My problem here being that removing the -EC increases the light needed for the camera to find a solution, and I'm already shooting about as slow as I can. Similarly, I'm already shooting at F/2 -- so I can't really get more light that way. Intentional under-exposure (the -EC) and ISO are the only tools available unless I want to carry a tripod (I don't).
Adjusting your iso and using a - EC are counter productive in this situation
But using a - EC and raising the iso will put a cap on how much light your cameras sensor will store, this done by placing a cap on how much headroom you have. Using the same shutter speed and f-stop without raising the iso will increase how much light the camera can store by reduce the clipping found in the stain glass and some of the columns.
Sometimes stone looks a bit muddy when there's been a lot of pollution or use of candles. In many famous churches there has to be a periodical very expensive cleaning operation to deal with it.
Yes. I like your adjusted shots, they look reasonable, but suspect that I'd have whipped out my 80A to obtain true colour balance, and of course set Daylight in the cam.Not at all--I do want this to be a technique thread (though WB probably deserves its own attention).
Basically yes--this is how things looked to me, but the story is a bit complicated. I'd come into the cathedral from a trip around the roof (you can get up there), so bright daylight to cathedral interior. Consider these--both are Auto WB:
The difference is something I discovered: that my K-3 determines its Auto WB setting, not for every shot, but essentially when you turn it on (or first shot thereafter). So the first shot was taken without turning the camera off and on again after I left the roof and went inside; the second was taken after being inside and having the camera off/on.
So my learning point was that I could generally trust Auto WB to get it right, but to remember to turn the camera off/on when changing the light environment to let it re-sync to the current conditions. The interior shot in the OP was also Auto WB after the reset.
Another comparison:
Big difference
One of the tings we suffer from nowadays is the loss of documentation: exactly what does specifying the light source DO? How does it change the camera's response? Wish I knew.
UK or Ireland? Whereabouts?
Yes, and like many, I have mixed feelings about it. When I first visited Spain (early 70's), nothing had really been cleaned yet. The Cathedral in Burgos was near black inside, oppressive, dark and foreboding--it made a tremendous impression on me as the place where the god of the inquisition lived.
I never knew Doc Holliday had access to WiFi !!! :-OJon Donahue...
My paternal ancestors were some of them architects, and famous watercolourists as well. We have some art still in the family including one of the interior of Burgos Cathedral, dark because of the structure, but colourful. in 1956 i was inside Notre Dame de Paris, and it was black. My second visit in the 1980s, it was quite bright!
The light hitting the sensor is the same (unless you apply a filter). I'm fairly sure that different gain isn't applied to red / green / blue pixels before the A-to-D converter so White balance is just crunching the numbers differently.
Yes, when one documents travel (or life), one battles against the irrecoverable. Hence my obsession with presets: not getting the shot, or doing it poorly, is irrecoverable. I regret shots I didn't take, but regret even more the shots I tried to take, but was unready or too slow.
I can't claim to know it (other than as the land of Rædwald and Sutton Hoo). The closest I can come is memories of a wonderful day exploring Lincoln Cathedral on a trip north to York in probably about '79-80, but Lincoln's a bit outside East Anglia proper I believe.
I take BP medication as well, but fortunately I'm just borderline at this point and still medically able to carry on traveling. I'm trying to delay my wife's experience of widowhood for as long as I can. You have my respect.
Talent descending from talent... What watercolourist?
I have pictures of Notre Dame from 2006 on my website, and still bright then. I don't know exactly when they cleaned it, but I seem to remember it being dark in 1972 (the year of my first trip to Europe). The fire was a catastrophe keenly felt.
My surmise would be that the WB settings are simply instructions to the jpg/tiff engine, and the raw file would record the setting but be unaffected by it--but just a hypothesis. Again, documentation fault. I'd like a definitive statement in the manual of what affects raw, and what doesn't. Does anything other than f-stop, aperture, and shutter speed?
Don't know about the first, but the latter is probably like focus: adjusted multiple times a second. Eyes are centerpoint focus zooms <g>.
Certainly wasn't something I was watching for. But my K-3 at least behaved as if that were the case. Standard practice now when going from outside to a dark inside is to turn camera off. change mode, and turn it back on inside. And the same when I go back out.
Rawtherapee is an open source RAW editor that many folks swear by for fixing certain problems in troublesome images.
Marry a Byzantinist/Russianist and find yourself first in W. Germany for his PhD research, then emigrate with him to Canada for an income and to start a family ...
Two generations of Watsons, practised in London, lived in expensive Hampstead above the pea-soupers, travelled on the Continent painting all the time. That was the colour-photography of the day. No, they didn't take their big plate-cameras with them on holiday!
My sympathies <g>. My wife's a great traveler, and takes as many pictures on the road as I do. There are probably many more or her pictures on our website than mine.
