Once in a year opportunity : ) .... messed up. : (

Started Dec 1, 2013 | Discussions thread
Moti Veteran Member • Posts: 8,268
Re: Once in a year opportunity : ) .... messed up. : (

GeorgianBay1939 wrote:

Moti wrote:

You did a remarkable job in analysing almost every point that lead you to fail a desired shot. It is nice to be able to find out what went wrong after the shoot but it is much nicer to think about these things beforehand and to be able to come home with a good photo.

Tha main reason for that is that you have a broad knoledge about almost every technical aspect related to cameras which is great, but you don't think as a photographer. Let me just give you two examples.

Biggest mistake, you didn't plan anything in advance. You didn't even define your subject. Is it the train? Is it only the lighting? So you go on a challenging mission without any planning, hoping that your technical knoledge will help you, well it didn't. As a former pilot you know that you go nowhere without a flight plan, same goes for a photography mission.

Another example, every photographer knows that on a challenging night mission, you always start with your best and fastest lens if you have it with you, and you had it. This is something you do automatically, without even thinking. Using your 35-100 at f2.8 would have given you a shutter speed of 1/24 instead of 1/6 which could have been the difference between fail and success.

That would have still blown the highlights of the coloured lights. That is why I would reduce the exposure by several more stops, EV*. (see calculation in the first post.)

The blowing/clipping of those coloured lights could've been minimized further by decreasing ISO to base 200. That would have left plenty of DR to lift the snow and rails out of their darkness.

In theory it is true but if you'd have known in advance that your aim is the lights and not the train itself, you'd exposed for the lights with a bit of shift to the right before clipping and you get what you want, with a faster shutter speed and less motion blur.

*In short, the image is horribly OVEREXPOSED, (using the proper definition of exposure

Now this is an interesting point. What is the proper definition of exposure or better to say, the definition of proper exposure.  For me there are two ways to define proper exposure. The scientific way and the photographic way.  I agree that using proper scientific exposure would have ended with a terrible overexposed image, because the desired outcome is not part of the formula.

The photographic definition of proper exposure, at least for me, says - a proper exposure is the amount of exposure needed to make the image look exactly the way I want it to look.  Exposing according to this principle, could have given you exactly what you wanted.



-- hide signature --
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow