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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
What exposure mode do you shoot in.
wrote in message ... In message .com, "Bill Hilton" wrote: SNIP I took around 12,000 images of wildlife last year and probably 11,900 were shot at ISO 200-320 with just a few at 800, typically birds in flight late in the day. Never at 1600. Can you show us some of the types of shots you take where 1600 is required? How slow is your lens? Slow enough that I need to shoot at 1600. You don't trust me? The "issue" may be that you shoot for optimal image quality, I also attempt to do that (if situation permits, which it often doesn't), but Bill might sometimes need to shoot at less than optimal image quality (but he may get the (technically slightly inferior, but usable) shots). I surely know that I've wasted a few shots when aiming for technical quality (but then when everything fell into place, WOW!). IMHO it is a good thing to strive for the best, but at times second best is adequate. The choice for compromise is however often set by chance :-( . This is such a chance shot (uncropped 1DsMk2 1/160s f/3.5 ISO 200): http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/temp/CarimaCrisatata.jpg The exotic bird (red-legged Carcerima, if I got that right) was shot in a zoo behind wire netting and it kept coming closer and closer to me. I quickly exchanged my long lens for my 100mm Macro, and held it flush to the fence to get it out of the focus plane. I pressed the shutter, and again, as the bird walked towards my lens, while tracking it on AI servo focus. At the closest point, as I was aiming the focus point at the eye, it turned it's head exactly in line with the focus plane, and click, I got it. Nostril at 100% zoom: http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/temp/nostril.jpg No time to check exposure much during the 47 second event ... (although I had set exposure to EV+2/3 earlier). In Raw processing I pulled the exposure by 1/3rd of a stop. Bart Bart |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
What exposure mode do you shoot in.
"Bart van der Wolf" wrote in message ... Sorry for the typo in the URL, here is its Nostril at 100% zoom: http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/temp/Nostril.jpg Bart |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
What exposure mode do you shoot in.
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
What exposure mode do you shoot in.
Canon F1 via PhotoKB.com wrote:
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote: Yes. My 25-year old cameras don't meter very well compared to modern cameras. Even my 15-year old cameras don't. Modern systems are very impressive. Roger That is debatable. F1 Since you use an F1, perhaps you have high standards. So when comparing to modern cameras, do it with the pro line. I found my canon D60 and 10D were about as good (at metering) as elans and other consumer film cameras. But now I use a 1D Mark II and the metering is outstanding in comparison to those consumer models. Also, I still use totally manual cameras: 4x5 view cameras. Roger |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
What exposure mode do you shoot in.
Canon F1 via PhotoKB.com wrote:
wrote: However, you did imply that people are handicapped using "modes". No, I guess, I am a bit on the defense as of late as many seem to attack film and my old manual equipment, in forums and in the local photo crowds I hang around. I argue that I am not handicapped and even beleive I am not possibly misled by shooting in program or mode. There is always room for improvement, as there is no ceiling. True, however as a photo hobbiest, I remain "uninspired" by the newest technology. Have you actually used a 1D Mark II or 1Ds Mark II? Very impressive. I won't see all the shots that were never taken, though, because you didn't have time to adjust the settings, or because your film wasn't sensitive enough. Yes but what you will see is right from the scanner, unaltered or otherwise enhanced. One of the selling points I have and my clients, modest crowd that they are, love the fact that I shoot film and the enlarged print is wet finished and unaltered. In comparison to film, which have been developed (contrast, saturation, etc is dependent on film type and development), straight from the camera with digital is not only possible, it has *LESS* processing in comparison. And the raw file provides good evidence against alteration. Thx for all the posts, I suppose I might get a bit ornery at times. I mean not to attack and I apologize for my behavior but it seems that the newest and greatest technologies, seem to make people forget the basics and I think that is a mistake. OK. Unfortunately, it is too easy to get impersonal in these newsgroups. We just got a little defensive when you said "Modes will only screw you up." Roger |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
What exposure mode do you shoot in.
You seem to not understand how the different modes work. In aperture
priority (Av), you decide on aperture value (e.g., f4) and the camera's meter sets shutter speed (e.g., 1/100). If you switch to shutter priority (Tv) and set the time value to 1/100, the camera's meter sets the aperture to f4. And if you shoot in manual mode and set aperture to f4, the camera will tell you it is properly exposed if you then set speed to 1/100. The exposure is exactly the same using the same metering mode and exposure compensation, regardless of mode. If you dial in 1/2 stop underexposure in each case, the exposure would still be the same, regardless of mode. The advantage of one mode over another is a function of the shooting situation. For example, if I want maximum dof for a scenic, I set the shutter speed (Tv) to the slowest allowed by the situation (based on hand-held camera movement, or subject movement) and let the camera set aperture. When I want to stop action of wildlife, I use Av mode and set it all the way open, so the camera selects the fastest speed available. And I can always dial in some exposure compensation based on my knowledge of the situation and experience with the metering mode. - Alan Justice wrote in message ... snip I was writing about situations in which ISO 1600 still results in under-exposure. Av Mode, in such cases, will result in blur. Tv mode will result in some under-exposure. Manual mode will result in either, depending upon your settings. John P Sheehy |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
What exposure mode do you shoot in.
Bill H wrote ...
Can you show us some of the types of shots you take where 1600 is required? John P Sheehy replied ... Slow enough that I need to shoot at 1600. You don't trust me? I'll keep an open mind ... it's just that what you describe is so at odds with my experience that I'd like to see what I'm missing. Maybe there are types of shots I should be trying that require iso 1600, or maybe they look about like what I'd expect in such low light with high noise levels and I wouldn't care about shooting such images but if you have some I'd like to see them. I was writing about situations in which ISO 1600 still results in under-exposure. Av Mode, in such cases, will result in blur. Tv mode will result in some under-exposure. OK, I see what you're doing now ... I have the custom function set that will over-ride the shutter speed when it hits max aperture, which keeps the exposure accurate but lowers the shutter speed. You have this off (if you even have it as a CF option on your camera), which will keep the set shutter speed but underexpose. Got it now ... Bill |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
What exposure mode do you shoot in.
Bart writes ...
The "issue" may be that you shoot for optimal image quality, I also attempt to do that (if situation permits, which it often doesn't), but Bill might sometimes need to shoot at less than optimal image quality (but he may get the (technically slightly inferior, but usable) shots). Are you sure you have the names right? Bill (me) is the one shooting at lower ISO in brighter light, John is the one shooting ISO 1600 in dim light ... I'm sure I get higher image quality in good light at low ISO than I do at high ISOs up to 1600 due to noise. This is such a chance shot (uncropped 1DsMk2 1/160s f/3.5 ISO 200 If you are really agreeing with Sheehy that 1600 is better then why did you shoot this at ISO 200, which is more my speed? Great detail in the bird, btw Bill |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
What exposure mode do you shoot in.
John P Sheehy wrote ...
I was writing about situations in which ISO 1600 still results in under-exposure. Av Mode, in such cases, will result in blur. Tv mode will result in some under-exposure. Alan Justice replied ... You seem to not understand how the different modes work. In aperture priority (Av), you decide on aperture value (e.g., f4) and the camera's meter sets shutter speed (e.g., 1/100). If you switch to shutter priority (Tv) and set the time value to 1/100, the camera's meter sets the aperture to f4. ... The exposure is exactly the same using the same metering mode and exposure compensation, regardless of mode. Alan, I thought the same thing as you but now I see what John meant ... if you do not set the CF to override the exposure then in Av mode the shutter speed will slow down all the way to 30 sec (or whatever the longest shutter speed is) and then underexpose. In Tv mode if this CF isn't set then it will keep the same shutter speed and once you hit the widest aperture (say f/4 in your example) then it keeps the same shutter speed and will underexpose. If you had the CF set for over-ride (which I think most of us do) it would over-ride the Tv setting and lower the shutter speed. Basically John is saying he prefers to keep a certain shutter speed and risk underexposure instead of setting the CF and having the shutter speed go slower and risk blur. It's easier to do this in Tv mode than in Av mode since in Av mode the shutter can go down to 30 sec. Bill |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
What exposure mode do you shoot in.
"Bill Hilton" wrote in message oups.com... Bart writes ... The "issue" may be that you shoot for optimal image quality, I also attempt to do that (if situation permits, which it often doesn't), but Bill might sometimes need to shoot at less than optimal image quality (but he may get the (technically slightly inferior, but usable) shots). Are you sure you have the names right? Yes, my message was in response to John's contribution, I left some of your comments for context. Bill (me) is the one shooting at lower ISO in brighter light, John is the one shooting ISO 1600 in dim light ... I'm sure I get higher image quality in good light at low ISO than I do at high ISOs up to 1600 due to noise. Ah, the confusion may also be because of part of what John didn't elaborate on, or took for known territory. John, he'll correct me if I'm wrong, tends to boost the ISO setting because the result of that is better than underexposing (e.g. to reduce motion artifacts, maximizing exposure while avoiding clipping, and hitting the sweet spot of diffraction limiting aperture) and pushing with post-processing, and I'd agree on the technical merrits. Setting on-camera ISO higher will amplify the analog signal, pushing will magnify quantization errors and photon shot noise. However, it should 'only' be considered when underexposure lurks around the corner. However, as you seem to do, I tend to rather choose a wider aperture or reduce shutterspeed with a generally lower ISO to avoid amplifier noise. Obviously the choice of parameters still needs to ensure correct exposure, i.e. expose for the highlights, and avoid camera shake. This is such a chance shot (uncropped 1DsMk2 1/160s f/3.5 ISO 200 If you are really agreeing with Sheehy that 1600 is better then why did you shoot this at ISO 200, which is more my speed? See above, I agree with John if under exposure is imminent it's better to boost on-camera ISO, in other cases you and I agree that lower ISO is better (assuming a slightly less than 'best' aperture is still acceptable, and camera shake is a minor issue). Great detail in the bird, btw Thanks, but the bird did cooperate ;-) by moving in close (12 inches? to the front of the lens hood), and it briefly 'posed' for optimal use of the shallow DOF. Printing at A3 (~17x23 inches) with Qimage still gives *very* sharp output (that practically ensures 'limitless' possibilities) but at such magnification the shallow DOF is more apparent. Bart |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
COMM: Australia only- film prices | Karl | General Equipment For Sale | 1 | February 9th 05 02:25 AM |
Digital Exposure Question -- Middle Gray vs Exposure At Highlights | MikeS | Digital Photography | 1 | June 24th 04 08:04 AM |
Develper for Delta-100 | Frank Pittel | In The Darkroom | 8 | March 1st 04 05:36 PM |
FS: Minolta Maxxum 7 - Picture Now Available! | King of Paine | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | November 30th 03 04:08 AM |
FS: Minolta Maxxum 7 AF 35mm SLR - Fully Featured Camera! | Lewis Lang | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | November 22nd 03 09:59 AM |