Help with camera exposure

Ian Dainty said:

"Rodders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Hi Phil, much better although the photo is quite poor in general. I have
Paint Shop Pro which will probably do likewise. I am the balding geezer to
the left,

Balding????! You've got a full head of hair!

Check out Paul Rooney's mug. Now that's what I call balding. Volume 3.

Ian.

My head attracts the right sort of people. I'm always getting it
rubbed.

--

Paul

(Watch this space)

"W. D. Grey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
| In article <[email hidden]>, ste©
| <[email hidden]> writes
| >And again, as repeated elsewhere in the thread, when exposing for the
sky,
| >using the flash will do the trick for people shots.
|
| See Luminous Landscape - Blending.
| --
| Bill Grey

But I believe that he's having trouble with handheld shots.

Ste

In article <[email hidden]>, Paul Rooney
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

My head attracts the right sort of people. I'm always getting it
rubbed.

French polishers ?
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk

In article <[email hidden]>, ste©
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

"W. D. Grey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
| In article <[email hidden]>, ste©
| <[email hidden]> writes
| >And again, as repeated elsewhere in the thread, when exposing for the
sky,
| >using the flash will do the trick for people shots.
|
| See Luminous Landscape - Blending.
| --
| Bill Grey

But I believe that he's having trouble with handheld shots.

Ste

then use a trripod if you're serious.

Alternatively, if the camera accepts filters, or, if not a filter
attachment is available, then use a grad grey filter.
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk

W. D. Grey said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Paul Rooney
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

My head attracts the right sort of people. I'm always getting it
rubbed.

French polishers ?

(-:

--

Paul

(Watch this space)

Paul Rooney <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Ian Dainty said:

"Rodders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Hi Phil, much better although the photo is quite poor in general. I have
Paint Shop Pro which will probably do likewise. I am the balding geezer to
the left,

Balding????! You've got a full head of hair!

Check out Paul Rooney's mug. Now that's what I call balding. Volume 3.

Ian.

My head attracts the right sort of people. I'm always getting it
rubbed.

S'funny that, my bird can't resist stroking a No1 haircut.
It gets embarrassing because their wives/partners don't seem to
understand..... :-\
--
Gordon

"W. D. Grey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
| In article <[email hidden]>, ste©
| <[email hidden]> writes
| >
| >"W. D. Grey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
| >news:[email hidden]...
| >| In article <[email hidden]>, ste©
| >| <[email hidden]> writes
| >| >And again, as repeated elsewhere in the thread, when exposing for the
| >sky,
| >| >using the flash will do the trick for people shots.
| >|
| >| See Luminous Landscape - Blending.
| >| --
| >| Bill Grey
| >
| >But I believe that he's having trouble with handheld shots.
| >
| >Ste
| >
| >
| then use a trripod if you're serious.

You don't have to be serious or use a tripod to get good shots.

| Alternatively, if the camera accepts filters, or, if not a filter
| attachment is available, then use a grad grey filter.

It doesn't.

| --
| Bill Grey

Ste

Gordon said:

This is my 70 year old Moll and her Gangster friend:

Very flash!

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749

"Paul Rooney" <[email hidden]> schreef in bericht
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ian Dainty said:

"Rodders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Hi Phil, much better although the photo is quite poor in general. I

have

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Paint Shop Pro which will probably do likewise. I am the balding geezer

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the left,

Balding????! You've got a full head of hair!

Check out Paul Rooney's mug. Now that's what I call balding. Volume 3.

Ian.

My head attracts the right sort of people. I'm always getting it
rubbed.

Paul

Me too, brings them luck. They think ;-)

Theo

"Rodders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hi, can anyone tell me the best way to stop outdoor shots against a

skyline

Quoted message said:

coming out dark? My camera is a Fuji Finepix F601 zoomdigital. Can't lay

my

Quoted message said:

hands on the instructions just now but from memory I am sure it tells you

to

Quoted message said:

point to the side of the subjects, half press in the shutter button to

save

Quoted message said:

the exposure and then move back and photograph you subjects. Is this the
best method?

http://gallery84085.fotopic.net/c239971_13.html

Images 16, 34, 38 and 39 could have been much better.

Learn the basics of photography? Use a handheld meter etc. And don't rely
electronic gadgetry incorporated it cameras.

The best photographers also get their work published for a fee, whereas
internet photos, don't;-)

Faolan said:

I see you subscribe to the 'new' theory that rather than having a hill
in the middle you prefer it to the right,

Not exactly. I've reported my views on this in more detail in the past,
but I didn't really want to get into all that again. I don't agree
completely with the "expose to the right" philosophy. Tests I did with
the G3 (which uses the same type of sensor as the 300D, so it's probably
similar) indicated that the optimum peak for quality is 2/3rds to the
right, so if I take a "single hump" type of picture then I'll try to
place it in that position.

However, the type of photograph that we are discussing here is the
"double hump with wide valley" shot - a very high contrast image with
bright sky and dark land. If you place either hump in the centre you'll
lose all the detail in the other hump. In this instance I try to put
the right hump on the far right in order to keep the left hump as far
away from the left edge as possible. The biggest quality drop is on the
far left edge so I try not to get anything in the left 1/6th if
possible.

Quoted message said:

I have tried it with 2
cameras one Fuji (602 Pro) and one Kodak. The Fuji preferred the hill
in the middle type approach which I think is due to it's sensor
array. The Kodak came out with the image you are thinking of. The
method you suggest is more suited to dSLRs I feel.

Or at least the Canon sensors. Bear in mind that these are 12-bit
sensors that produce 48-bit tiffs when used with RAW processing. Thus I
can extract more and better quality detail than any camera that produces
a 24-bit jpeg. The RAW processing can extract perhaps 2 extra stops of
detail from the image, including some highlights that seem to have burnt
out.

Quoted message said:

As to the second part, again depends on the camera some cameras can
recover more detail when it's balanced like a hill type histogram
whilst others thrive on a off balance shot.

Yeah, but histograms vary from shot to shot depending on the lighting.
There's no single rule you can apply in all instances. Some shots are
compromises, it's up to you to decide how to best deal with them.

Quoted message said:

However all digitals
because of their nature once the line has gone off the edge no detail
can be recovered.

Generally true, but as I said above, if shooting in RAW mode it is
possible to regain some highlight detail that seems to have been lost.
I say "seems" because the histogram will show a vertical line on the far
right and the preview image will flash the burnt out areas. However,
this applies to a 24-bit jpeg - if you save in that format you have lost
the detail. However, if you save in RAW mode you'll find that it has a
wider dynamic range and may still have some highlight detail which is
recoverable (in the RAW processing stage).

I must stress that I'm not in the habit of letting the highlights go off
the far right edge, but if they just go slightly over, you can get them
back in RAW mode. I haven't tried to measure how far you can push this
yet.

Quoted message said:

Unlike film it's both easier to blow a shot,

There's a sharp drop off when you hit the limit. It's like digital
audio recording, when you hit 0db the sound wave clips, so you must
never ever go over. With analogue recording you get distortion when it
goes over but you have a little leeway before it starts sounding really
bad, so there's a gradual deterioration rather than a sharp cut off.

This is most noticeable in sunset shots where the sun typically burns
out. With film there's quite a smooth transition to the burnt out area,
whereas with digital it just suddenly goes white. Quite annoying.
Makes it difficult to get really good shots with the sun in the pic.
Possible solution is to take multiple exposures and blend them later.
It's almost impossible to expose for the sun properly without turning
the rest of the picture black, except when it's really low in the sky.

Quoted message said:

and
more difficult to recover a shot.

I'd have to disagree with this. As I've often argued, digital (at least
the ones with 12-bit sensors) has a much wider contrast range than film,
therefore a huge amount of detail can be recovered from shadow areas.
Film tends to be more contrasty, especially slide film (which is
generally preferred by professionals for the low grain) so when you lose
shadow detail, it's gone. Even with a 42-bit Nikon slide scanner, I
can't extract as much shadow detail from a slide as from a digital
image.

Granted the darkest shadow detail in a digital image is of much lower
quality, but at least the detail is there, which is better than none at
all.

Quoted message said:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-
series/understanding-histograms.shtml

Oh not again! His comment about digital cameras only being able to
capture 5 stops is just plain wrong. I'm not going to get into another
big argument about this. One point I do want to make about that article
is that he divides the histogram into 5 equal areas each of which he
says represents the five stops. This is quite wrong. Apparently the
histogram on the 1Ds has these divisions, but they do not represent 5
stops.

The histogram is not linear! You can't divide it up equally into stops.
This may be one of the main reasons why people think digital cameras
don't have a wide dynamic range.

My tests have shown that the "widest" stop is the third stop which peaks
at roughly 2/3rds to the right. As the stops get darker they become
more and more bunched up. I can't remember the exact details offhand,
but there are about 5-6 stops located in the left 1/3rd of the
histogram. Since they are so close, people often don't realise how
large a range of brightness is contained on the left edge. The very
darkest stops in the left 1/6th of the histogram are of very low quality
though, so keep detail away from the very left edge if possible.

There's also a small drop off on the right hand side according to my
tests (contrary to the "expose to the right" theory) but it's not much
of a drop off and the quality degredation is nowhere near as bad as on
the left.

Quoted message said:

The key thing to remember as long as it's not off the edge then you
may be able to use it.

You can use it. Everything within the histogram is usable, if not all
of equal quality.

Quoted message said:

Even if you blow out the sky (fairly common)

It's fairly common because most inbuilt exposure meters give too much
emphasis to exposing the land correctly. Interestingly my 300D doesn't
do this, the auto exposures are much darker, not that I ever use them.

Quoted message said:

then you probably mask in a sky from another layer fairly easily
depend on the shot.

If you do need to do this, put the camera on a tripod and take multiple
exposures. Using the auto-bracketing feature is best if you have it.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749

W. D. Grey said:

Quoted message said:

Wrong, it should be as far right as possible, but not off the edge of
the scale.

Paul, have you noticed that when you adjust a RAW image in PS.CS the
near correct image histogram is a hump in the Middle.

I was talking about "double-humped" shots, with very bright skies and
very dark land.

If you do have a single hump then somewhere in the middle is undoubtedly
best, but it also depends on how far the edges stretch on either side.
It's important that nothing goes off either the left or right edge,
irrespective of where the hump is. No good having the hump in the
middle if the highlights go off the right hand edge.

In my experience most of my shots don't have a single hump, mine are
usually double humped. Perhaps I'm just attracted to high contrast
images since they're so much easier to deal with digitally.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749

Paul Saunders said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-
series/understanding-histograms.shtml

Oh not again! His comment about digital cameras only being able to
capture 5 stops is just plain wrong

Then why not tell him.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

"Phil Cook" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
| On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 14:45:58 +0100, Paul Saunders wrote:
|
| >> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-
| >> series/understanding-histograms.shtml
| >
| >Oh not again! His comment about digital cameras only being able to
| >capture 5 stops is just plain wrong
|
| Then why not tell him.
| --
| Phil Cook

Here here, come on Paul, are you a man or a mouse! :-)

Or maybe it's just too much to ask two digital experts to to confront each
other, as one of them is going to look stupid I guess! :-) My money is on
you to win Paul! ;-)

Ste

Phil Cook said:

Quoted message said:

Oh not again! His comment about digital cameras only being able to
capture 5 stops is just plain wrong

Then why not tell him.

I need to gather some better evidence first. I need to repeat my
original test under more tightly controlled conditions and in far more
detail (1/3rd stop exposures rather than full stops). I'll need to
analyse the results and present the information in a variety of ways to
clearly illustrate my point. This would be best done as a web page
rather than a usenet post.

Then I'll tell him.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749

ste© said:

Here here, come on Paul, are you a man or a mouse! :-)

I'm time management challenged...

Quoted message said:

Or maybe it's just too much to ask two digital experts to to confront
each other, as one of them is going to look stupid I guess! :-) My
money is on you to win Paul! ;-)

Thanks for the vote of confidence. The problem with arguing with other
"experts" is that when both passionately believe their own point of view
the argument tends to go on for ever with no resolution (for example my
ongoing argument with David Laight about panoramic camera projection).

I don't have enough time as it is and I have far more important things
to do with it than get involved in endless arguments (one good reason
for quitting this newsgroup!).

I just don't have the time to start wasting more time. I plan to do
this (what I said in my other post) but it's not a priority right now.
It is on the list though.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749

In article <[email hidden]>, ste©
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Alternatively, if the camera accepts filters, or, if not a filter
attachment is available, then use a grad grey filter.

It doesn't.

What ! No facility for a filter attachment ???

Even my Olympus 4040Zoom has a filter holder attachment. I can use Cokin
filters with this and Grad Grey does the biz.
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk

"W. D. Grey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
| In article <[email hidden]>, ste©
| <[email hidden]> writes
| >
| >> Alternatively, if the camera accepts filters, or, if not a filter
| >> attachment is available, then use a grad grey filter.
| >
| >It doesn't.
|
| What ! No facility for a filter attachment ???

I know, it's a shame as it's a good little camera. Fits nicely in the
pocket, unlike the G5. I even got a very good A3 print from it - it's a
3.3mp camera that interpolated images to 6mp using the Fuji in-camera
formulas or whatever... :-)

| Even my Olympus 4040Zoom has a filter holder attachment. I can use Cokin
| filters with this and Grad Grey does the biz.

See, even un-serious photographers use filters and tripods! ;-)

| --
| Bill Grey

Ste

ste© said:

Quoted message said:

Even my Olympus 4040Zoom has a filter holder attachment. I can use
Cokin filters with this and Grad Grey does the biz.

See, even un-serious photographers use filters and tripods! ;-)

Who says Bill's not a serious photographer? You should see some of the
framed prints that he's entered into camera club competitions. Many of
them are really good.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749

Fran said:

[email hidden] said...

Quoted message said:

"W. D. Grey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
| In article <[email hidden]>, ste©
| <[email hidden]> writes
| >
| >> Alternatively, if the camera accepts filters, or, if not a filter
| >> attachment is available, then use a grad grey filter.
| >
| >It doesn't.
|
| What ! No facility for a filter attachment ???

I know, it's a shame as it's a good little camera. Fits nicely in the
pocket, unlike the G5. I even got a very good A3 print from it - it's a
3.3mp camera that interpolated images to 6mp using the Fuji in-camera
formulas or whatever... :-)

| Even my Olympus 4040Zoom has a filter holder attachment. I can use Cokin
| filters with this and Grad Grey does the biz.

See, even un-serious photographers use filters and tripods! ;-)

I wouldn't call Bill an un-serious photographer. I've seen some
of his stuff and it's very, very good. He doesn't boast about it
on this NG, but then he has no reason to.

And he doesn't approve of milky waterfalls (-:

--

Paul

(Watch this space)