exposure, leaving us a hell of a long way from the professed supremity of
    the histogram as a tool for selecting exposure.
     
    Chris Brown, Sep 21, 2005
  8. Freedom55

    MarkH Guest

    No, that is not true. Some manufacturers offer a small range of quality
    lenses at a high price, but no decent lenses at a cheap price. Also there
    are some serious gaps in the lens range from each manufacturer, so the
    availability of 3rd party lenses is a good thing.

    There are lenses from Sigma that have no equivalent from Nikon or Canon,
    but the Sigma lenses are available in both Canon and Nikon mounts. You can
    say that it doesn't matter, but if you want a lens that is not available
    for your camera system then it does matter.

    I would love to buy the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 EX lens; I know that there is no
    equivalent to that lens from Canon so the Sigma is the one on my list.

    Some brands just don't have the selection of 3rd party lenses that Canon
    and Nikon do, and none have as wide a range of same brand lenses either.

    Canon do some expensive f2.8 L series zooms and some more reasonably priced
    f4 L series zooms and some f5.6 L series zooms and some good non L series
    zooms and some cheap non L series zooms. A lens for every need and every
    budget, within reason. Some brands have a range of zooms that cover the
    focal lengths well, but give the consumer little choice on how much to
    spend.


    --
    Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
    See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 5-September-05)
    "The person on the other side was a young woman. Very obviously a
    young woman. There was no possible way she could have been mistaken
    for a young man in any language, especially Braille."
    Maskerade
     
    MarkH, Sep 21, 2005
  9. Freedom55

    Bryan Olson Guest

    Right. The histogram helps you put the brightest detail you intend
    to capture just below the saturation point. Intentionally letting
    highlights blow out? No problem; just don't insist on reading the
    histogram blindly.

    [...]
    So the same sensor with the same quantum efficiency and the same
    saturation point gets half the light, yet photographers regard the
    exposure as correct because the data gets scaled. (Possibly it gets
    scaled in analog, where the expose-to-the-right method scales in
    digital.)
     
    Bryan Olson, Sep 21, 2005
  10. Freedom55

    Skip M Guest

    Agree to disagree, then? And I don't get the "Little Boy's" club reference,
    then, either.
    Well, yes, it would, and in my opinion, it does.

    I think that the problem
    Good, we're done, then! <G>
     
    Skip M, Sep 21, 2005
  11. Freedom55

    Skip M Guest

    Yebbut... When I was referring to her old 10s, it was only to indicate that
    such features had been around for a while, electronically speaking. I don't
    know if the 600 series of Canons had them, I'm not familiar enough with the
    older ones.
    But the overwhelming majority of things we were talking about could be done
    with your old Nikon, or my old(er) Exacta, for that matter, just not easily.
    Don't get me wrong, I greatly appreciate the ease of use of modern cameras,
    and not having to use my handheld meters for every shot, or to just guess at
    it, for instance.
     
    Skip M, Sep 21, 2005
  12. No. The histogram does not identify "the brightest detail you intend to
    capture", it identifies the brightest detail in the scene. There's a
    difference.

    The histogram doesn't tell you _what_ is bright, it only tells you that
    _something_ is bright.
    You can't not read the histogram blindly: it's blind by definition: it has
    no _positional_ information at all, so you don't know what it means about
    the subject.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Sep 21, 2005
  13. Freedom55

    Chris Brown Guest

    Please describe the technique for doing this. In particular, how do I know,
    from looking at the histogram, that the brightest parts of my *subject*
    (e.g. the eye-whites in a portrait) are not blowing out, given that the
    pixels representing said eye-whites are mixed in with all the others of a
    similar intensity in the histogram display.
    ....and as we all know, increasing the ISO increases the noise, as does
    pushing the underexposed images which will result from the naieve assumption
    that exposing for the highlights will result in a good exposure.
     
    Chris Brown, Sep 21, 2005
  14. Freedom55

    Chris Brown Guest

    It's there in black-and-white - your claim is specifically that "digital
    images are far more flexible". Since digital images are new, it clearly
    follows that you believe this greater flexibility, apparently inherent to
    digital images, is also new.

    So if you don't think this "exposing to the right" is, after all, a new
    technique enabled by the glorious histogram, then did you actually have a
    point at all?
     
    Chris Brown, Sep 21, 2005
  15. Freedom55

    Bryan Olson Guest

    Yes, but most photographers are not blind. Have specular highlights?
    Those are few on the far-right. Letting the sky blow out? Then
    adjust to make that big block go all the way off to the right.

    Are there good shots where much of picture is on the saturation
    line? Could be, but I'd expect them to be rare. A smooth transition
    from showing detail to blowing out is not generally a desirable
    effect.


    Some cameras can also show blown-out areas, which sounds particularly
    useful in conjunction with the histogram.
     
    Bryan Olson, Sep 22, 2005
  16. Freedom55

    Bryan Olson Guest

    Why not interpret it to mean what it actually says. The flexibility
    means this particular rule -- to expose at a level for final viewing,
    no longer holds. If you had a different process so the rule didn't
    apply anyway, great.
    Histogram display is a winner.
     
    Bryan Olson, Sep 22, 2005
  17. Freedom55

    l e o Guest


    Sorry, histogram cannot tell you how tell the main subject expose. The
    camera is not smart enough to isolate the subject from the background
    and present you the "filtered" histogram.

    Histogram might be useful for the EVF users though because they could
    turn the LCD too bright or dim and histogram would give them a reference
    point.

    I guess you really refer to the overexposure warning "red" patches but
    then, if you can't use the spot/partial metering effectively, you are
    telling us you're one of those P&S users that depends on matrix metering
    and need to keep adjusting the exposure.
     
    l e o, Sep 22, 2005
  18. Freedom55

    Bryan Olson Guest

    Step 1, see the web article. Step 2, actually think about your
    image.
    In particular I didn't say it would solve all your problems did I?
    I even agreed the histogram is not a substitute for a spot meter.
    The histogram will not break your spot-meter, so meter away.
    Now look at the histogram. How far to the right can you move it
    without bringing a lot more pixels to saturation? Increase exposure
    time, or open up, or add lighting, to move it that far.

    Some photographers, in some cases, care about forground and/or
    background. Many pixels falling at the saturation edge can be
    a cause for concern.

    Like all techniques, this on is not a panacea. It might not be
    applicable to a particular scene. Sometimes light is limited.
     
    Bryan Olson, Sep 22, 2005
  19. Freedom55

    Chris Brown Guest

    Why not interpret it to mean what it actually says. The flexibility
    means this particular rule -- to expose at a level for final viewing,
    no longer holds. If you had a different process so the rule didn't
    apply anyway, great.[/QUOTE]

    But you specifically said it was a flexibility of *digital* images. Is it,
    or isn't it?
    How so? I think histograms are great, but not because they enable
    highlight-oriented exposing, or even make it easier, because they don't.
     
    Chris Brown, Sep 22, 2005
  20. Freedom55

    Bryan Olson Guest

    I tend to work in two modes: point-and-shoot, and try-to-
    control-more-than-the-camera-supports. I now have a Digital
    Rebel, and I do occasionally miss having a spot meter.
     
    Bryan Olson, Sep 22, 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.