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 |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
"Ken Nadvornick" wrote in message
news:tteSd.36450$wc.24207@trnddc07... [SNIP] Sorry for the delayed response, but I was out of state doing what the apparently common wisdom around here says absolutely cannot be done. I'm somewhat embarrassed to admit I was actually using the impossibly obsolete Nikon F2 (yet again - will he never learn!?) to photograph my son's basketball team playing in a tournament in Portland, Oregon. My apologies to the masses... g Yeah, I should be joining you in that dog-house: recently shot some dance with a Pentax LX, and had about 30 out of 36 come out saleable. That's more htan I got with the other (AF) body I was also using. It isn't rocket sceience, or inherent genius: it's practice. Regarding topicality, the immediate subject has flipped back and forth between focus and flash, but the more fundamental issue remains automated versus manual operation of both and the seeming insistence of many (most?) that with the advent of greater levels of the former, the latter is not only no longer workable, but cannot any longer even be mastered. I respectfully disagree with that assertion and I apologize if my choice of example was confusing to you. I have indeed seen the 2D flash tables, as have we all. And I did indeed repeatedly consult that table when I first purchased the flash unit, just as I repeatedly consulted the gear selection layout inscribed on the top of the manual stick shift ball when I first purchased my car. But it's not where one begins that counts. It's where one finishes that is the true measure of the mastery of a skill (no matter how simple or complex). Care to ask me when I last needed to look down at the stick shift ball before changing gears while driving? Can you even remember? ;-) Yes, automation can be useful - but it doesn't do every thing equally well. Mastering manual operation just allows one so many more choices. Peter |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
"Ken Nadvornick" wrote in message
news:tteSd.36450$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 |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How to Buy a Digital Camera | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 6 | January 18th 05 10:01 PM |
How to Buy a Digital Camera | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 0 | January 18th 05 03:39 PM |
Digital zoom camera & lots of selection questions | Lou | Digital Photography | 5 | November 12th 04 12:43 AM |
Camera Recommendation for Architecural Student | Don F | Digital Photography | 28 | November 2nd 04 04:20 AM |
Another nail in the view camera coffin? | Robert Feinman | Large Format Photography Equipment | 108 | August 4th 04 03:37 PM |