If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#571
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
Mr. Strat wrote:
Wilba wrote: Let me see if I've understood you correctly. In most cases, you set the shutter speed, then determine camera settings based on your experience. What does "determine camera settings" mean? Are you setting an exposure compensation to deviate from the aperture indicated by the camera's or some other meter, or are you deciding on an aperture without any input from any meter? IOW, who or what does the metering? I generally set the shutter speed first, then determine if I agree with the meter for the f/stop. I film days, I used a Gossen Luna Pro (which I still have). These days, I use the camera's meter. OK, thanks. Now I know that you are not claiming a supernatural ability, you're just choosing an exposure compensation (like we all do all the time). That sounds like a claim of supernatural ability. To be credible you have to be much more specific about what you're doing. There's no substitute for time and experience. So now we get back to the point. I agree but I also think there IS a viable substitute - histogram, highlight, and shadow displays (either on the image or live). That's very valuable information, available "instantly", to help you determine camera settings with accuracy. I also believe that if you don't already have the time and experience, at least these exposure displays will help you to learn the judgement skills more easily and rapidly than waiting for prints or slides to come back from the lab. |
#572
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
In article , Wilba
wrote: So now we get back to the point. I agree but I also think there IS a viable substitute - histogram, highlight, and shadow displays (either on the image or live). That's very valuable information, available "instantly", to help you determine camera settings with accuracy. Back to my original point - I don't need to look at a graph to see if I've properly captured a scene. I know I did before I pressed the button. |
#573
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
"Mr. Strat" wrote:
In article , Wilba wrote: So now we get back to the point. I agree but I also think there IS a viable substitute - histogram, highlight, and shadow displays (either on the image or live). That's very valuable information, available "instantly", to help you determine camera settings with accuracy. Back to my original point - I don't need to look at a graph to see if I've properly captured a scene. I know I did before I pressed the button. Translation: It took him 40 years to learn what he now knows, and it does work; he won't live long enough to ever understand an histogram, so why would he think it important? -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#574
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
Mr. Strat wrote:
Wilba wrote: So now we get back to the point. I agree but I also think there IS a viable substitute - histogram, highlight, and shadow displays (either on the image or live). That's very valuable information, available "instantly", to help you determine camera settings with accuracy. Back to my original point - I don't need to look at a graph to see if I've properly captured a scene. I know I did before I pressed the button. You can say for sure that none of you highlights are blown, or you have detail in the shadows, or the compromise between the two is optimal? How would you know if you got it wrong? This is a serious question and, "I don't get it wrong", is not an acceptable answer. :-) (I don't have an axe to grind here, you just keep setting yourself up to be challenged.) |
#575
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Mr. Strat wrote: Wilba wrote: So now we get back to the point. I agree but I also think there IS a viable substitute - histogram, highlight, and shadow displays (either on the image or live). That's very valuable information, available "instantly", to help you determine camera settings with accuracy. Back to my original point - I don't need to look at a graph to see if I've properly captured a scene. I know I did before I pressed the button. Translation: It took him 40 years to learn what he now knows, and it does work; he won't live long enough to ever understand an histogram, so why would he think it important? Harsh, but plausible. :-) I guess it's a bit like this ... I can look out the window and guess which coat I should wear when I go out, but I can also look at my digital indoor/outdoor thermometer, and know within a degee or two what temperature I will encounter. To dress for my local conditions it don't NEED to know the temperature in degrees, but if I was in charge of a process in which temperature was critical (as blown highlights are in digital photography), I'd much rather have that information. |
#576
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
"Wilba" wrote:
Translation: It took him 40 years to learn what he now knows, and it does work; he won't live long enough to ever understand an histogram, so why would he think it important? Harsh, but plausible. :-) It's dead on. (Did you notice that it was like pulling teeth to get him to admit that he uses the fancy light meter built into the camera, and doesn't just judge what is needed. The only thing he actually judges is how fast his shutter speed needs to be...) I guess it's a bit like this ... I can look out the window and guess which coat I should wear when I go out, but I can also look at my digital indoor/outdoor thermometer, and know within a degee or two what temperature I will encounter. Exactly. Now, consider this scenario... If you came to visit me for a week, and brought small children with you, would you trust your ability to judge the weather by just looking out the window? Or would you want both a thermometer and an anemometers to let you know how to dress a 5 or 6 year old that wants to go outside to play with the neighbor kids? I'd go for checking the weather with some fancy high tech digital instruments, even though I have 40 years of experience in judging how to dress children for weather here. ;-) I've also got 40 years experience judging light meters, and I just *love* using the histogram and a blink on over exposure display! (I cheat though, as histograms are something I was dealing with decades ago.) To dress for my local conditions it don't NEED to know the temperature in degrees, but if I was in charge of a process in which temperature was critical (as blown highlights are in digital photography), I'd much rather have that information. What an excellent analogy, given the circumstances! What with global warming research becoming very important, so is the fractional accuracy of a digital thermometer, and there are people here that absolutely do need the added facilities that modern high tech provides. (E.g., the Barrow Arctic Research Consortium.) The comparison to photographic exposure is valid. Some people only need a latitude of perhaps 1 or even 2 fstops. For them, using just a light meter and experienced judgment, they *nail* it every time. Years ago I marveled at people whose workflow consistently produced exposures within 1/2 an fstop. I was usually happy within 1 fstop, and simply corrected in the darkroom. Today, in most circumstances I'm annoyed at anything more than about 1/3rd of an fstop off. But some folks are stuck with technology they learned 40 years ago, and still have it "nailed" if it's within 2 fstops... -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#577
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Wilba wrote: Translation: It took him 40 years to learn what he now knows, and it does work; he won't live long enough to ever understand an histogram, so why would he think it important? Harsh, but plausible. :-) It's dead on. (Did you notice that it was like pulling teeth to get him to admit that he uses the fancy light meter built into the camera, and doesn't just judge what is needed. The only thing he actually judges is how fast his shutter speed needs to be...) I guess it's a bit like this ... I can look out the window and guess which coat I should wear when I go out, but I can also look at my digital indoor/outdoor thermometer, and know within a degee or two what temperature I will encounter. Exactly. Now, consider this scenario... If you came to visit me for a week, and brought small children with you, would you trust your ability to judge the weather by just looking out the window? Or would you want both a thermometer and an anemometers to let you know how to dress a 5 or 6 year old that wants to go outside to play with the neighbor kids? I'd go for checking the weather with some fancy high tech digital instruments, even though I have 40 years of experience in judging how to dress children for weather here. ;-) I've also got 40 years experience judging light meters, and I just *love* using the histogram and a blink on over exposure display! (I cheat though, as histograms are something I was dealing with decades ago.) To dress for my local conditions it don't NEED to know the temperature in degrees, but if I was in charge of a process in which temperature was critical (as blown highlights are in digital photography), I'd much rather have that information. What an excellent analogy, given the circumstances! Thank you. bows I think I've said enough about this. |
#578
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message ... "Mr. Strat" wrote: In article , Wilba wrote: So now we get back to the point. I agree but I also think there IS a viable substitute - histogram, highlight, and shadow displays (either on the image or live). That's very valuable information, available "instantly", to help you determine camera settings with accuracy. Back to my original point - I don't need to look at a graph to see if I've properly captured a scene. I know I did before I pressed the button. Translation: It took him 40 years to learn what he now knows, and it does work; he won't live long enough to ever understand an histogram, so why would he think it important? And "it does work" likely just means it's close enough, i.e. correct within a stop or two so it can always be adjusted in the final image. He "knows" he's "properly captured a scene . . . before [he] pressed the button" because the latitude is there to cover a considerable amount of error. I remember another fellow of self-described vast experience, 20+ years ago on the old Fidonet photo echo, who repeatedly and with unabashed pride made similar boasts, that his "experience" was such that he needed no meter or other aids -- his "experience" was enough for him to make all the correct settings, and of course they were always perfect. It would be interesting to put such a fellow to the test -- his experience against a properly electronically analyzed shot. I'd be surprised if any human eye-brain system were capable of measuring absolute light levels to a stop or so accuracy, amount of experience notwithstanding. It is certainly possible that if someone's experience consisted of shooting similar subjects in similar circumstances and similar lighting, experience might be all that was required. A good friend of mine was manager and chief (and only) photographer for many years in a small local studio. He basically shot all his subjects in the same settings and under the same lighting. He never changed anything in the camera but the film, except for using a slightly larger aperture for dark-skinned customers. Neil |
#579
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote: It took him 40 years to learn what he now knows, and it does work; he won't live long enough to ever understand an histogram, so why would he think it important? I understand histograms, I just have no need for them. I've understood photography for many years. |
#580
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
In article , Wilba
wrote: To dress for my local conditions it don't NEED to know the temperature in degrees, but if I was in charge of a process in which temperature was critical (as blown highlights are in digital photography), I'd much rather have that information. I can look at any scene and tell you where there is potential for blown highlights. I don't need a meter or a graph to tell me that. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital? | Bill Tuthill | Digital Photography | 1067 | December 29th 07 02:46 AM |
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital? | Helmsman3 | 35mm Photo Equipment | 790 | December 26th 07 05:40 PM |
[IMG] "REPLAY" - Minolta 100mm f/2 with Sony Alpha DSLR | Jens Mander | Digital Photography | 0 | August 13th 06 11:06 PM |
Film lens on DSLR? | [email protected] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 9 | January 3rd 05 02:45 PM |
EOS Film user needs help for first DSLR | Ged | Digital Photography | 13 | August 9th 04 10:44 PM |