How to measure ISO

On 11/7/2015 6:02 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2015-11-07 13:00, PeterN wrote:
On 11/7/2015 8:57 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2015-11-06 13:30, PeterN wrote:


Most good photographers expose for the subject matter.

No, they expose for the light and the medium. Since digital cameras
behave very much like slide film, one generally exposed for the
highlights.

Did ya learn anything from that?



If your subject is an eagle flying, would your exposure differ if the
background was a group of trees, as opposed to a bright sky?

That would depend on whether I was shooting up or across to the eagle.

Note that best wildlife shots of birds are shot in the morning or
evening. Not in mid day.


Yep! That is also generally true of any subject.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/pelican%20two%20in%20flight_DSC3066_2237.jpg

Compare with this taken, on a very clear day, though a bit later. Note
that Some of the highlights on the osprey are clipped.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/osprey%20flying%20with%20fish.jpg




--
PeterN

On 11/7/2015 6:22 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-11-07 22:36:22 +0000, PeterN said:

On 11/7/2015 1:37 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-11-07 18:00:03 +0000, PeterN said:

On 11/7/2015 8:57 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2015-11-06 13:30, PeterN wrote:


Most good photographers expose for the subject matter.

No, they expose for the light and the medium. Since digital cameras
behave very much like slide film, one generally exposed for the
highlights.

Did ya learn anything from that?



If your subject is an eagle flying, would your exposure differ if the
background was a group of trees, as opposed to a bright sky?

First you get your birdie under an AF/AE point...
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_383.jpg



OOF

Just an AF point conversation piece. ;-)

Surely you must know I would say that. ;-p

But it was exposed correctly.


--
PeterN

On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 18:00:46 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

--- snip ---

For things like stained glass inside buildings I'd suggest a tripod and
HDR methods. 3 images is probably enough in most cases. Same for
outdoor if the subject permits.

See https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...03/LR---19.jpg

St Peters in the 'old town' of Geneva. Hand held D300. 1/50 sec at
f/6.3. Processed with LR.

Looks crappy. You want a smooth glow to the walls. Shoot for the wall,
shoot for the glass. Two separate exposures (absent fill light).

That looks about the way I remember it. I cited it as an example of
the ability of -1/2 EV to cope with highlights (in this case the sun
coming through the glass).

As far as the stonework is concerned (and another kind of highlight)
see https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/LR--6366.jpg
Once again a D300 shot. Hand held 1/13 at f/6.3. Same church, same
day.

That's much nicer, exposure wise, - though the highlights are wildly blown

I'm not commenting on how you shot it. Just that:

- the highlights (first image) are blown - way.

I think they are predominantly clear glass so that doesn't much
matter.

It does. It should glow white without clipping or spilling.

I'm not sure how you make it 'glow'. Without engaging in pixel peeping
I can see no evidence of significant spilling, and clipping is to be
expected. But when you print, white is whatever color the paper is.


- the result is noisy, grainy.

What do you expect from a D300 at ISO 2000? :-)
In any case, it looks OK at the size I intended to print it (about
140 x 200).

Which is why it deserves tripod and HDR.

There has been lots of discussion in this news group about the best
carry around camera or the best carry around lens, but I've never seen
any discussion of the best carry around tripod. Apart from that, my
tripod was 10,000 miles away in the boot of my car.



It's an excellent example of where an HDR shot would have been best.
And careful processing would result in better balance w/o it looking
like a horrid HDR shot.

I just happened to be wandering around the town with a camera in my
hand and wasn't carrying a tripod at the time. Mind you, I have used
the D300 quite succesfully for hand-held HDR exposures.

The camera you have is better than the one you don't - tripod or not.
No argument. But ... ;-)


I have never had a perfect camera.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 11/7/2015 7:52 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 18:00:46 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:


snip


Which is why it deserves tripod and HDR.

There has been lots of discussion in this news group about the best
carry around camera or the best carry around lens, but I've never seen
any discussion of the best carry around tripod. Apart from that, my
tripod was 10,000 miles away in the boot of my car.


There are a lot of places and times when a tripod cannot be used,
besides relying on stabilization.
Some ways I deal with that.
Brace the camera using a shoulder strap
Loop a fishing line around your toe, with the other end firmly attached
to your camera. You pull tight to increase stability.
Not perfect, but better than nothing.


--
PeterN

On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 20:18:33 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 11/7/2015 7:52 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 18:00:46 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:


snip


Which is why it deserves tripod and HDR.

There has been lots of discussion in this news group about the best
carry around camera or the best carry around lens, but I've never seen
any discussion of the best carry around tripod. Apart from that, my
tripod was 10,000 miles away in the boot of my car.


There are a lot of places and times when a tripod cannot be used,
besides relying on stabilization.
Some ways I deal with that.
Brace the camera using a shoulder strap
Loop a fishing line around your toe, with the other end firmly attached
to your camera. You pull tight to increase stability.
Not perfect, but better than nothing.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...l_Original.jpg
or http://tinyurl.com/nqa4ca4 is a 5-shot HDR I made some years ago,
by holding my camera against a column and letting bracketing and
multiple exposures do the work.

Processing is by the NIK HDR module in Paint Shop Pro. The colours
look slightly wierd but in fact they are about right.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2015-11-08 04:06:21 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...l_Original.jpg
or

http://tinyurl.com/nqa4ca4 is a 5-shot HDR I made some years ago,
by holding my camera against a column and letting bracketing and
multiple exposures do the work.

Processing is by the NIK HDR module in Paint Shop Pro. The colours
look slightly wierd but in fact they are about right.


....and here is a shot taken with my D70 in 2005 and the single exposure
NEF processed using Photo Merge - HDR in LR. Using the original set to
-3.00 and a Virtual Copy set to +3.00, the merged HDR has some noise in
the shadows, but that is to be expected from the particularly noisy and
small D70 sensor.

The AF focus point and metering off the bright background.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_384.jpg
the HDR result.
https://db.tt/4C5TJeW7


--
Regards,

Savageduck

nospam wrote:

In article , sid
wrote:

1/2 a stop only
will usually leave you with lots of clipped pixels.

no.

Again, it depends on what your are metering from.

nobody said otherwise, but 1/2 stop on the highs won't 'lot of clipped
pixels.' it will actually have very little, if any at all.

How you can make such general statements with a straight face is beyond
me.

so very much is beyond you. nothing new there.

Here's an example. The same scene at 2 full stops apart. You'll be able
to see you're talking ****.

Oh! you seem to have snipped the bit that shows you're wrong, that's a
surprise.

one exception means nothing.

There are many more "exceptions", in fact so many more that they are not
exceptions at all.

plus, nobody knows what the meter or
camera settings actually were.

Only those not bright enough to check.

If what you're saying is correct all those people taking 5,7 and even 9 stop
brackets for hdr are wasting their time because 1 shot 1/2 stop off the
highs will be enough. You know best though I suppose.

--
sid

In article , sid
wrote:

1/2 a stop only
will usually leave you with lots of clipped pixels.

no.

Again, it depends on what your are metering from.

nobody said otherwise, but 1/2 stop on the highs won't 'lot of clipped
pixels.' it will actually have very little, if any at all.

How you can make such general statements with a straight face is beyond
me.

so very much is beyond you. nothing new there.

Here's an example. The same scene at 2 full stops apart. You'll be able
to see you're talking ****.

Oh! you seem to have snipped the bit that shows you're wrong, that's a
surprise.

nope. this is about 1/2 stop below clipping. the text is still there.

one exception means nothing.

There are many more "exceptions", in fact so many more that they are not
exceptions at all.

nope. your image is an exception. nothing wrong with that but
exceptions do not make the rules.

plus, nobody knows what the meter or
camera settings actually were.

Only those not bright enough to check.

i didn't look at the exif, which can be faked anyway.

If what you're saying is correct all those people taking 5,7 and even 9 stop
brackets for hdr are wasting their time because 1 shot 1/2 stop off the
highs will be enough. You know best though I suppose.

bracketing was never the issue.

In article , nospam wrote:

PeterN:
Tomming from you that is a compliment.

tomming?

you're telling me to learn something with a post full of typos?

and the t key is nowhere near the c key, so it can't be
fatfingering.

hilarious.

PeterN
07/19/2014 09:58:06 PM

"As a former editor and professor, I would qualify as an
expert in contemporary English usage in most courts."



--
Sandman

nospam wrote:

In article , sid
wrote:

1/2 a stop only
will usually leave you with lots of clipped pixels.

no.

Again, it depends on what your are metering from.

nobody said otherwise, but 1/2 stop on the highs won't 'lot of
clipped pixels.' it will actually have very little, if any at all.

How you can make such general statements with a straight face is
beyond me.

so very much is beyond you. nothing new there.

Here's an example. The same scene at 2 full stops apart. You'll be
able to see you're talking ****.

Oh! you seem to have snipped the bit that shows you're wrong, that's a
surprise.

nope. this is about 1/2 stop below clipping. the text is still there.

No it's not, it's about 1/2 stop below the highs. The text is still there!

one exception means nothing.

There are many more "exceptions", in fact so many more that they are not
exceptions at all.

nope. your image is an exception. nothing wrong with that but
exceptions do not make the rules.

Regardless of your contradictions there are millions of photos taken every
day that have similar properties, just because your experience is limited
does not mean others don't actually get out in the outside and take photos.

plus, nobody knows what the meter or
camera settings actually were.

Only those not bright enough to check.

i didn't look at the exif, which can be faked anyway.

Why would they be faked? No 63 in ridiculous things nospam has said.

If what you're saying is correct all those people taking 5,7 and even 9
stop brackets for hdr are wasting their time because 1 shot 1/2 stop off
the highs will be enough. You know best though I suppose.

bracketing was never the issue.

You obviously don't want to discuss the obvious conclusion to what you are
trying to assert.

--
sid