Student camera

"Owamanga" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 20:02:55 GMT, "Bob Hickey"
wrote:


"Owamanga" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 17:08:54 GMT, "Bob Hickey"
wrote:


"Owamanga" wrote in message
.. .
It's not a spot meter, its a matrix. Depending on the model, it may be
10 segments or many hundreds of spots, and there is not a simple
average that brings these to 14% or 18%, it's an intelligent exposure
choice based on computerized'experience'. Ever
since that movie came out, every thing's a matrix. Computers don't have
experience, they have previous input, and they certainly don't have Art.
How can this "system" possibly work if it doesn't even know
if
you've loaded Velvia with a possible range of maybe 5 stops or NPS
with
a useful range of maybe 10 stops or Tri-X Pro. which can be anything you
develop it to, as long as it's on the toe? All it can do is read the DX
on
the can.

Actually the DX code includes both the film's speed and the film's
latitude. It has a fairly good resolution on the speed too, better
than some manual dials I've seen:

25,32,40,50,64,80,100,125,160,200,250,320,400,500, 640,800 and so on
until 5000.

In other words: is the picture the sunset or the mountain? NPS will
get both, Velvia calls for a choice. The "one true exposure" will screw
it
up, guaranteed.

Regardless of the dynamic range of the media, there is only one
correct exposure for a given scene (artistic modifications aside). don't
over or under expose every frame just because you are working
What are we doing here, making pictures or starting a new
religion. Just what the world needs. How I long for the simpler days of
Hexaphotocybernetics.
..actually, I guess a man who doesn't meter anything anyway, and
ignores flash guide numbers probably does do something whacky like
that.
Actually, I have and use several meters: ambient, reflected, spot and
flash. Some of my cameras even have one in the finder. Clever,that. Every
one completely useless, unless I've come up with an E.I. and a usable GN.
On the up side, I only have to bracket a few shots when I change equipment
or materials, and never after that.
Eg, If you want to expose for the sunset, it's the same solution
regardless of what's loaded (Granted the positives vs negatives have
some relevance, if we are forced to err on an under exposure vs over
exposure, but matrix strives for the *right* exposure).
Even if you are purposefully under-exposing Velvia for example, to get
more contrasty images, fine, bung in a -0.5 or -1EV and it'll take
care of it.

critical than a wider latitude film would require. You can do the
zone-system multi-spot metering, some math and get it right or you can
let the matrix system do that for you.

Of course, another gizmo that's available on modern cameras that makes
this discussion fairly irrelevant is automatic bracketing.

Matrix style metering in a modern Nikon for example uses distance
information from the focus setting of the lens together with a 1000
pixel color metering sites and a database of 30,000 images.

How do you know? I mean really.

Nikon USA website on the F100:
"10-segment 3D Matrix meter incorporates a database of over 30,000
scenes of actual shooting data to evaluate brightness and the overall
composition."

Source:
http://nikonusa.com/template.php?cat...productNr=1796

This is also true of the N80.

The D70 metering system brings color into the equation too.

Nikon USA website on the D70:
"Exposure Metering:TTL full-aperture exposure metering system(1) 3D
color matrix metering with 1,005-pixel RGB sensor(2) Center-weighted:
Weight of 75% (8mm dia. circle) given to 6, 8, 10, or 13 mm dia.
circle in center of frame, or weighting based on average of entire
frame(3) Spot: Meters 2.3 mm dia. circle (about 1% of frame) centered
on active focus area; 1) EV 0 to 20 (3D color matrix or
center-weighted metering)2) EV 2 to 20 (spot metering) (ISO 100
equivalent, f/1.4 lens, 20A?C/68A?F)"

Source:
http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php...roductNr=25214

On the Nikon D2X

"Advanced 3D-Color Matrix Metering II to prevent highlight portions
from being washed out and the loss of detail in shadow portions:
Higher precision has been developed for Nikon's acclaimed 3D-Color
Matrix Metering II with the addition of more refined exposure
evaluation algorithms and a larger database for difficult-to-meter
scenes provides stunning exposures every time."

Source:
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/news/digpop/496.html


A General page (now outdated) about the 10 segment matrix metering:
http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~parsog/Guy/nikmeter.html


In other words, "cause they say so. So year after year, it's now much
much better.

This has been my experience, yes, the metering is excellent - it's
extremely rare that it gets fooled (maybe 2% of the time) and iTTL
flash metering is nothing short of superb.

This just in: Bright days are f16, dull days aref5.6

At what shutter speed? It looks like you are quoting half of some
urban legend. That sort of wing-it approach won't fly with Velvia.
Owamanga! The
other half of the equation is: 1/EI. The fact that they include a
plus/minus and an auto-bracket button, tells me that a lot of those 30,000
pictures in the trusty database didn't come out too well.
Bob hickey

"Owamanga" wrote:

Nikon USA website on the F100:
"10-segment 3D Matrix meter incorporates a database of over
30,000 scenes of actual shooting data to evaluate brightness
and the overall composition."

This is also true of the N80.

The D70 metering system brings color into the equation too.

Nikon USA website on the D70:
"Exposure Metering:TTL full-aperture exposure metering
system(1) 3D color matrix metering with 1,005-pixel RGB
sensor(2) Center-weighted: Weight of 75% (8mm dia. circle)
given to 6, 8, 10, or 13 mm dia. circle in center of frame, or
weighting based on average of entire frame(3) Spot: Meters
2.3 mm dia. circle (about 1% of frame) centered on active
focus area; 1) EV 0 to 20 (3D color matrix or center-weighted
metering)2) EV 2 to 20 (spot metering) (ISO 100 equivalent,
f/1.4 lens, 20A?C/68A?F)"

On the Nikon D2X:
"Advanced 3D-Color Matrix Metering II to prevent highlight
portions from being washed out and the loss of detail in shadow
portions: Higher precision has been developed for Nikon's
acclaimed 3D-Color Matrix Metering II with the addition of
more refined exposure evaluation algorithms and a larger
database for difficult-to-meter scenes provides stunning
exposures every time."

Wow. My point exactly...

It's true that I sometimes forget this is an *equipment* NG. Trying to
champion a position that advocates the value of greater human input into the
process of making a photograph as opposed to greater equipment levels just
isn't going to fly well here. I realize that.

While my personal approach to photography revolves around the concept of
simplicity, I realize that not everyone else's - especially in this
particular venue - does as well. The premise that photographs of merit can
result from anything less than handheld "supercomputers" (see above
descriptions) is anathema to a majority of today's high-tech indoctrinated
photographers. (And thus, I suspect, has it been in one form or another
since 1826...)

Still, if given a choice between purchasing a camera which "incorporates a
database of over 30,000 scenes of actual shooting data to evaluate
brightness and the overall composition" versus actually going outside with a
simple, basic camera and gaining that experience myself by exposing *my own*
30,000 scenes, the answer for me is painfully obvious. However, as they say
in the movies... YMMV.

And which now, after reading the above camera descriptions, brings this
thread full circle and to a point of finality for me, as I am still...

....intending no disrespect to anyone, but nevertheless perplexed at such
simple things turned inexplicably and horrendously complex,

Ken

"Bob Hickey" wrote in message
...
[SNIP]
I think it's an ego/fear thing. Some body
is going to see the culls. Some body is going to critique the stuff.


The bravest thing a professional photographer can do is to show his contact
sheets.



Peter

"Bob Hickey" wrote in message
...
[SNIP]
I think it's an ego/fear thing. Some body
is going to see the culls. Some body is going to critique the stuff.


The bravest thing a professional photographer can do is to show his contact
sheets.



Peter

"Ken Nadvornick" wrote in message
news:tteSd.36450$wc.24207@trnddc07...
[SNIP]

Sorry for the delayed response, but I was out of state doing what the
apparently common wisdom around here says absolutely cannot be done.
I'm somewhat embarrassed to admit I was actually using the impossibly
obsolete Nikon F2 (yet again - will he never learn!?) to photograph my
son's basketball team playing in a tournament in Portland, Oregon. My
apologies to the masses... g


Yeah, I should be joining you in that dog-house: recently shot some dance
with a Pentax LX, and had about 30 out of 36 come out saleable. That's more
htan I got with the other (AF) body I was also using. It isn't rocket
sceience, or inherent genius: it's practice.


Regarding topicality, the immediate subject has flipped back and forth
between focus and flash, but the more fundamental issue remains
automated versus manual operation of both and the seeming insistence of
many (most?) that with the advent of greater levels of the former, the
latter
is not only no longer workable, but cannot any longer even be mastered. I
respectfully disagree with that assertion and I apologize if my choice of
example was confusing to you.

I have indeed seen the 2D flash tables, as have we all. And I did indeed
repeatedly consult that table when I first purchased the flash unit, just
as
I repeatedly consulted the gear selection layout inscribed on the top of
the
manual stick shift ball when I first purchased my car. But it's not where
one begins that counts. It's where one finishes that is the true measure
of
the mastery of a skill (no matter how simple or complex).

Care to ask me when I last needed to look down at the stick shift ball
before changing gears while driving?

Can you even remember? ;-)

Yes, automation can be useful - but it doesn't do every thing equally well.
Mastering manual operation just allows one so many more choices.



Peter

"Ken Nadvornick" wrote in message
news:tteSd.36450$wc.24207@trnddc07...
[SNIP]

Sorry for the delayed response, but I was out of state doing what the
apparently common wisdom around here says absolutely cannot be done.
I'm somewhat embarrassed to admit I was actually using the impossibly
obsolete Nikon F2 (yet again - will he never learn!?) to photograph my
son's basketball team playing in a tournament in Portland, Oregon. My
apologies to the masses... g


Yeah, I should be joining you in that dog-house: recently shot some dance
with a Pentax LX, and had about 30 out of 36 come out saleable. That's more
htan I got with the other (AF) body I was also using. It isn't rocket
sceience, or inherent genius: it's practice.


Regarding topicality, the immediate subject has flipped back and forth
between focus and flash, but the more fundamental issue remains
automated versus manual operation of both and the seeming insistence of
many (most?) that with the advent of greater levels of the former, the
latter
is not only no longer workable, but cannot any longer even be mastered. I
respectfully disagree with that assertion and I apologize if my choice of
example was confusing to you.

I have indeed seen the 2D flash tables, as have we all. And I did indeed
repeatedly consult that table when I first purchased the flash unit, just
as
I repeatedly consulted the gear selection layout inscribed on the top of
the
manual stick shift ball when I first purchased my car. But it's not where
one begins that counts. It's where one finishes that is the true measure
of
the mastery of a skill (no matter how simple or complex).

Care to ask me when I last needed to look down at the stick shift ball
before changing gears while driving?

Can you even remember? ;-)

Yes, automation can be useful - but it doesn't do every thing equally well.
Mastering manual operation just allows one so many more choices.



Peter

Bandicoot wrote:

The bravest thing a professional photographer can do is to show his contact
sheets.

To win a job or when presenting the result?

When we'd hire a pro for a prodcut shoot, (s)he would bring in the shoot film
and the various marketing/product managers (I was both at one company, sometimes
simultaneiously) and we'd sit at the light table with the designer (and the
photographer in most cases) and simply find the images that could be used most
effectively in the ads, brochures, website, etc. There was little tension and
the pros were all too glad to point out what was wrong in their opinion with
certain shots.

I would imagine that in the fashion industry and many mass marketed products it
might be a lot tougher. But the point is that the photographer, even if hired
freelance, is a team member.

I do recall seeing some 'blown' shots, but nobody bothered to point them out,
there were very few really bad ones.

I had no participation with the more 'freeform' company photography for things
like the annual report. Our graphics artist would hire a different photographer
every year. I'd see the proofs on the light table only if I asked (and my input
to the process was not desired), and the photography then was not only more fun,
more dynamic, but also had a higher "blooper" ratio as the photographer was
using a more daring and creative approach to reach whatever the grpahics artist
was asking for according to that years 'theme'.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

"Peter Chant" wrote in message
...



http://www.geh.org/fm/brownie/htmlsr...tml#topofimage

Interesting, the brownie I have downstairs has a feature these don't,
there
is a tab you can pull which puts a yellow filter over the lens.


I have one somewhere with a similar mechanism that puts a mild close up lens
over the taking lens - the model is called a "Portrait Hawkeye" or something
similar.


Peter