The LCD when used in a good way will help in your learning curve. Compare what u see on the LCD and your settings, then learn from there. It's always via trial and experience that your get to know your cam better. Practice more often, think before u shoot. Use spot metering if need be to get the kind of exposure u need. Over time, you will instinctively know the type of settings u need for different kinds of lighting conditions.
my photography skill not consistent :(
- Thread starter Ding Shan Ben
- Start date
- Status
I dun get it. Technical skills... no. Technical stuff is now relied on the technology itself. DSLRs make the photographer's job easier and more consistant. What are meters for? What are PSA modes for? WHat are exposure value charts for?
Good at estimating exposures NOT= Professional Photographer :nono:
LCD screens allow us to refer to what we had taken so that we know whether to retake it again. It is the main purpose. So that we dun waste unnecessary space on the memory card!
I believe that the "eye" is the most important factor.
M exposure, m focusing is a thing of the past. Why waste time concentrating on these nonsense? It doesnt work in the modern world now. The eye is the one. It is the most difficult part of photography. It is what that SEPARATES the pro from the norm.
Good at estimating exposures NOT= Professional Photographer :nono:
LCD screens allow us to refer to what we had taken so that we know whether to retake it again. It is the main purpose. So that we dun waste unnecessary space on the memory card!
I believe that the "eye" is the most important factor.
M exposure, m focusing is a thing of the past. Why waste time concentrating on these nonsense? It doesnt work in the modern world now. The eye is the one. It is the most difficult part of photography. It is what that SEPARATES the pro from the norm.u should be happy that yours inconsistent... mine is rather consistent... consistently bad... ;p
Fluorite said:I dun get it. Technical skills... no. Technical stuff is now relied on the technology itself. DSLRs make the photographer's job easier and more consistant. What are meters for? What are PSA modes for? WHat are exposure value charts for?
Good at estimating exposures NOT= Professional Photographer :nono:
LCD screens allow us to refer to what we had taken so that we know whether to retake it again. It is the main purpose. So that we dun waste unnecessary space on the memory card!
I believe that the "eye" is the most important factor.
I am afraid that you really dun get it.
I agree with you that "good at estimating exposures NOT=Professional Photographer".
It should be "good at estimating exposures=good exposure".
M focus will ALWAYS be the most accurate exposure in the hands of the people who bother to use their brain. Not aperture priority or matrix or evaluative metering or whatever you call it. Of course M exposure wil be a thing of the past for those who chose NOT to use the most accurate means to make an exposure.
You believe that the eye is the most important factor. How profound! And I totally agree with you. Absolutely!
But may I ask. Whose eye?
The camera's digital eye, or your own?
student said:
:thumbsup: i couldn agree more...
still getting crappy pics, learning learning~
The eye might see the pic one wants to create, but if one doesn understand exposure, how would one be able to create a photo according to what one's "eye" sees?
Both have to go side by side imho...
Sion
Senior Member
Ding Shan Ben said:
Depending on LCD display for exposure may not be a good thing. Looking at histogram is more accurate.
And if you're shooting raw, you could adjust under-expousure during conversion.
Some under-exposure is better than over-exposure as you won't lose highlight details.
I use a DSRL and still manual focus and manual exposure with bracketing like the old days. It suits the things that I shoot.
student said:
agree with student!
:thumbsup: M mode a thing of the past? please......... its the most basic thing to learn as a photographer, how to control your values. if you do not even understand apertures and shutter relationship than how to call yourself one?
aperture or shutter modes are just conviences, you still need to learn to override them when you know the metering is wrong.
dingshenben, please keep trying, shooting, play around with each value, think why when you dial one control from another there is a difference.
Yups... we have to remember that our camera's ( or ccd/cmos sensors) have a much smaller tonal range than our eyes.
So.. there are choices we have to make.. to make the photo we take match the "photo" in our heads.
Like they say.. you can't break the rules if you don't know what they are..
So.. there are choices we have to make.. to make the photo we take match the "photo" in our heads.
Like they say.. you can't break the rules if you don't know what they are..
Ding Shan Ben said:
You're doing fine. At least you're not getting consistently bad results.
With digitized images, it is very easy to notice exposures that are not spot on - a quick look at the histogram says it all. And if you look at the same "underexposed" pictures against a black screen background, it may look perfect since you have nothing "white" to compare it to.
With negative film, the exposure can be off by more than an order of magnitude and you still get good results. Even slides have quite a bit of tolerance - half an f stop more or less will still result in pleasing projected images in most cases (the brightness of different projector bulbs varies by a much greater factor...). Without a direct side-by-side comparison, few people would be able to tell a difference at all. Our eyes/brains are very good at hiding such differences.
Now look at the numbers. Half an f-stop off would mean that your histogram could vary by a factor of 2, i.e. go only up to 70% luminance, or up to 140% (i.e. highlights blown out) instead of 100%. What is perceptually hardly noticeable becomes brutally obvious if you actually measure it.
Give film folks who pride themselves on their accurate exposure a digital camera, and they're likely in for a surprise. (I know - I've been shooting mainly slides for many years before I touched my first digicam.) People who believe their eyes and a spotmeter will give them "accurate" exposures are likely deluding themselves. Most photographic exposure meters aren't very accurate to start with.
As long as the highlights aren't washed out and the image is not grossly underexposed, there's nothing wrong that a bit of postprocessing can't fix. And you wouldn't notice it anyway if you didn't have a histogram or a white reference to compare it to.
[/QUOTE]
LittleWolf said:
I do hope that you realise that there is no such thing as an "accurate" exposure.
There is only a "correct" exposure for what you want to achieve in your image. But how is your camera meter (DSLR or any good SLR) to know what you want?
Regarding your comments on spotmeters and "deluded" people, surely you must know that these poor deluded people did tests to calibrate the accuracy or what the meters are actually measuring, in order that they can get a "correct" exposure.
Or do you?
student said:
I wonder what ISO sensitivity ratings and exposure meters are supposed to measure then ...
I seriously doubt that a significant percentage of photographers has access to the laboratory equipment needed to calibrate their meters. And if they had access to the instrumentation, they likely still would lack the metrological know-how.
(Since you own a spotmeter, maybe you could share its specified accuracy?)
And it doesn't matter, as the combined tolerances of shutter, aperture, film sensitivity/processing, spectral distribution (the spectral sensitivity of your meter is different from that of film, so any calibration would depend on the spectral composition of the light), temperature effects, unknown transmittivity of the lens, etc. are more of a limiting factor anyway. Not to mention that for outdoor scenes, the illumination might change by significant factors between the time you take a measurement and you trigger the shutter without your eyes noticing anything.
The best exposure can ironically be achieved with point&shoot digital cameras that use the actual image sensor and signal processing path to determine spatially resolved exposure data.
No, I don't have the resources to calibrate my meters. And if I had, I'm not sure I would want to waste my time with it. I'd rather concentrate on things that matter.
eh....read up on the ultimate exposure meter (it gives u a rough idea of how a spotmeter calculates and works).... tape up ya lcd wif gaffer... and shoot on manual... i guess u will really improve tt way....
LittleWolf said:
Your answers suggest you too are in serious need to understand what ISOs, aperture, shutter speed, seeing light, and chosing the "right combinations" of the "inaccurate" variables to make the exposure you want, using all the "inaccurate" equipment at your disposal (such as my 4 "inaccurate" spotmeters - what a waste of money - especially when my SLR/DSLR have such wonderful metering systems!) Luckily, I happen to know what my meters mean, because I use them all the time. Never had to bring them to Minolta or Sekonic for calibration. Just needed to know their individual pecularities.
You are right that you should concentrate on the "things that matter".
Strange. This sounds familiar.
Oh I got it! Dingshenben, who started this thread, and I suppose most photographers who want to "concentrate on things that matter" could not achieve what he/they wanted to do. I suppose Ding will have to, at least for the a little while, spend a little time on "things that do not matter" so that in future, he could "concentrate on things that matter".
And I do have a problem understanding some very technical terms. Sorry for that. My command of English is very limited. Use only simple daily words.
Actually guys, I think dat lamer had achieved what he wanted to achieve....
Simply put, he juz putting up flame fodders on likely topics that would ignite the bushfire and seems that now our Mr Ding had accomplished his objective, he'd juz convienently vanish, sit back and laugh as one chap flames another on the specifics of technicalities. And unfortunately, seems that most chaps here had fallen for it as we now see 2 ppl starting a war on the technicalities of exposure.
My 2 cents worth. 'Correct' Exposure, 'Accurate' Exposure. To be honest, when shooting, do most of us here really care what kinda specific terms we use (close to the point of nitpicking). Sometimes, I do feel some of us (I'm one of the guilty ones too) are probably just reading a lot and shooting very little prolly due to other commitments we might have. Technicalities aside, what matters is a very good photo that conveys mood, scenery, expression right? After all thats one of the basics in photography (besides the fact u have to know ur camera well).
Admins, lock this thread plz and grant a death sentence to that Mr Ding and all his subsequent clones whatsoever. I'd never thought I'll see things like this here. Call me an ol' stiff if u guyz like and start firing nukes at me. I don't really care.
Simply put, he juz putting up flame fodders on likely topics that would ignite the bushfire and seems that now our Mr Ding had accomplished his objective, he'd juz convienently vanish, sit back and laugh as one chap flames another on the specifics of technicalities. And unfortunately, seems that most chaps here had fallen for it as we now see 2 ppl starting a war on the technicalities of exposure.
My 2 cents worth. 'Correct' Exposure, 'Accurate' Exposure. To be honest, when shooting, do most of us here really care what kinda specific terms we use (close to the point of nitpicking). Sometimes, I do feel some of us (I'm one of the guilty ones too) are probably just reading a lot and shooting very little prolly due to other commitments we might have. Technicalities aside, what matters is a very good photo that conveys mood, scenery, expression right? After all thats one of the basics in photography (besides the fact u have to know ur camera well).
Admins, lock this thread plz and grant a death sentence to that Mr Ding and all his subsequent clones whatsoever. I'd never thought I'll see things like this here. Call me an ol' stiff if u guyz like and start firing nukes at me. I don't really care.
Sion
Senior Member
I think there are more important things in life that matter to Ding than exposure. They are: remembering to wake up in time to go to work, take bath, eat 3 meals a day, take the doggie out to relieve its bowel, flush the toilet after use and wash hands, close window when taking bath, reminding wife to take pills etc. etc.
:sweatsm:
:sweatsm:
i tink its gg way off topic here...does every thread in CS have to become like this?
cheers
Witness
cheers
Witness
Witness said:
First of all, your statement is an obvious exaggeration. And that is one of the reasons why "some" threads end this way.
Look at it this way. Whether the thread starter started this thread for a "malicious" reason such as alluded to by jsbn is totally a conjecture.
But the points and problems Ding raised are real. And this is relevant not for Ding alone, but also for others in his shoes.
So people write in with opinions, and some are agreed by some and some refuted by some. Opinions are thrown in and "fought" over. And as long as the general trend is towards clarifying the problems raised by the thread starter, it is undesirable? Yes, sometimes voice and tones get carried away, but this is very often in the nature of such online forums.
- Status
