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.

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.

"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)

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.)

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.

"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)

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.

"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

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.

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.