Metering difference

[DavidP #28649]

Read some of the reviews at Amazon.com

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0817437126/qid=1062695906/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/102-8009866-5296966?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Click on the button that lets you see more reviews. Then you can sort them from lowest ranking first (if that's how you want to view them).

The book could be TOO basic for you.

As this guy put it: "If you need to understand aperture, shutter speed, film speed and their relationships, this is a good book. Of course these are some of the most important aspects of photography, but if you are looking for more as I was, this book was disappointing."

The other thing I remember being discussed about technical accuracy is mentioned here: "I also have a major gripe with this book because of an error that is sure to confuse some beginners. Peterson consistently writes about "increasing" shutter speed from (for example) 1/15th to 1/8th to 1/4th. When you go from a shutter speed of 1/15th of a second to 1/4th of a second, you may be increasing your exposure, but you're decreasing your shutter speed. No doubt someone has read this and been a bit confused by it."

Also, I don't think it covers flash photography at all. Just available light.

Why? It's either technically sound advice or it's not. No?

--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

'Since we can't keep crime in check, why don't we legalize it and tax it out of business?' -- Will Rogers

 

[Donald Cooper]

98% success? Well, maybe if you're shooting negative film (with
far more latitude in exposure), or if you never try to shoot scenes
with a lot of sky in the background, etc.

Calling us fibbers are ya? How dare you!!!!

Well I think we are guilty with the 98% number, but I think we're guilty of underestimating as well as overestimating the capabilities of the metering.

You seem to think there is one "right" exposure and everything esle is wrong. That's one approach but the better approach is to realize that there are several "OK" exposures (one of which is the one you'll prefer) and some "Wrong" exposures.

Evaluative metering is designed to avoid the "Wrong" exposures at the expense of not always getting the "Right" exposure. Why? Because if you get the wrong exposure, which in most cases means blowing the highlights, you can't ever fix it. The image is forever ruined. But if you avoid the wrong exposure you can always fix the image later. In fact, that is what happens many times with film: the camera uses a conservative exposure setting and the lab adjusts the exposure during processing to make them more pleasing, usually by showing more detail in the midtones.

In histogram terms, what this means is that the camera is not going to aggressively push the image to the right. It's going to take a conservative tack and keep the info to the left since you can always adjust this later. So the 98% figure is too little and too much: the camera is going to get the "Right" (or close to it) exposure about 70% of the time but avoid the the "Wrong" exposure 99.9999% of the time. That leaves it to you to adjust the exposures during processing if you don't like the result.

But I do think that you're not going to do much better mucking about yourself when you're shooting. I think it's a better approach to use the camera settings, making the adjustments you know about, and leaving the questions for resolution after the fact. IMHO of course.

 

[DavidP #28649]

I'd say the 70% number is more reasonable. And I definitely agree that there's more than one "correct" exposure. Sometimes one even DELIBERATELY over/under exposes an image for effect.

A few times I've shot a concert completely in manual mode at the same exposure level. What this did was really show the differences in lighting across the stage. It's not the "correct" exposure (for the shots in the shadows), but it had a neat effect to it.

I do think, though, that I can do better than a completely uncompensated evaluative exposure quite frequently. Why? One reason is that I'm constantly reviewing the results I get as I shoot . . . which helps "fine tune" me for later shots. This kind of feedback is great, as it allows me to shoot in evaluative some times, or in spot-metering other times, and figure out which gives me the most consistent results, and in which cases I'm more likely to get the right compensation without that feedback.

Calling us fibbers are ya? How dare you!!!!

Well I think we are guilty with the 98% number, but I think we're
guilty of underestimating as well as overestimating the
capabilities of the metering.

You seem to think there is one "right" exposure and everything esle
is wrong. That's one approach but the better approach is to realize
that there are several "OK" exposures (one of which is the one
you'll prefer) and some "Wrong" exposures.

Evaluative metering is designed to avoid the "Wrong" exposures at
the expense of not always getting the "Right" exposure. Why?
Because if you get the wrong exposure, which in most cases means
blowing the highlights, you can't ever fix it. The image is forever
ruined. But if you avoid the wrong exposure you can always fix the
image later. In fact, that is what happens many times with film:
the camera uses a conservative exposure setting and the lab adjusts
the exposure during processing to make them more pleasing, usually
by showing more detail in the midtones.

In histogram terms, what this means is that the camera is not going
to aggressively push the image to the right. It's going to take a
conservative tack and keep the info to the left since you can
always adjust this later. So the 98% figure is too little and too
much: the camera is going to get the "Right" (or close to it)
exposure about 70% of the time but avoid the the "Wrong" exposure
99.9999% of the time. That leaves it to you to adjust the exposures
during processing if you don't like the result.

But I do think that you're not going to do much better mucking
about yourself when you're shooting. I think it's a better approach
to use the camera settings, making the adjustments you know about,
and leaving the questions for resolution after the fact. IMHO of
course.

--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

'Since we can't keep crime in check, why don't we legalize it and tax it out of business?' -- Will Rogers

 

[Donald Cooper]

There is no rule of thumb about backlit subjects because invariably can't get it right. The camera's dynamic range simply isn't great enough. For strongly backlit subjects you need to use a graduated filter. This is the only real fix.

In this case the camera's automatic metering will automatically not blow the highlights, which will give you less detail in the mid-tone and shadow areas of your subject. You can try and do something with this later. But if you try and "fix" the camera's settings by compensating when you shoot, you'll invariably overexpose and blow the sky highlights, a problem which can never be fixed. So the camera settings will generally be better.

If backlit subjects are a major concern for you, you can get graduated filters at different stops which will give you great control. They're pretty easy to use (I'm wondering now why the 300D doesn't have this adjustment -- it could). FYI, the Canon sample image of the tree with the backlit sky is about as good as you'll ever get -- and it's very good sans filter. But the problem here isn't metering, it's dynamic range.

Is there a decent rule of thumb formula?

Any time the subject is particularly bright or dark, or the
background is particularly bright or dark. Those kinds of images
will typically require some exposure compensation, even in
evaluative metering mode.

 

[DavidP #28649]

Depends on what your backlit subject is. If it's a lone cactus sticking up well into the sky, no GND is going to help you.

There, you have to resort to combining exposures in Photoshop. Or, simply choose to silhouette the cactus, or to expose it properly and blow-out the background.

There is no rule of thumb about backlit subjects because invariably
can't get it right. The camera's dynamic range simply isn't great
enough. For strongly backlit subjects you need to use a graduated
filter. This is the only real fix.

In this case the camera's automatic metering will automatically not
blow the highlights, which will give you less detail in the
mid-tone and shadow areas of your subject. You can try and do
something with this later. But if you try and "fix" the camera's
settings by compensating when you shoot, you'll invariably
overexpose and blow the sky highlights, a problem which can never
be fixed. So the camera settings will generally be better.

If backlit subjects are a major concern for you, you can get
graduated filters at different stops which will give you great
control. They're pretty easy to use (I'm wondering now why the 300D
doesn't have this adjustment -- it could). FYI, the Canon sample
image of the tree with the backlit sky is about as good as you'll
ever get -- and it's very good sans filter. But the problem here
isn't metering, it's dynamic range.

--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

'Since we can't keep crime in check, why don't we legalize it and tax it out of business?' -- Will Rogers

 

[lonnit]

Ok, got it now!

Yep, I'd say you've got a few! LOL! But he should have requested your drivers license appear in the photo to verify it was you. This could be any prime obsessed guy! LOL!

Lonnit

 

[Donald Cooper]

David,

I am sure you believe you can do better than the camera. It's totally human nature for us to believe that in the man vs. machine contest we usually win. I'm with you completely.

But the fact is that more often than not our instincts are worse and not better. This is actually an area of academic study, and the empirical evidence is that the vast majority of time the machine is correct. The best example of this -- and I'm far afield I know but it's interesting -- are jetliner crashes. Pilots all want manual over ride because they feel they'll do better than the plane's auto systems. Yet time after time, as in the horrible jetliner collision in Switzerland last year, the autopilots do far better than the human pilots. So the evidence is that if pilots didn't have manual over ride we'd all be better off. But the human side of us can't accept this. It's so contrary to our instincts of wanting to be in control.

I see this as being the same here. I actually believe the camera will do a bette job than I will, but I can't help myself: I find myself fiddling with the exposure!

A few times I've shot a concert completely in manual mode at the
same exposure level. What this did was really show the
differences in lighting across the stage. It's not the "correct"
exposure (for the shots in the shadows), but it had a neat effect
to it.

I do think, though, that I can do better than a completely
uncompensated evaluative exposure quite frequently. Why? One
reason is that I'm constantly reviewing the results I get as I
shoot . . . which helps "fine tune" me for later shots. This
kind of feedback is great, as it allows me to shoot in evaluative
some times, or in spot-metering other times, and figure out which
gives me the most consistent results, and in which cases I'm more
likely to get the right compensation without that feedback.

Calling us fibbers are ya? How dare you!!!!

Well I think we are guilty with the 98% number, but I think we're
guilty of underestimating as well as overestimating the
capabilities of the metering.

You seem to think there is one "right" exposure and everything esle
is wrong. That's one approach but the better approach is to realize
that there are several "OK" exposures (one of which is the one
you'll prefer) and some "Wrong" exposures.

Evaluative metering is designed to avoid the "Wrong" exposures at
the expense of not always getting the "Right" exposure. Why?
Because if you get the wrong exposure, which in most cases means
blowing the highlights, you can't ever fix it. The image is forever
ruined. But if you avoid the wrong exposure you can always fix the
image later. In fact, that is what happens many times with film:
the camera uses a conservative exposure setting and the lab adjusts
the exposure during processing to make them more pleasing, usually
by showing more detail in the midtones.

In histogram terms, what this means is that the camera is not going
to aggressively push the image to the right. It's going to take a
conservative tack and keep the info to the left since you can
always adjust this later. So the 98% figure is too little and too
much: the camera is going to get the "Right" (or close to it)
exposure about 70% of the time but avoid the the "Wrong" exposure
99.9999% of the time. That leaves it to you to adjust the exposures
during processing if you don't like the result.

But I do think that you're not going to do much better mucking
about yourself when you're shooting. I think it's a better approach
to use the camera settings, making the adjustments you know about,
and leaving the questions for resolution after the fact. IMHO of
course.

--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

'Since we can't keep crime in check, why don't we legalize it and
tax it out of business?' -- Will Rogers

 

[DavidP #28649]

I hope you can contain yourself with these, then. LOL. The manuals for the 10D and 300D.

http://www.powershot.com/powershot2/customer/pdf/EOS_10D_E.pdf

http://www.canoneos.com/digitalrebel/download/manual.pdf

Hey, I read tech
manuals like other women read romance novels! ....and I probably
get more excited by them as well!!!!! LOL!

--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

'Since we can't keep crime in check, why don't we legalize it and tax it out of business?' -- Will Rogers

 

[DavidP #28649]

At the time, I think my signature still read:

Unofficial Photographer Of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net

So, I dressed up special for him in my Wilksinsons T-shirt and hat. LOL.

Plus, there's a pic of me on the site, as well (in the About Me page).

I need to update the pic -- I have more primes now.

Ok, got it now!

Yep, I'd say you've got a few! LOL! But he should have requested
your drivers license appear in the photo to verify it was you. This
could be any prime obsessed guy! LOL!

--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

'Since we can't keep crime in check, why don't we legalize it and tax it out of business?' -- Will Rogers

 

[DavidP #28649]

Trust me, if the auto-exposure could nail it every time without any intervention from me, I'd let it!

Auto-focus? It can almost always beat me. If I beat it, then it's usually because the auto-focus just can't lock at all.

But exposure? It needs all the help it can get. Why? It can't tell white from black from gray. But I can.

I am sure you believe you can do better than the camera. It's
totally human nature for us to believe that in the man vs. machine
contest we usually win. I'm with you completely.

But the fact is that more often than not our instincts are worse
and not better. This is actually an area of academic study, and the
empirical evidence is that the vast majority of time the machine is
correct. The best example of this -- and I'm far afield I know but
it's interesting -- are jetliner crashes. Pilots all want manual
over ride because they feel they'll do better than the plane's auto
systems. Yet time after time, as in the horrible jetliner collision
in Switzerland last year, the autopilots do far better than the
human pilots. So the evidence is that if pilots didn't have manual
over ride we'd all be better off. But the human side of us can't
accept this. It's so contrary to our instincts of wanting to be in
control.

I see this as being the same here. I actually believe the camera
will do a bette job than I will, but I can't help myself: I find
myself fiddling with the exposure!

--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

'Since we can't keep crime in check, why don't we legalize it and tax it out of business?' -- Will Rogers

 

[lonnit]

Read some of the reviews at Amazon.com

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0817437126/qid=1062695906/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/102-8009866-5296966?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Thanks for the link. That was very nice of you.

The book could be TOO basic for you.

LOL! I dont' think anything could be too basic for me at this point! LOL!

As this guy put it: "If you need to understand aperture, shutter
speed, film speed and their relationships, this is a good book. Of
course these are some of the most important aspects of photography,
but if you are looking for more as I was, this book was
disappointing."

It's probably a good start for me.

The other thing I remember being discussed about technical accuracy
is mentioned here: "I also have a major gripe with this book
because of an error that is sure to confuse some beginners.
Peterson consistently writes about "increasing" shutter speed from
(for example) 1/15th to 1/8th to 1/4th. When you go from a shutter
speed of 1/15th of a second to 1/4th of a second, you may be
increasing your exposure, but you're decreasing your shutter speed.
No doubt someone has read this and been a bit confused by it."

That probably would have been very confusing for me without the heads up. I would have thought it was actually decreasing shutter speed and may have assumed I was wrong because the author is supposed to be the expert and I'm nothing, but my logic would have been fighting me to believe I was right. I may have glitched and exploded due to the paradox!

Also, I don't think it covers flash photography at all. Just
available light.

Well, if it's a whole book on just the above then it must be pretty thorough. I wouldnt' have an objection to learning available light first adn then going on later to learn more about flash. I've got a book or two that talks about setting up flash positioning but I do have to learn more about the relationship of flash to exposure, etc. I guess that might be a good 2nd book to find.

I was wondering if there's a good place to look for a photography course. The magazines advertise a ton of "mail order schools" but I can't help thinking there along the lines of the places that advertise art school on matchbooks - "If you can draw sparky you can be an artist!". Although I've taught myself the construction industry;design and building. I've taught myself graphics design, so I guess this'll be just another one of those! LOL! I like the idea of feedback from a teacher, but I guess there's plenty of opinions to be found here! LOL!

Thanks,
Lonnit

 

[DavidP #28649]

Hmm, maybe I should open up one of those mail-order classes. LOL.

You wanna be my first student? Major price break for great reviews.

I was wondering if there's a good place to look for a photography
course. The magazines advertise a ton of "mail order schools" but I
can't help thinking there along the lines of the places that
advertise art school on matchbooks - "If you can draw sparky you
can be an artist!". Although I've taught myself the construction
industry;design and building. I've taught myself graphics design,
so I guess this'll be just another one of those! LOL! I like the
idea of feedback from a teacher, but I guess there's plenty of
opinions to be found here! LOL!

--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

'Since we can't keep crime in check, why don't we legalize it and tax it out of business?' -- Will Rogers

 

[lonnit]

There is no rule of thumb about backlit subjects because invariably
can't get it right.

LOL! Well that's a confidence booster!!!!!

enough. For strongly backlit subjects you need to use a graduated
filter. This is the only real fix.

Ahhh, yes. I intended on learning more about filters- I've never used them before.

In this case the camera's automatic metering will automatically not
blow the highlights, which will give you less detail in the
mid-tone and shadow areas of your subject. You can try and do
something with this later. But if you try and "fix" the camera's
settings by compensating when you shoot, you'll invariably
overexpose and blow the sky highlights, a problem which can never
be fixed. So the camera settings will generally be better.

Makes alot of sense. I'm used to doing the photoshop fixes so that won't be a broblem for me at all. I guess all the training I gave myself fixing my Oly 3030 pix won't go to waste! LOL!

If backlit subjects are a major concern for you, you can get
graduated filters at different stops which will give you great
control. They're pretty easy to use (I'm wondering now why the 300D
doesn't have this adjustment -- it could).

I dont' understand what you mean about the 300 not having "this adjustment". Explain?

THanks!
Lonnit

 

[lonnit]

I hope you can contain yourself with these, then. LOL. The
manuals for the 10D and 300D.

http://www.powershot.com/powershot2/customer/pdf/EOS_10D_E.pdf

http://www.canoneos.com/digitalrebel/download/manual.pdf

Oh my!!!!! THANKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lonnit

 

[DavidP #28649]

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos300d/page6.asp

How about a graphical comparison.

I had Phil do this especially for you.

Oh my!!!!! THANKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

'Since we can't keep crime in check, why don't we legalize it and tax it out of business?' -- Will Rogers

 

[Donald Cooper]

How come? I've never tired this, but go to manual, meter on the cactus, set the shutter and aperature, stick on the filter, and shoot. I think it should work. What am I missing?

That said, your Photoshop idea might give a more interesting pic. But the two would be different.

Depends on what your backlit subject is. If it's a lone cactus
sticking up well into the sky, no GND is going to help you.

There, you have to resort to combining exposures in Photoshop.
Or, simply choose to silhouette the cactus, or to expose it
properly and blow-out the background.

 

[lonnit]

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos300d/page6.asp

How about a graphical comparison.

Interesting.

I had Phil do this especially for you.

You're pushing it, baby!

Lonnit

 

[DavidP #28649]

Imagine the cactus sticking up right smack in the middle of the frame, with bright blue sky surrounding it.

How are you going to get a GND filter to only apply to the sky and not to the cactus as well?

How come? I've never tired this, but go to manual, meter on the
cactus, set the shutter and aperature, stick on the filter, and
shoot. I think it should work. What am I missing?

That said, your Photoshop idea might give a more interesting pic.
But the two would be different.

--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

'Since we can't keep crime in check, why don't we legalize it and tax it out of business?' -- Will Rogers

 

[DavidP #28649]

Just when I thought I had you mesmerized by my charms. LOL. I knew I shouldn't have shown you that pic of me.

You're pushing it, baby!

--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

'Since we can't keep crime in check, why don't we legalize it and tax it out of business?' -- Will Rogers

 

[rsmedia1]

If you are a man, you are one of the hottest men I've ever seen.
Ever done any modeling ? LOL
I am also considering this new model.

I like your work.

Take it easy...

I didn't tell him to get a 1D.

Geez, I hope IRL people don't think I'm a guy! Dh always says I
think like a guy... I was a tomboy....but now I actually get
mistaken for a guy!!! Ok, I'm a guy, you got me - here I am in drag!



Awwww... c'mon guys, could we not argue? I'm open to all opinions.
Let's keep it friendly. Pretty please?

Thanks,
Lonnit

--
E-100RS_ G-2 Black & 420Ex_