Sony's design for the 24mp APS

"David J Taylor" writes:

Prints without margins don't frame well at all, and don't provide any
safe handling area. They're basically unsaleable.

Fortunately, I'm not selling prints. I have seen block-mounted
prints, and to me these look more like how I would expect "photos" to
look.

Print collectors and museums have REALLY strong preferences in favors of
considerable border, and not attaching the print to anything else in any
permanent way. (Not that I'm selling into that market either; so
arguably their strictures shouldn't matter to me. But when I think in
terms of a photo being of long-term value, I think of treating it so it
lasts for the long term.)

I certainly shot a huge number of slides over my history (I bought
multiple 100-foot rolls of slide film for a 1987 trip to England, plus
at least a brick of Kodachrome, for example), but I also did a lot of
darkroom printing in B&W.

Slides were easy and cheap, but they were much harder to get prints
from. And they were pernicious in that they taught some people to
think that getting it just right out of the camera was a moral virtue.
It isn't, it's merely expedient in certain workflows, and it has a large
artistic cost.

I don't agree that "slides were easy and cheap". It was harder to get
the exposure and dynamic range correct, and they didn't seem that
cheap to me. My photos are more about capturing the event or the
moment, not to produce a work of art.

They were cheaper than negatives-plus-prints by quite a lot.

They were also better-understood by most printers, so they were
specified for a lot of commercial work, magazines generally.

As Ansel Adams said, the negative is the score, the print is the
performance. If you're thinking of any of your shots as "good",
presenting them without post-processing is being drastically unfair to
them, not giving them their best chance to shine. (For snapshots, the
numbers are too high and the potential gains too small to be worth it,
generally, I agree.)
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/

I do crop and adjust brightness levels on some of my pictures, but I
would regard it as a failure if I had to do that with the majority.
My pictures are not a be-all and end-all in themselves, but often
taken to illustrate other hobbies and interests. Of course, others'
needs and aims will be different.

Sure, we do this for a huge range of reasons. Very broadly, my own
interest is largely documentary also, whether it's people at a time and
place, or doing a thing, or an event, or a piece of art or craft, or
whatever.

Particularly when capturing events going on around me, I often simply
don't have time to do ideal in-camera work. Delaying will lose me the
shot.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

Sure, we do this for a huge range of reasons. Very broadly, my own
interest is largely documentary also, whether it's people at a time and
place, or doing a thing, or an event, or a piece of art or craft, or
whatever.

Particularly when capturing events going on around me, I often simply
don't have time to do ideal in-camera work. Delaying will lose me the
shot.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/

Mine is also documentary rather than artistic. Where I differ is in
trying to have the camera set to produce images which require minimum
post-processing. I would get the shot first, and worry about camera
settings etc. second. A quick glance at the LCD will show whether
exposure is in the right range. Sometimes I have more time, and can play
with the camera settings.

Cheers,
David

"David J Taylor" writes:

Sure, we do this for a huge range of reasons. Very broadly, my own
interest is largely documentary also, whether it's people at a time and
place, or doing a thing, or an event, or a piece of art or craft, or
whatever.

Particularly when capturing events going on around me, I often simply
don't have time to do ideal in-camera work. Delaying will lose me the
shot.

Mine is also documentary rather than artistic. Where I differ is in
trying to have the camera set to produce images which require minimum
post-processing. I would get the shot first, and worry about camera
settings etc. second. A quick glance at the LCD will show whether
exposure is in the right range. Sometimes I have more time, and can
play with the camera settings.

The four-part histogram is my default review display, to make that kind
of quick exposure check easier. But also, I take post-processing for
granted, so I don't always bother with small adjustments.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

The four-part histogram is my default review display, to make that kind
of quick exposure check easier. But also, I take post-processing for
granted, so I don't always bother with small adjustments.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/

My default is usually the flashing highlights, which suits the type of
photos I take and helps avoid the worse issues with the JPEGs I use (i.e.
clipped highlights). I have the Nikon "Active D-Lighting" set to auto,
which expands the dynamic range when needed. I do sometimes use the
histogram - perhaps for more awkward subjects, although I may then switch
to manual exposure to get the desired effect.

Perhaps the most awkward image was this one:

http://www.satsignal.eu/Hols/2009/An...51-21-size.jpg

at a Tango Evening in Buenos Aires. The lighting was very variable, and
the fraction of the stage which was lit was also variable, so metered
exposure for every shot was out. I also needed to compromise with the
shutter speed and aperture, as a high shutter speed would have been needed
to freeze movement, and a small aperture to provide large depth of field
so that focus wasn't critical. This with my carry-round lens (18-200mm at
200 mm) and my Nikon D60 set to ISO 1600. And a large element of luck!

Cheers,
David

"David J Taylor" writes:

The four-part histogram is my default review display, to make that kind
of quick exposure check easier. But also, I take post-processing for
granted, so I don't always bother with small adjustments.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/

My default is usually the flashing highlights, which suits the type of
photos I take and helps avoid the worse issues with the JPEGs I use
(i.e. clipped highlights). I have the Nikon "Active D-Lighting" set
to auto, which expands the dynamic range when needed. I do sometimes
use the histogram - perhaps for more awkward subjects, although I may
then switch to manual exposure to get the desired effect.

I'd use P a lot more if there were a quick easy way to switch to M and
pre-set the exposure to the value P was picking. As it is, I find it's
better to just run manual, and have to chase the light by hand;
otherwise I find myself stuck with a fairly slow changeover at what
might be a key moment.

I did a lot of work in the 70s with a Leica M3 and B&W film. No meter
built in at all, I used a separate meter (not a hot-shoe meter). So I
got used to monitoring the lighting around the room and adjusting as I
walked, and pre-metering and memorizing the main areas of the room (to
avoid the delay of re-metering later). But I also got used to fairly
approximate exposure; this wasn't too hard to print in B&W, and it
isn't too hard to post-process today.

Perhaps the most awkward image was this one:

http://www.satsignal.eu/Hols/2009/An...51-21-size.jpg

at a Tango Evening in Buenos Aires. The lighting was very variable,
and the fraction of the stage which was lit was also variable, so
metered exposure for every shot was out. I also needed to compromise
with the shutter speed and aperture, as a high shutter speed would
have been needed to freeze movement, and a small aperture to provide
large depth of field so that focus wasn't critical. This with my
carry-round lens (18-200mm at 200 mm) and my Nikon D60 set to ISO
1600. And a large element of luck!

Stage lighting when the design is dynamic/variable can get really
tough. And Tango can require fairly high shutter speeds for some
things. Sounds like a fair amount of trouble!

That shot looks rather under-exposed to me (easily in the range that's
recoverable for serious use, though, not close to lost).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

In article , David J Taylor
wrote:
snip
Perhaps the most awkward image was this one:

http://www.satsignal.eu/Hols/2009/An...51-21-size.jpg

at a Tango Evening in Buenos Aires. The lighting was very variable, and
the fraction of the stage which was lit was also variable, so metered
exposure for every shot was out. I also needed to compromise with the
shutter speed and aperture, as a high shutter speed would have been needed
to freeze movement, and a small aperture to provide large depth of field
so that focus wasn't critical. This with my carry-round lens (18-200mm at
200 mm) and my Nikon D60 set to ISO 1600. And a large element of luck!

Luck or not. What an excellent picture!
1/30 sec f 6.3 at 200mm. Where did you get such steady hands?

--
To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$
PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248

"Elliott Roper" wrote in message
...
[]
Luck or not. What an excellent picture!
1/30 sec f 6.3 at 200mm. Where did you get such steady hands?

Thanks, Elliott!

It was either a glass of wine, or (more likely) Nikon's excellent image
stabilisation (VR) in the 18-200 mm lens! I may well have had my elbows
resting on the dinner table, which will have helped, of course.

Cheers,
David

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
[]
I'd use P a lot more if there were a quick easy way to switch to M and
pre-set the exposure to the value P was picking. As it is, I find it's
better to just run manual, and have to chase the light by hand;
otherwise I find myself stuck with a fairly slow changeover at what
might be a key moment.

That would be neat - an excellent suggestion.

I did a lot of work in the 70s with a Leica M3 and B&W film. No meter
built in at all, I used a separate meter (not a hot-shoe meter). So I
got used to monitoring the lighting around the room and adjusting as I
walked, and pre-metering and memorizing the main areas of the room (to
avoid the delay of re-metering later). But I also got used to fairly
approximate exposure; this wasn't too hard to print in B&W, and it
isn't too hard to post-process today.

I also did a lot of B&W in the late '60s and early '70s. Perhaps more
outside than in, but mostly with built-in metering which worked well. I
much preferred TV cameras, where you saw the exposure immediately with no
post-processing!

Stage lighting when the design is dynamic/variable can get really
tough. And Tango can require fairly high shutter speeds for some
things. Sounds like a fair amount of trouble!

One of the occasions where you are grateful for digital, and the low cost
of taking 100 photos to get a few good ones....

That shot looks rather under-exposed to me (easily in the range that's
recoverable for serious use, though, not close to lost).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/

May be your monitor adjustment, but it looks OK to me as it captures the
atmosphere of the event. I'm viewing on a PC, not a Mac (whether than
makes any difference these days I doubt).

Cheers,
David

"David J Taylor" writes:

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
[]
I'd use P a lot more if there were a quick easy way to switch to M and
pre-set the exposure to the value P was picking. As it is, I find it's
better to just run manual, and have to chase the light by hand;
otherwise I find myself stuck with a fairly slow changeover at what
might be a key moment.

That would be neat - an excellent suggestion.

I think I've been told that some Pentax models have something like that
feature. (Maybe "exposure from the last shot" would be even more
precisely what I want.)

I did a lot of work in the 70s with a Leica M3 and B&W film. No meter
built in at all, I used a separate meter (not a hot-shoe meter). So I
got used to monitoring the lighting around the room and adjusting as I
walked, and pre-metering and memorizing the main areas of the room (to
avoid the delay of re-metering later). But I also got used to fairly
approximate exposure; this wasn't too hard to print in B&W, and it
isn't too hard to post-process today.

I also did a lot of B&W in the late '60s and early '70s. Perhaps more
outside than in, but mostly with built-in metering which worked well.
I much preferred TV cameras, where you saw the exposure immediately
with no post-processing!

Did some of that. But more with 16mm motion picture cameras, which had
the worst of both worlds -- needed precise exposure (since the final
projected image was GREATLY enlarged), couldn't immediately tell if you
had it. I guess I was the person in the film program in college most
interested in production issues, so I ended up getting assigned to the
directors doing technically challenging projects that had a chance of
succeeding. I.e. I got to work with all the good people. It was great
fun.

Stage lighting when the design is dynamic/variable can get really
tough. And Tango can require fairly high shutter speeds for some
things. Sounds like a fair amount of trouble!

One of the occasions where you are grateful for digital, and the low
cost of taking 100 photos to get a few good ones....

Very much so. I now happily do things that have about a 10% chance of
succeeding; I just do them a few dozen times, and take the time to check
I really got the shot.

That shot looks rather under-exposed to me (easily in the range that's
recoverable for serious use, though, not close to lost).

May be your monitor adjustment, but it looks OK to me as it captures
the atmosphere of the event. I'm viewing on a PC, not a Mac (whether
than makes any difference these days I doubt).

I was at work, so not the calibrated monitor; could well be. Or could
be different preferences on how to show it; plenty of room for people to
have different preferences.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
"David J Taylor" writes:

The four-part histogram is my default review display, to make that kind
of quick exposure check easier. But also, I take post-processing for
granted, so I don't always bother with small adjustments.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/

My default is usually the flashing highlights, which suits the type of
photos I take and helps avoid the worse issues with the JPEGs I use
(i.e. clipped highlights). I have the Nikon "Active D-Lighting" set
to auto, which expands the dynamic range when needed. I do sometimes
use the histogram - perhaps for more awkward subjects, although I may
then switch to manual exposure to get the desired effect.

I'd use P a lot more if there were a quick easy way to switch to M and
pre-set the exposure to the value P was picking. As it is, I find it's
better to just run manual, and have to chase the light by hand;
otherwise I find myself stuck with a fairly slow changeover at what
might be a key moment.

Some DSLRs (e.g. at least some Sony Alphas) drop into manual while
preserving whichever of aperture or shutter was last deliberately set
in a previous mode.

--
Chris Malcolm