RE: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
> >I am still chuckling about how this thread has morphed from >someone trying >to learn the nuts and bolts of exposure more or less being >told, by some >experienced photographers who know this stuff well enough that >they have >forgotten how well they know it, that it doesn't matter, into >a thread about >4x4 vehicles where more or less the same mindset is at play. >I suppose it's the teacher in me that finds it rather sad. > That's not unusual - we like abstractions to simplify the world for us. 4x4 for wheels, computer-aided matrix exposure meters for cameras they are all abstractions designed to simplify the task and lessen the skills required to do something. But what a lot (I'd even say most) people fail to realize that there's something called the "Law of Leaky Abstractions" (no, I didn't made it up ) - at some point the simplifications stop working and you're faced with raw complexity of real world. Like with 4x4 people often fail to realize (and marketing carefully fails to remind them) that when road gets wet and slippery enough and you're cornering fast enough (protected from the slippery road by 4x4 drive abstraction) you're about to experience a unique feeling of all four wheels loosing road contact at the same instance (instead of just two, as happens with 4x2). The same goes for auto-exposure - the first abstractions (CW metering) were simple enough to leak when facing backlit scene. Today's are more complex, but still the will fail under certain circumstances. I'm not against abstractions. They are fine - they let us do things we would not be able to do without them (as a side effect they do produce world where the ratio between the people doing things and people who actually know how to do things is rapidly falling towards zero) and is quite alright to use them. What is happening and was being expressed in this thread, though, is that they work that well that people start to believe they'll always work. Being a simplified model of the real world they inherently can't - otherwise they'd become as complex as the real world they model and we'd need new simpler model to be able use our initial model (or something like that ) Leon PS: Another example: people are putting so much faith in the might of spelling checkers that protect them from the incredibly stupid rules of English spelling that I've often seen word "asses" being used instead of the intended "assess".
Re: OT:Off-road 4WD Chatter-was: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
On 5/25/05, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Party pooper. Qui, moi? salut, le knarf -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: OT:Off-road 4WD Chatter-was: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
frank theriault wrote: On 5/25/05, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? Since you used Jeep as an example, I must add that an expert in the newest Jeeps with intelligent 4WD can go places an expert in an older Jeep could never go. I've seen it done. The combination of a system that distributes power to the wheels with the most traction, longer suspension travel, and improved suspension geometry has made the Wrangler Rubicon far more capable than any other Jeep ever built. Bully for the expert, Paul. What about the person learning how deep to go before turning around? Just trying to bring things back to something like reality. William Robb There. Just wanted to change the SL. Carry on, then. cheers, frank Party pooper. -- A man's only as old as the woman he feels. --Groucho Marx
OT:Off-road 4WD Chatter-was: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
On 5/25/05, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > > > Since you used Jeep as an example, I must add that an expert in the newest > > Jeeps with intelligent 4WD can go places an expert in an older Jeep could > > never go. I've seen it done. The combination of a system that distributes > > power to the wheels with the most traction, longer suspension travel, and > > improved suspension geometry has made the Wrangler Rubicon far more > > capable than any other Jeep ever built. > > Bully for the expert, Paul. > What about the person learning how deep to go before turning around? > Just trying to bring things back to something like reality. > > William Robb There. Just wanted to change the SL. Carry on, then. cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
Somehow, this is becoming a oneupmanship issue. Where I was talking about expert v. tyro skills. BTW, my Blazer is now a 4x2. The TCCM went out this winter. Ahh, to have that old manual equipment instead of this modern automatic push button stuff. At least with the manual controls you could shift into 4WD with a pair of vise grips if you had to. But no, you have to have that computer to check road-speed, rpms, traction conditions, phase-of-the-moon, etc, before deciding whether to shift into 4WD or not, "Never mind what you think it should do, you brainless twit". $350 for the part and no telling if whatever reason the old one fried won't fry the new one. Sigh... graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Cotty wrote: On 25/5/05, Graywolf, discombobulated, unleashed: Well, I can say from experience that experience and knowledge are worth at least as much as a winch to a 4x4'er. Where a tyro will get stuck with all that exotic traction control stuff an expert can often simply drive through in a stock flat-fender jeep. Until you have ridden with an expert you have no idea what difficult terrain a 4x4 can actually handle. You leaf-springers don't know what axle articulation is ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.17 - Release Date: 5/25/2005
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
That is true, Ken, as long as you can keep the speed up. If momentum will get you through you can go about any place with 2WD you can with 4WD. However, I doubt you will do much good rock crawling with a 4x2 (ouch). That must of been a nice job, BTW. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Kenneth Waller wrote: Until you have ridden with an expert you have no idea what difficult terrain a 4x4 can actually handle. Same holds true with a 4X2 (you have no idea what difficult terrain a 4x2 can actually handle) Years ago, my job required me to get certified on a Big Three off road course in a 4X2 pickup truck. Other than a few things I wouldn't try even in a 4X4, the 4X2 acquitted itself with ease. In 1994, I participated in the Baja 1000 and rode in a pre-runner (a well prepped vehicle that could have run the event) as a chase vehicle for most of the event (helping John Swift # 600 Explorer). It was driven by a driver who had finished the Baja several times. Now this was an experience! You could not believe the speed (over 100mph at times) with which negotiated such bad trails. The wheel travel was humongus and it just floated over what would have been obstacles for lesser vehicles. Kenneth Waller -Original Message- From: Graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? Well, I can say from experience that experience and knowledge are worth at least as much as a winch to a 4x4'er. Where a tyro will get stuck with all that exotic traction control stuff an expert can often simply drive through in a stock flat-fender jeep. Until you have ridden with an expert you have no idea what difficult terrain a 4x4 can actually handle. Once again skill is worth twice as much as all the expensive toys. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Doug Franklin wrote: On Tue, 24 May 2005 21:21:58 -0600, William Robb wrote: I have a hunch that the people who learn by the old guard 4WD method don't get stuck or rolled as often as those that take off in something like my Titan 4x4 with no 4WD experience. 4WD just means you get stuck farther off the road and have to pay more to get towed out. :-) Kinda like more horsepower just means you hit the wall harder. ;-> TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.17 - Release Date: 5/25/2005
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? Since you used Jeep as an example, I must add that an expert in the newest Jeeps with intelligent 4WD can go places an expert in an older Jeep could never go. I've seen it done. The combination of a system that distributes power to the wheels with the most traction, longer suspension travel, and improved suspension geometry has made the Wrangler Rubicon far more capable than any other Jeep ever built. Bully for the expert, Paul. What about the person learning how deep to go before turning around? Just trying to bring things back to something like reality. William Robb
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
- Original Message - From: "Graywolf" Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? Well, I can say from experience that experience and knowledge are worth at least as much as a winch to a 4x4'er. Where a tyro will get stuck with all that exotic traction control stuff an expert can often simply drive through in a stock flat-fender jeep. Until you have ridden with an expert you have no idea what difficult terrain a 4x4 can actually handle. Once again skill is worth twice as much as all the expensive toys. I am still chuckling about how this thread has morphed from someone trying to learn the nuts and bolts of exposure more or less being told, by some experienced photographers who know this stuff well enough that they have forgotten how well they know it, that it doesn't matter, into a thread about 4x4 vehicles where more or less the same mindset is at play. I suppose it's the teacher in me that finds it rather sad. William Robb
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
>Engage the transfer case BEFORE you need it. Ditto the manual hubs. Kenneth Waller -Original Message- From: Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: May 25, 2005 11:21 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? Here's a little off-road lesson learned the hard way: Engage the transfer case BEFORE you need it. :) Should solve quite a few 4WD difficulties. On 5/25/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Since you used Jeep as an example, I must add that an expert in the newest > Jeeps with intelligent 4WD can go places an expert in an older Jeep could > never go. I've seen it done. The combination of a system that distributes > power to the wheels with the most traction, longer suspension travel, and > improved suspension geometry has made the Wrangler Rubicon far more capable > than any other Jeep ever built. > Paul > > > > Well, I can say from experience that experience and knowledge are worth at > > least > > as much as a winch to a 4x4'er. Where a tyro will get stuck with all that > > exotic > > traction control stuff an expert can often simply drive through in a stock > > flat-fender jeep. Until you have ridden with an expert you have no idea what > > difficult terrain a 4x4 can actually handle. > > > > Once again skill is worth twice as much as all the expensive toys. > > > > graywolf > > http://www.graywolfphoto.com > > "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" > > --- > > > > > > Doug Franklin wrote: > > > On Tue, 24 May 2005 21:21:58 -0600, William Robb wrote: > > > > > > > > >>I have a hunch that the people who learn by the old guard 4WD > > >>method don't get stuck or rolled as often as those that take off in > > >>something like my Titan 4x4 with no 4WD experience. > > > > > > > > > 4WD just means you get stuck farther off the road and have to pay more > > > to get towed out. :-) > > > > > > Kinda like more horsepower just means you hit the wall harder. ;-> > > > > > > TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > > Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.16 - Release Date: 5/24/2005 > > > > -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com -- "You have to hold the button down" -Arnold Newman PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
Re: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
On 25 May 2005 at 14:39, mike wilson wrote: > > Since you used Jeep as an example, I must add that an expert in the newest > > Jeeps with intelligent 4WD can go places an expert in an older Jeep could > > never go. I've seen it done. The combination of a system that distributes > > power to the wheels with the most traction, longer suspension travel, and > > improved suspension geometry has made the Wrangler Rubicon far more capable > > than any other Jeep ever built. Paul > > You say that as if it is a good thing. > > Oh, > > 8-) You'd like the Jeep Hurricane then, it's a go anywhere vehicle powered by two V8 5.7L engines :-) http://www.jeep.com/autoshow/news/hurricane.html Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> You leaf-springers don't know what axle articulation is ;-) Um... Let me guess. It's the sound articulated along the optical axle of a springing leaf-shutter. :-) Jostein
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
Here's a little off-road lesson learned the hard way: Engage the transfer case BEFORE you need it. :) Should solve quite a few 4WD difficulties. On 5/25/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Since you used Jeep as an example, I must add that an expert in the newest > Jeeps with intelligent 4WD can go places an expert in an older Jeep could > never go. I've seen it done. The combination of a system that distributes > power to the wheels with the most traction, longer suspension travel, and > improved suspension geometry has made the Wrangler Rubicon far more capable > than any other Jeep ever built. > Paul > > > > Well, I can say from experience that experience and knowledge are worth at > > least > > as much as a winch to a 4x4'er. Where a tyro will get stuck with all that > > exotic > > traction control stuff an expert can often simply drive through in a stock > > flat-fender jeep. Until you have ridden with an expert you have no idea what > > difficult terrain a 4x4 can actually handle. > > > > Once again skill is worth twice as much as all the expensive toys. > > > > graywolf > > http://www.graywolfphoto.com > > "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" > > --- > > > > > > Doug Franklin wrote: > > > On Tue, 24 May 2005 21:21:58 -0600, William Robb wrote: > > > > > > > > >>I have a hunch that the people who learn by the old guard 4WD > > >>method don't get stuck or rolled as often as those that take off in > > >>something like my Titan 4x4 with no 4WD experience. > > > > > > > > > 4WD just means you get stuck farther off the road and have to pay more > > > to get towed out. :-) > > > > > > Kinda like more horsepower just means you hit the wall harder. ;-> > > > > > > TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > > Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.16 - Release Date: 5/24/2005 > > > > -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com -- "You have to hold the button down" -Arnold Newman
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
On 25/5/05, Kenneth Waller, discombobulated, unleashed: >In 1994, I participated in the Baja 1000 and rode in a pre-runner Dude! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
On 25/5/05, Graywolf, discombobulated, unleashed: >Well, I can say from experience that experience and knowledge are worth >at least as much as a winch to a 4x4'er. Where a tyro will get stuck with >all that exotic traction control stuff an expert can often simply drive >through in a stock flat-fender jeep. Until you have ridden with an expert >you have no idea what difficult terrain a 4x4 can actually handle. You leaf-springers don't know what axle articulation is ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: 2005/05/25 Wed PM 01:52:43 GMT > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > Since you used Jeep as an example, I must add that an expert in the newest > Jeeps with intelligent 4WD can go places an expert in an older Jeep could > never go. I've seen it done. The combination of a system that distributes > power to the wheels with the most traction, longer suspension travel, and > improved suspension geometry has made the Wrangler Rubicon far more capable > than any other Jeep ever built. > Paul You say that as if it is a good thing. Oh, 8-) > > > > Well, I can say from experience that experience and knowledge are worth at > > least > > as much as a winch to a 4x4'er. Where a tyro will get stuck with all that > > exotic > > traction control stuff an expert can often simply drive through in a stock > > flat-fender jeep. Until you have ridden with an expert you have no idea > > what > > difficult terrain a 4x4 can actually handle. > > > > Once again skill is worth twice as much as all the expensive toys. > > > > graywolf > > http://www.graywolfphoto.com > > "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" > > --- > > > > > > Doug Franklin wrote: > > > On Tue, 24 May 2005 21:21:58 -0600, William Robb wrote: > > > > > > > > >>I have a hunch that the people who learn by the old guard 4WD > > >>method don't get stuck or rolled as often as those that take off in > > >>something like my Titan 4x4 with no 4WD experience. > > > > > > > > > 4WD just means you get stuck farther off the road and have to pay more > > > to get towed out. :-) > > > > > > Kinda like more horsepower just means you hit the wall harder. ;-> > > > > > > TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > > Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.16 - Release Date: 5/24/2005 > > > > - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
I forgot to mention that the pre-runner was a 4X2 pickup. Kenneth Waller -Original Message- From: Kenneth Waller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? >Until you have ridden with an expert you have no idea what difficult terrain a >4x4 can actually handle. Same holds true with a 4X2 (you have no idea what difficult terrain a 4x2 can actually handle) Years ago, my job required me to get certified on a Big Three off road course in a 4X2 pickup truck. Other than a few things I wouldn't try even in a 4X4, the 4X2 acquitted itself with ease. In 1994, I participated in the Baja 1000 and rode in a pre-runner (a well prepped vehicle that could have run the event) as a chase vehicle for most of the event (helping John Swift # 600 Explorer). It was driven by a driver who had finished the Baja several times. Now this was an experience! You could not believe the speed (over 100mph at times) with which negotiated such bad trails. The wheel travel was humongus and it just floated over what would have been obstacles for lesser vehicles. Kenneth Waller -Original Message- From: Graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? Well, I can say from experience that experience and knowledge are worth at least as much as a winch to a 4x4'er. Where a tyro will get stuck with all that exotic traction control stuff an expert can often simply drive through in a stock flat-fender jeep. Until you have ridden with an expert you have no idea what difficult terrain a 4x4 can actually handle. Once again skill is worth twice as much as all the expensive toys. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Doug Franklin wrote: > On Tue, 24 May 2005 21:21:58 -0600, William Robb wrote: > > >>I have a hunch that the people who learn by the old guard 4WD >>method don't get stuck or rolled as often as those that take off in >>something like my Titan 4x4 with no 4WD experience. > > > 4WD just means you get stuck farther off the road and have to pay more > to get towed out. :-) > > Kinda like more horsepower just means you hit the wall harder. ;-> > > TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ > > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.16 - Release Date: 5/24/2005 PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
>Until you have ridden with an expert you have no idea what difficult terrain a >4x4 can actually handle. Same holds true with a 4X2 (you have no idea what difficult terrain a 4x2 can actually handle) Years ago, my job required me to get certified on a Big Three off road course in a 4X2 pickup truck. Other than a few things I wouldn't try even in a 4X4, the 4X2 acquitted itself with ease. In 1994, I participated in the Baja 1000 and rode in a pre-runner (a well prepped vehicle that could have run the event) as a chase vehicle for most of the event (helping John Swift # 600 Explorer). It was driven by a driver who had finished the Baja several times. Now this was an experience! You could not believe the speed (over 100mph at times) with which negotiated such bad trails. The wheel travel was humongus and it just floated over what would have been obstacles for lesser vehicles. Kenneth Waller -Original Message- From: Graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? Well, I can say from experience that experience and knowledge are worth at least as much as a winch to a 4x4'er. Where a tyro will get stuck with all that exotic traction control stuff an expert can often simply drive through in a stock flat-fender jeep. Until you have ridden with an expert you have no idea what difficult terrain a 4x4 can actually handle. Once again skill is worth twice as much as all the expensive toys. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Doug Franklin wrote: > On Tue, 24 May 2005 21:21:58 -0600, William Robb wrote: > > >>I have a hunch that the people who learn by the old guard 4WD >>method don't get stuck or rolled as often as those that take off in >>something like my Titan 4x4 with no 4WD experience. > > > 4WD just means you get stuck farther off the road and have to pay more > to get towed out. :-) > > Kinda like more horsepower just means you hit the wall harder. ;-> > > TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ > > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.16 - Release Date: 5/24/2005 PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
Since you used Jeep as an example, I must add that an expert in the newest Jeeps with intelligent 4WD can go places an expert in an older Jeep could never go. I've seen it done. The combination of a system that distributes power to the wheels with the most traction, longer suspension travel, and improved suspension geometry has made the Wrangler Rubicon far more capable than any other Jeep ever built. Paul > Well, I can say from experience that experience and knowledge are worth at > least > as much as a winch to a 4x4'er. Where a tyro will get stuck with all that > exotic > traction control stuff an expert can often simply drive through in a stock > flat-fender jeep. Until you have ridden with an expert you have no idea what > difficult terrain a 4x4 can actually handle. > > Once again skill is worth twice as much as all the expensive toys. > > graywolf > http://www.graywolfphoto.com > "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" > --- > > > Doug Franklin wrote: > > On Tue, 24 May 2005 21:21:58 -0600, William Robb wrote: > > > > > >>I have a hunch that the people who learn by the old guard 4WD > >>method don't get stuck or rolled as often as those that take off in > >>something like my Titan 4x4 with no 4WD experience. > > > > > > 4WD just means you get stuck farther off the road and have to pay more > > to get towed out. :-) > > > > Kinda like more horsepower just means you hit the wall harder. ;-> > > > > TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ > > > > > > > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.16 - Release Date: 5/24/2005 >
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
Well, I can say from experience that experience and knowledge are worth at least as much as a winch to a 4x4'er. Where a tyro will get stuck with all that exotic traction control stuff an expert can often simply drive through in a stock flat-fender jeep. Until you have ridden with an expert you have no idea what difficult terrain a 4x4 can actually handle. Once again skill is worth twice as much as all the expensive toys. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Doug Franklin wrote: On Tue, 24 May 2005 21:21:58 -0600, William Robb wrote: I have a hunch that the people who learn by the old guard 4WD method don't get stuck or rolled as often as those that take off in something like my Titan 4x4 with no 4WD experience. 4WD just means you get stuck farther off the road and have to pay more to get towed out. :-) Kinda like more horsepower just means you hit the wall harder. ;-> TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.16 - Release Date: 5/24/2005
Re: RE: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
On Tue, 24 May 2005 21:21:58 -0600, William Robb wrote: > I have a hunch that the people who learn by the old guard 4WD > method don't get stuck or rolled as often as those that take off in > something like my Titan 4x4 with no 4WD experience. 4WD just means you get stuck farther off the road and have to pay more to get towed out. :-) Kinda like more horsepower just means you hit the wall harder. ;-> TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: RE: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
- Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" Subject: Re: RE: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? I can appreciate that but when do you surrender to automation after it's proven that for the greater part it ends up being more competent than yourself, what if effort doesn't offer an advantage over technology? In the 4WD forums I lurk in often the old guard claim that you need to struggle up and down hills in a 4 speed manual to be a "real" 4WDer, they decry the use of 5-6 speed autos with traction control and belittle down-hill assist ...until they actually try it and experience just how effective the technology is. Take a few seconds to properly assess a scene and expose the image "properly" or spend a long time gazing at and fiddling with phosphor dots? No competition in my book, even allowing that it might take some time to learn the assessment process. After spending the time to learn how my *ist D camera behaves WRT metering/exposure I know what it can do, in most case I can trust the metering to make optimal use of the capture latitude. My post processing method I have polished so that it's repeatable and very quick, it's working. I haven't forgotten all my film camera derived exposure knowledge, I still shoot film, I've just found a more predictable, time efficient and effective way to realize my photographic images. In the end unless you are using your photography as a proof of your competence to yourself, no one else viewing a picture for it's content really gives a stuff how it was produced so why not just use the most effective production means at your disposal? I don't think it ever hurts to learn the theory behind what your equipment is doing. I have a hunch that the people who learn by the old guard 4WD method don't get stuck or rolled as often as those that take off in something like my Titan 4x4 with no 4WD experience. It is really easy to get stuck in the right conditions, traction control and downhill assist tend to mask how bad the conditions are until you are in real trouble. I think that if you know more or less what the exposure should be, and how to bias things if you figure the camera will blow it, you can trust your automatic camera more than if you don't have a clue, and don't know if the camera is in error or not. I really think that people who don't know theory shouldn't be listening to the advice given by people who do know theory, when that advice is that knowing theory is useless. William Robb
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
On 25 May 2005 at 0:38, mike wilson wrote: > Agreed. But this whole response was to someone who (paraphrased) said > "turn it on, press the button and let the lab sort out the problems - if > you do it yourself, you can fix anything in postprocessing". I think > you and I agree. Sure, no silk purses from hairy sows ears... but with technological advances in genetic engineering who knows? :-) Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
Rob Studdert wrote: On 24 May 2005 at 7:29, mike wilson wrote: It's an effort thing. If one is going to do a lot of something, learn how to do it properly and save yourself a heap of time, money and all sorts of other things in the long run. I can appreciate that but when do you surrender to automation after it's proven that for the greater part it ends up being more competent than yourself, what if effort doesn't offer an advantage over technology? In the 4WD forums I lurk in often the old guard claim that you need to struggle up and down hills in a 4 speed manual to be a "real" 4WDer, they decry the use of 5-6 speed autos with traction control and belittle down-hill assist ...until they actually try it and experience just how effective the technology is. Take a few seconds to properly assess a scene and expose the image "properly" or spend a long time gazing at and fiddling with phosphor dots? No competition in my book, even allowing that it might take some time to learn the assessment process. After spending the time to learn how my *ist D camera behaves WRT metering/exposure I know what it can do, in most case I can trust the metering to make optimal use of the capture latitude. My post processing method I have polished so that it's repeatable and very quick, it's working. I haven't forgotten all my film camera derived exposure knowledge, I still shoot film, I've just found a more predictable, time efficient and effective way to realize my photographic images. In the end unless you are using your photography as a proof of your competence to yourself, no one else viewing a picture for it's content really gives a stuff how it was produced so why not just use the most effective production means at your disposal? Agreed. But this whole response was to someone who (paraphrased) said "turn it on, press the button and let the lab sort out the problems - if you do it yourself, you can fix anything in postprocessing". I think you and I agree. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: RE: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
On 24 May 2005 at 7:29, mike wilson wrote: > It's an effort thing. If one is going to do a lot of something, learn how to > do > it properly and save yourself a heap of time, money and all sorts of other > things in the long run. I can appreciate that but when do you surrender to automation after it's proven that for the greater part it ends up being more competent than yourself, what if effort doesn't offer an advantage over technology? In the 4WD forums I lurk in often the old guard claim that you need to struggle up and down hills in a 4 speed manual to be a "real" 4WDer, they decry the use of 5-6 speed autos with traction control and belittle down-hill assist ...until they actually try it and experience just how effective the technology is. > Take a few seconds to properly assess a scene and expose the image "properly" > or > spend a long time gazing at and fiddling with phosphor dots? No competition > in > my book, even allowing that it might take some time to learn the assessment > process. After spending the time to learn how my *ist D camera behaves WRT metering/exposure I know what it can do, in most case I can trust the metering to make optimal use of the capture latitude. My post processing method I have polished so that it's repeatable and very quick, it's working. I haven't forgotten all my film camera derived exposure knowledge, I still shoot film, I've just found a more predictable, time efficient and effective way to realize my photographic images. In the end unless you are using your photography as a proof of your competence to yourself, no one else viewing a picture for it's content really gives a stuff how it was produced so why not just use the most effective production means at your disposal? Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
yes. and love every minute of it! :) mishka On 5/23/05, John Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mishka, > > You've clearly never been to Texas. :-) > > John > > On Tue, 24 May 2005 00:13:41 +0100, Mishka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > why not move to texas? > > > > mishka > > > > On 5/23/05, Graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > found that there are a lot of people in the world who feel their > > mission in life is making as many people unhappy as they can. > > Unfortunately there is a law against shooting them. > >> > >> graywolf > >> http://www.graywolfphoto.com > >> "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" > >> --- > >> > >> > >> Christian wrote: > >> > no, not lucky, "smart" to pick a career that he enjoys. > >> > > >> > Christian > >> > > >> > - Original Message - > >> > From: "David Zaninovic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > To: > >> > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 4:52 PM > >> > Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >>You are lucky. > >> >> > >> >>- Original Message - > >> >>From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> >>To: "pentax list" > >> >>Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 4:46 PM > >> >>Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >>>On 23/5/05, David Zaninovic, discombobulated, unleashed: > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>>>When something becomes work it is not fun any more. > >> >>> > >> >>>Odd. I got paid today for doing my job and I had fun. So the above > >> as a > >> >>>blanket statement cannot be true as I have just disproved it. > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>>Cheers, > >> >>> Cotty > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>>___/\__ > >> >>>|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche > >> >>>||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com > >> >>>_ > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> -- > >> No virus found in this outgoing message. > >> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > >> Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.15 - Release Date: 5/22/2005 > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.15 - Release Date: 22/05/2005 > >
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
Mishka wrote: why not move to texas? You mean, Texas where the death penalty is applied to those who break the law against shooting people? On 5/23/05, Graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: found that there are a lot of people in the world who feel their mission in life is making as many people unhappy as they can. Unfortunately there is a law against shooting them. graywolf
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
On 23/5/05, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed: >Lisa's favorite quote from Cotty's son: "My dad has a great job! He got >free tickets to a football game!" LOL. Actually I didn't have any tickets at all, and we stood up on a cold and windy gantry and I was working! It's alright for some! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
On 24/5/05, Rob Studdert, discombobulated, unleashed: >Smileys help, I did feel much better getting after dumping like that too, ran >out of milk this morning, that didn't help :-) besides, Rob belongs to the SYF - the Sydney Young Farts !! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: RE: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
> > From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2005/05/23 Mon PM 11:43:08 GMT > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: RE: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > On 23 May 2005 at 12:51, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > Not in todays environment Bob. Just blast away, "capture" innumerable > > frames, and sooner or later you're bound to get one that works as a > > photograph and tells a story. Then fix it in Photoshop and send it off to > > the lab where the tech will push a button (no need to watch the machine or > > pay much attention to the print itself), and, POOF! out comes a perfect > > print. You're so behind the times ... > > It seems a lot of old farts are feeling more than a little irritated about > the > fact that this is a possible option for many these days. Why not just > concentrate on what you know best and let others experiment and enjoy their > photographic tools and options? It's an effort thing. If one is going to do a lot of something, learn how to do it properly and save yourself a heap of time, money and all sorts of other things in the long run. Take a few seconds to properly assess a scene and expose the image "properly" or spend a long time gazing at and fiddling with phosphor dots? No competition in my book, even allowing that it might take some time to learn the assessment process. mike the idle > > > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ > Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 > > - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
In a message dated 5/23/2005 12:15:24 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: When something becomes work it is not fun any more. === Now that is not true for everyone. I often enjoy my work, or work I have done in the past (since technically I am unemployed right now, although I am still working on something). Why? Learning something new, accomplishment, mastery. Mastery always feels good. Or approaching mastery, if one is not there yet. And in some fields one is never there. Marnie aka Doe
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
On 5/23/05, Graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, when we get right down to it, the only difference between a snapshooter > (I just want to take pictures) and a Photographer (I want to make the best > pictures I can) is knowledge of the craft of photography. Now there is > nothing wrong with either of those choices, they are just a personal decision. Elliott Erwitt, at least early in his career (and perhaps later as well), made his living doing advertising photography. When he wasn't working, he walked the streets with his Leica. In fact, I believe he called his Leica his "hobby camera". He called the photos taken with his hobby camera, "snapshots". I'll be a snapshooter, thanks . cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
RE: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
On 23 May 2005 at 17:47, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > My comment was a bit TIC, Rob. You young digital whippersnappers are so > serious about your digital domain at times. Here's the smiley ;-))) > > And a few extra for the times when there's doubt about my seriousness > > ;-))) ;-))) ;-))) ;-))) ;-))) Smileys help, I did feel much better getting after dumping like that too, ran out of milk this morning, that didn't help :-) Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
My comment was a bit TIC, Rob. You young digital whippersnappers are so serious about your digital domain at times. Here's the smiley ;-))) And a few extra for the times when there's doubt about my seriousness ;-))) ;-))) ;-))) ;-))) ;-))) Shel > [Original Message] > From: Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Date: 5/23/2005 4:44:04 PM > Subject: RE: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > On 23 May 2005 at 12:51, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > Not in todays environment Bob. Just blast away, "capture" innumerable > > frames, and sooner or later you're bound to get one that works as a > > photograph and tells a story. Then fix it in Photoshop and send it off to > > the lab where the tech will push a button (no need to watch the machine or > > pay much attention to the print itself), and, POOF! out comes a perfect > > print. You're so behind the times ... > > It seems a lot of old farts are feeling more than a little irritated about the > fact that this is a possible option for many these days. Why not just > concentrate on what you know best and let others experiment and enjoy their > photographic tools and options?
RE: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
On 23 May 2005 at 12:51, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > Not in todays environment Bob. Just blast away, "capture" innumerable > frames, and sooner or later you're bound to get one that works as a > photograph and tells a story. Then fix it in Photoshop and send it off to > the lab where the tech will push a button (no need to watch the machine or > pay much attention to the print itself), and, POOF! out comes a perfect > print. You're so behind the times ... It seems a lot of old farts are feeling more than a little irritated about the fact that this is a possible option for many these days. Why not just concentrate on what you know best and let others experiment and enjoy their photographic tools and options? Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
You'd have to lure them onto your property. Texans take a dim view of bushwackin' if they found out it would go hard on you. Mishka wrote: why not move to texas? mishka On 5/23/05, Graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: found that there are a lot of people in the world who feel their mission in life is making as many people unhappy as they can. Unfortunately there is a law against shooting them. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Christian wrote: no, not lucky, "smart" to pick a career that he enjoys. Christian - Original Message - From: "David Zaninovic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 4:52 PM Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? You are lucky. - Original Message - From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pentax list" Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 4:46 PM Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? On 23/5/05, David Zaninovic, discombobulated, unleashed: When something becomes work it is not fun any more. Odd. I got paid today for doing my job and I had fun. So the above as a blanket statement cannot be true as I have just disproved it. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.15 - Release Date: 5/22/2005 -- A man's only as old as the woman he feels. --Groucho Marx
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
On 23 May 2005 at 11:54, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > For some. For others it's a profession that perhaps affords some fun, but > making a living is the priority, and a strong knowledge of the craft and > the tools used in the craft are important. Come on, there are a lot of professional photographers who don't know the first thing about the technical aspects of photography, the automation is good enough these days that you really don't have to know much to get a technically good shot. It might be sad that traditionally necessary skills aren't needed but very very few pro photographers are fine art types where the last 1/3 stop counts in an exposure. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
On 23 May 2005 at 10:58, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > What makes this discussion even more interesting is the number of > participants who see the situation only through digital eyes and camera raw > and > Photoshop adjustments. Converts opinions are often strong. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
Mishka, You've clearly never been to Texas. :-) John On Tue, 24 May 2005 00:13:41 +0100, Mishka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: why not move to texas? mishka On 5/23/05, Graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: found that there are a lot of people in the world who feel their mission in life is making as many people unhappy as they can. Unfortunately there is a law against shooting them. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Christian wrote: > no, not lucky, "smart" to pick a career that he enjoys. > > Christian > > - Original Message - > From: "David Zaninovic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 4:52 PM > Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > > >>You are lucky. >> >>- Original Message - >>From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>To: "pentax list" >>Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 4:46 PM >>Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? >> >> >> >>>On 23/5/05, David Zaninovic, discombobulated, unleashed: >>> >>> >>>>When something becomes work it is not fun any more. >>> >>>Odd. I got paid today for doing my job and I had fun. So the above as a >>>blanket statement cannot be true as I have just disproved it. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>Cheers, >>> Cotty >>> >>> >>>___/\__ >>>|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche >>>||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com >>>_ >>> >>> >> >> > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.15 - Release Date: 5/22/2005 -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.15 - Release Date: 22/05/2005
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
why not move to texas? mishka On 5/23/05, Graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: found that there are a lot of people in the world who feel their mission in life is making as many people unhappy as they can. Unfortunately there is a law against shooting them. > > graywolf > http://www.graywolfphoto.com > "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" > --- > > > Christian wrote: > > no, not lucky, "smart" to pick a career that he enjoys. > > > > Christian > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "David Zaninovic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: > > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 4:52 PM > > Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > > > > > > >>You are lucky. > >> > >>- Original Message - > >>From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>To: "pentax list" > >>Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 4:46 PM > >>Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > >> > >> > >> > >>>On 23/5/05, David Zaninovic, discombobulated, unleashed: > >>> > >>> > >>>>When something becomes work it is not fun any more. > >>> > >>>Odd. I got paid today for doing my job and I had fun. So the above as a > >>>blanket statement cannot be true as I have just disproved it. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>Cheers, > >>> Cotty > >>> > >>> > >>>___/\__ > >>>|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche > >>>||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com > >>>_ > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.15 - Release Date: 5/22/2005 > >
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
life is too short to have a job that's no fun. or, even, "affords some fun". there's an old joke: if drinking is ruining your career, you should quit. it's a lousy job anyway. best, mishka On 5/23/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For some. For others it's a profession that perhaps affords some fun, but > making a living is the priority, and a strong knowledge of the craft and > the tools used in the craft are important. > > Shel > > > > [Original Message] > > From: David Zaninovic > > > Photography is about having fun. > > > > >
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On 23/5/05, Christian, discombobulated, unleashed: > >>no, not lucky, "smart" to pick a career that he enjoys. > >Well steady on old boy, let's just say that it's not as bad as it could >have been... Lisa's favorite quote from Cotty's son: "My dad has a great job! He got free tickets to a football game!" -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
No, lucky! Many employers can make the most fun things unenjoyable. I've had a couple of jobs that basically paid me to go for a ride in the country every day. That is my idea of fun. Unfortunately in both cases the bosses made it not a fun thing. In fact I have found that there are a lot of people in the world who feel their mission in life is making as many people unhappy as they can. Unfortunately there is a law against shooting them. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Christian wrote: no, not lucky, "smart" to pick a career that he enjoys. Christian - Original Message - From: "David Zaninovic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 4:52 PM Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? You are lucky. - Original Message - From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pentax list" Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 4:46 PM Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? On 23/5/05, David Zaninovic, discombobulated, unleashed: When something becomes work it is not fun any more. Odd. I got paid today for doing my job and I had fun. So the above as a blanket statement cannot be true as I have just disproved it. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.15 - Release Date: 5/22/2005
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
Smile! The lucky people are the ones who get paid to do what they would be doing anyway. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Cotty wrote: When something becomes work it is not fun any more. Yes but: When a job becomes fun it is not work any more. Powell Well bloody said!!! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.15 - Release Date: 5/22/2005
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
I did not see your original post, Bob. That is a different track. Either a snapshooter, or a photographer can have that skill. I like to think that a photographer will be able to translate his vision to a final image a higher percent of the time, but that may be just my thing. I know a lot of snapshooters that have a lot better eye than I do. I have also seen more than a lot of both who have no idea of what an interesting picture is. I find the responses to my post interesting. Whether one has something to say is entirely different than how well one can express their thoughts. I have known a lot of good commercial photographers who have nothing of their own to say, but can put some one else's thoughts in to photographic form extremely well. To put it another way, there are a lot of good writers whom have nothing interesting to say. There are also a lot of people who have a lot of interesting thing to say who are not good writers. Personally I liked the writer who said he bought all his story ideas by the dozen from a guy in Pennsylvania. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- [Original Message] From: Bob W Well, when we get right down to it, the only difference between a snapshooter (I just want to take pictures) and a Photographer (I want to make the best pictures I can) is knowledge of the craft of photography. [...] Nothing to do with the ability to see a picture or tell a story, then? -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.15 - Release Date: 5/22/2005
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 03:14:21PM -0400, David Zaninovic wrote: > When something becomes work it is not fun any more. Really? I've been paid to write software for over 35 years now, but it's still fun most of the time.
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
On 23/5/05, Christian, discombobulated, unleashed: >no, not lucky, "smart" to pick a career that he enjoys. Well steady on old boy, let's just say that it's not as bad as it could have been... Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
no, not lucky, "smart" to pick a career that he enjoys. Christian - Original Message - From: "David Zaninovic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 4:52 PM Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > You are lucky. > > - Original Message - > From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "pentax list" > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 4:46 PM > Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > > > On 23/5/05, David Zaninovic, discombobulated, unleashed: > > > > >When something becomes work it is not fun any more. > > > > Odd. I got paid today for doing my job and I had fun. So the above as a > > blanket statement cannot be true as I have just disproved it. > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > Cotty > > > > > > ___/\__ > > || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche > > ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com > > _ > > > > > >
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
You are lucky. - Original Message - From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pentax list" Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 4:46 PM Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > On 23/5/05, David Zaninovic, discombobulated, unleashed: > > >When something becomes work it is not fun any more. > > Odd. I got paid today for doing my job and I had fun. So the above as a > blanket statement cannot be true as I have just disproved it. > > > > > Cheers, > Cotty > > > ___/\__ > || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche > ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com > _ > >
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
> >>When something becomes work it is not fun any more. > >Yes but: > >When a job becomes fun it is not work any more. > >Powell > Well bloody said!!! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
On 23/5/05, David Zaninovic, discombobulated, unleashed: >When something becomes work it is not fun any more. Odd. I got paid today for doing my job and I had fun. So the above as a blanket statement cannot be true as I have just disproved it. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
At 12:14 PM 23/05/2005 , David Zaninovic wrote: > >When something becomes work it is not fun any more. Yes but: When a job becomes fun it is not work any more. Powell
RE: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
Not in todays environment Bob. Just blast away, "capture" innumerable frames, and sooner or later you're bound to get one that works as a photograph and tells a story. Then fix it in Photoshop and send it off to the lab where the tech will push a button (no need to watch the machine or pay much attention to the print itself), and, POOF! out comes a perfect print. You're so behind the times ... Shel > [Original Message] > From: Bob W > > Well, when we get right down to it, the only difference > > between a snapshooter (I just want to take pictures) and a > > Photographer (I want to make the best pictures I can) is > > knowledge of the craft of photography. > [...] > > Nothing to do with the ability to see a picture or tell a story, then?
Politically Incorrect Joke alert, if you're easly offended don't read this. Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
Did you hear the one about the Frenchman, German and Saudi having a discussion/argument about Sex? The German took the stand that Sex was work and even more a duty, since it was required for the continuance of the human race, so no matter how enjoyable it was work. The Frenchman took the stand that Sex was fun. That having children was beside the point. The Saudi listened to the two of them argue for a while and said, "I have to agree with our French friend here, Sex is fun, if it weren't I'd hire a Filipino to do it for me." David Zaninovic wrote: When something becomes work it is not fun any more. - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 2:54 PM Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? For some. For others it's a profession that perhaps affords some fun, but making a living is the priority, and a strong knowledge of the craft and the tools used in the craft are important. Shel [Original Message] From: David Zaninovic Photography is about having fun. -- A man's only as old as the woman he feels. --Groucho Marx
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
David Zaninovic wrote: I spend more time trying to fix digital files than any other single task that I do during my day. Often, digital files don't fix very easily. I had hoped digital was going to make my job easier, but it's just added another bunch of ways for people to screw things up. Tell people to shoot raw and sell them more flash cards. More money for you and better pictures for them. To answer your question directly, as long as your system calibration matches the lab's calibration fairly precisely, then no input is needed from the lab. If you are not calibrated precisely to the lab, then all bets are off. That is what I said, you need icc profile provided by the lab for exact device that will be used for printing. So preferred situation is that printer should not do anything. Join the real world son. -- A man's only as old as the woman he feels. --Groucho Marx
RE: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
> > Well, when we get right down to it, the only difference > between a snapshooter (I just want to take pictures) and a > Photographer (I want to make the best pictures I can) is > knowledge of the craft of photography. [...] Nothing to do with the ability to see a picture or tell a story, then? -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
You are an old fart (grin). Besides, I did not say anything about perfect pictures, or did I? There are good snapshooters, and bad snapshooters. There are good photographers, and bad photographers. The skill level is irrelevant, if someone is interested in the craft of photography he is a photographer. If someone doesn't want to know anything about photography, but just wants to take pictures he is a snapshooter. Nothing wrong with either choice, except one should be honest with himself. Owning an expensive camera does nothing but make one the owner of an expensive camera. Anything beyond that takes a lot of hard work. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- John Francis wrote: On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 02:23:06PM -0400, Graywolf wrote: Well, when we get right down to it, the only difference between a snapshooter (I just want to take pictures) and a Photographer (I want to make the best pictures I can) is knowledge of the craft of photography. Now there is nothing wrong with either of those choices, they are just a personal decision. What I do not understand is why the snapshooters insist that they are photographers too? Because the world isn't as simple as the dichotomy you present above. There are many of use who fall somewhere between those two extremes. I know my tools, and I try to use them to produce good pictures. I also try to learn; if I make a mistake, I do my best not to make that same mistake again the next time. But I generally don't go back and re-shoot the image that failed. So - am I a photographer, or just a snapshooter? -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.15 - Release Date: 5/22/2005
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
Some how the name Hocus Focus comes to mind. Kenneth Waller -Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? There's Focus Magic as one option: http://www.focusmagic.com/ Once again the blind photographer in the movie Pecker comes to mind. (Even BIGGER Grin ) Shel > [Original Message] > From: Kenneth Waller > Now if they would just develop a plug in for PS, > so we wouldn't have to worry about the pesky issue > of focusing in-camera. We could just aim in the general > direction of the scene we want to capture, fire away > and let PS take care of the details. > > <> PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
When something becomes work it is not fun any more. - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 2:54 PM Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > For some. For others it's a profession that perhaps affords some fun, but > making a living is the priority, and a strong knowledge of the craft and > the tools used in the craft are important. > > Shel > > > > [Original Message] > > From: David Zaninovic > > > Photography is about having fun. > > > >
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
Oh, no, you got me. - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 2:38 PM Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > Using flash, a diffuser, reflector, or other such items is not always an > option. > > It is clear that your knowledge of the practical aspects of photography is > limited. I now know that you have been serious in your assertions all > along. How sad, how truly sad. And what's sadder still, you keep > referencing only digital capture and the fix-it-in-Photoshop mentality. > > Shel > > > > [Original Message] > > From: David Zaninovic > > > If the light is too contrasty for sensor to capture you can make it more > flat using flash, reflector, diffuser, etc... soft shadows > > are more pleasing anyway for my eye. > > If you want scene to be contrasty you can easily blow highlights or make > shadows black in post processing. > > If you can't make the light flat, then you have to think about exposure > and use spot metering and think what you will lose and what > > you will keep. > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: > > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 1:58 PM > > Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > > > > > > And what if the light is not flat? How about if you want to =interpret= > > > the scene? What if you're not shooting digital, or using matrix > metering > > > (assuming that matrix metering is the panacea you think it is?) > > > > > > Shel > > > > > > > From: "David Zaninovic" > > > > Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's right, if you shoot raw and you captured all the info who > cares > > > > > about the exposure, you can change exposure during raw > > > > > converting process and the result will be identical as if you > > > compensated > > > > > the exposure correctly at the time of shooting. The > > > > > important thing to take care of is not to have blown highlights or > > > shadow > > > > > go to pure black and matrix metering in flat light will > > > > > take care of that in most of the cases. I still would compensate > for > > > > > black or white door but for the sake of discussion I don't > > > > > think it would make so much difference as you think. > > > > > > > >
Re: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
> I spend more time trying to fix digital files than any other single task > that I do during my day. > Often, digital files don't fix very easily. > I had hoped digital was going to make my job easier, but it's just added > another bunch of ways for people to screw things up. Tell people to shoot raw and sell them more flash cards. More money for you and better pictures for them. > To answer your question directly, as long as your system calibration matches > the lab's calibration fairly precisely, then no input is needed from the > lab. > If you are not calibrated precisely to the lab, then all bets are off. That is what I said, you need icc profile provided by the lab for exact device that will be used for printing. So preferred situation is that printer should not do anything.
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
Graywolf expounded: > My suggestion to folks who think like that is to look through a bunch of Life > or > Look magazines from the 50's or earlier. Those photos were all taken without > any > of those camera features. > My dad retouched many of the copper plates from which the four color images were printed. He was a color photo engraver at Lakeside Press in Chicago, which produced Time, Life and Look. His fingers were stained from working with acid all day and his eyes were worn out from focusing on tiny details. We had a light box at home. Sometimes dad would bring home 8x10 transparencies to show me things of interest. Once in a while he'd show me the printed shot alongside the transparency so I could see how he had changed the color of a garment or removed a bit of trash from a lush green lawn. I'll never forget the rich beauty and exquisite detail of those big transparencies. Paul
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
For some. For others it's a profession that perhaps affords some fun, but making a living is the priority, and a strong knowledge of the craft and the tools used in the craft are important. Shel > [Original Message] > From: David Zaninovic > Photography is about having fun. >
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
Photography is about having fun. - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 1:21 PM Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > This discussion is very confusing to me. I don't know if David is serious, > seriously deranged, or just being sarcastic and funny. I don't know > whether I should laugh or cry - right now I'm laughing through my tears - > or just take all my photo gear and toss the items into the bay, and make > images using Crayolas and a coloring book. > > I'm going to watch how this unfolds and perhaps comment a little later, > when I can see and read these messages more clearly. Right now my eyes are > filled with tears. I am, however, reminded of the blind photographer in > the movie Pecker and am thinking about a one pixel sensor. > > > > [Original Message] > > From: David Zaninovic > > > They should just make the sensor smaller, the smaller the sensor the less > you have to worry about focusing. Just shoot in the > > general direction and don't worry about it. :) > >
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
Great post. - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 1:58 PM Subject: RE: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > No, accurate expose is that which captures the scene in the manner that > photographer wishes to portray it. If one captures the entire range of a > scene (assuming that it can be done, as some scenes, as you noted, are of a > contrast range that is outside the range of the film or the sensor that's > being used), the use of creative exposure, which may better be able to > express the story of the image, may be negated. Maybe you want to lose > shadow detail, or reduce highlights from bright to mid grey, or let 'em > blow out for a particular look. Exposure isn't just using matrix metering > to get all the information in a scene. Exposure is about using the camera > settings to enable the photographer to better tell his or her story. It's > a creative technique, just as good printing can be done creatively, or > manipulation in Photoshop or camera raw. > > And let's not forget scenes that are flat, and may need some extra contrast > to give them life. Here again we want our exposure to be creative, not > just what the meter tells us it should be. In such a situation not only > must the exposure be chosen carefully, but the choice of film or the method > of post processing by digital or chemical means must be considered as well. > > What makes this discussion even more interesting is the number of > participants who see the situation only through digital eyes and camera raw > and Photoshop adjustments. > > Shel > > > > [Original Message] > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: > > Date: 5/23/2005 8:47:53 AM > > Subject: RE: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > > > I don't think that's exactly what's being said -- "accurate" exposure > > /does/ matter, it's just that accurate exposure can be defined as > > "capturing the entire range of the scene". > > > > Suppose I've got a histogram with four segments and my exposure is > > entirely contained in the second segment (counting from the left). If > > I'd have kept all other things equal but increased my exposure time by a > > couple of stops or so and ended up with the scene entirely contained in > > the third segment, I'd have taken the same picture, only with a longer > > shutter speed -- either of those exposures could be "converted" to the > > other just by dragging the exposure slider in Photoshop on import of the > > pictures. One would likely be the "better" shot, though, due to having > > more or less motion blur, camera shake, whatever. Of course, this > > doesn't take into account non-linear response from the sensor, etc. or > > that many scenes have a range that exceeds the dynamic range of the > > sensor. > > > > That's my understanding, at least; someone please correct me if I'm > > wrong. > >
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 02:23:06PM -0400, Graywolf wrote: > Well, when we get right down to it, the only difference between a > snapshooter (I just want to take pictures) and a Photographer (I want to > make the best pictures I can) is knowledge of the craft of photography. Now > there is nothing wrong with either of those choices, they are just a > personal decision. > What I do not understand is why the snapshooters insist that they are > photographers too? Because the world isn't as simple as the dichotomy you present above. There are many of use who fall somewhere between those two extremes. I know my tools, and I try to use them to produce good pictures. I also try to learn; if I make a mistake, I do my best not to make that same mistake again the next time. But I generally don't go back and re-shoot the image that failed. So - am I a photographer, or just a snapshooter?
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
Using flash, a diffuser, reflector, or other such items is not always an option. It is clear that your knowledge of the practical aspects of photography is limited. I now know that you have been serious in your assertions all along. How sad, how truly sad. And what's sadder still, you keep referencing only digital capture and the fix-it-in-Photoshop mentality. Shel > [Original Message] > From: David Zaninovic > If the light is too contrasty for sensor to capture you can make it more flat using flash, reflector, diffuser, etc... soft shadows > are more pleasing anyway for my eye. > If you want scene to be contrasty you can easily blow highlights or make shadows black in post processing. > If you can't make the light flat, then you have to think about exposure and use spot metering and think what you will lose and what > you will keep. > > - Original Message - > From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 1:58 PM > Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > > > And what if the light is not flat? How about if you want to =interpret= > > the scene? What if you're not shooting digital, or using matrix metering > > (assuming that matrix metering is the panacea you think it is?) > > > > Shel > > > > > From: "David Zaninovic" > > > Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > > > > > > > > > That's right, if you shoot raw and you captured all the info who cares > > > > about the exposure, you can change exposure during raw > > > > converting process and the result will be identical as if you > > compensated > > > > the exposure correctly at the time of shooting. The > > > > important thing to take care of is not to have blown highlights or > > shadow > > > > go to pure black and matrix metering in flat light will > > > > take care of that in most of the cases. I still would compensate for > > > > black or white door but for the sake of discussion I don't > > > > think it would make so much difference as you think. > > > >
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
Doubtful ... ;-)) Shel > [Original Message] > From: Graywolf > Maybe we old farts do actually know a few things > that the whippersnappers are too dumb to learn.
Re: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
- Original Message - From: "David Zaninovic" Subject: Re: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? Yes, just sit there feed the printer and don't do anything. You should really pull your head out of your ass. William Robb
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
It is a good word, I like it. - Original Message - From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pentax list" Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 2:12 PM Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > On 23/5/05, John Francis, discombobulated, unleashed: > > >quantisation > > That a word? You're just making it up! > > > > > Cheers, > Cotty > > > ___/\__ > || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche > ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com > _ > >
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
- Original Message - From: "David Zaninovic" Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? I am sure William is against autofocus too. :) Autofocus corrupted photography. Nah, it has it's place. I prefer manual focus for my own use. William Robb
Re: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
- Original Message - From: "David Zaninovic" Subject: Re: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? Why would I want somebody changing my pictures ? I just need icc profile so I can see how it will look when printed. I certainly don't want somebody changing the color balance or anything else about the picture. That is the reason #1 I don't shoot film any more. I spend more time trying to fix digital files than any other single task that I do during my day. Often, digital files don't fix very easily. I had hoped digital was going to make my job easier, but it's just added another bunch of ways for people to screw things up. To answer your question directly, as long as your system calibration matches the lab's calibration fairly precisely, then no input is needed from the lab. If you are not calibrated precisely to the lab, then all bets are off. William Robb
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? Ithis doesn't take into account non-linear response from the sensor, etc. or that many scenes have a range that exceeds the dynamic range of the sensor. Bingo. William Robb
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
If the light is too contrasty for sensor to capture you can make it more flat using flash, reflector, diffuser, etc... soft shadows are more pleasing anyway for my eye. If you want scene to be contrasty you can easily blow highlights or make shadows black in post processing. If you can't make the light flat, then you have to think about exposure and use spot metering and think what you will lose and what you will keep. - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 1:58 PM Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > And what if the light is not flat? How about if you want to =interpret= > the scene? What if you're not shooting digital, or using matrix metering > (assuming that matrix metering is the panacea you think it is?) > > Shel > > > From: "David Zaninovic" > > Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > > > > > > That's right, if you shoot raw and you captured all the info who cares > > > about the exposure, you can change exposure during raw > > > converting process and the result will be identical as if you > compensated > > > the exposure correctly at the time of shooting. The > > > important thing to take care of is not to have blown highlights or > shadow > > > go to pure black and matrix metering in flat light will > > > take care of that in most of the cases. I still would compensate for > > > black or white door but for the sake of discussion I don't > > > think it would make so much difference as you think. > >
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
Exactly. Precise exposure is just as important in digital photography as it is in film photography, even though it may be easier to disguise your mistakes. The best exposure for a RAW digital image can vary slightly from what might be best for film photography, just as ideal negative film exposure might be half a stop different than an ideal positive film exposure in some cases. Similarly, an ideal jpeg exposure in digital might differ slightly from an ideal RAW exposure in some cases. But in every case, exposure is important. And as with film, determining what works best for your style of shooting and workflow requires some testing. Paul > On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 10:24:59AM -0400, David Zaninovic wrote: > > That's right, if you shoot raw and you captured all the info who cares > > about > the exposure, you can change exposure during raw > > converting process and the result will be identical as if you compensated > > the > exposure correctly at the time of shooting. > > No it won't. > > In particular, you'll see addional quantisation in the shadows. >
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
It would need to be really flat. You'll begin to see artifacts with a dynamic range of six stops, which is well before you'll have anything like harsh shadows. In any case, there's no excuse to use your tools to well below their capabilities; it's not really much harder to get the exposure right to within half a stop. On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 02:12:50PM -0400, David Zaninovic wrote: > That is why I said flat light, so no shadows. If there are harsh shadows the > whole deal is off. > > - Original Message - > From: "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 1:50 PM > Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > > > On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 10:24:59AM -0400, David Zaninovic wrote: > > > That's right, if you shoot raw and you captured all the info who cares > > > about the exposure, you can change exposure during raw > > > converting process and the result will be identical as if you compensated > > > the exposure correctly at the time of shooting. > > > > No it won't. > > > > In particular, you'll see addional quantisation in the shadows. > >
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
Well, when we get right down to it, the only difference between a snapshooter (I just want to take pictures) and a Photographer (I want to make the best pictures I can) is knowledge of the craft of photography. Now there is nothing wrong with either of those choices, they are just a personal decision. What I do not understand is why the snapshooters insist that they are photographers too? How can anyone claim to be a photographer without knowledge of the craft. No, it is worse they claim that only a fool would bother learning the craft because they are great photographers without knowing anything about it. It is sort or like doing a paint by numbers kit and claiming to be an oil painting artist. There are only a few controls a photographer has to know, but he has to know a lot of rules to use those few controls in all kinds of situations. Modern cameras have those rules built in. It is just a matter of choosing the correct program. Only a photographer knows when to break the rules, no computer knows when to do that. Also to select those many programs you have to know all the info in that 100+ page instruction book that came with your camera. Plus you have to know when to use which program. If you actually do know when to use which program then you can do it yourself with those few controls faster than you can change the programs. Of course you have to learn a few manual skills which take a bit of practice. Interestingly enough photographers used to tell neophytes to take a lot of photos because that honed those skills. Somehow that advice has become take a lot of photos because one of them might be good. Now we get this you can not take certain photos without these camera features. My suggestion to folks who think like that is to look through a bunch of Life or Look magazines from the 50's or earlier. Those photos were all taken without any of those camera features. Maybe we old farts do actually know a few things that the whippersnappers are too dumb to learn. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Don Sanderson wrote: This is a really interesting thread to be reading while I'm in the middle of studying the Ansel Adams 3 volume "Photography Series" (The Camera, The Negative and The Print) for the fourth time. If focus, exposure and printing are no longer some- thing to concern myself with then I'm wasting a good bit of time reading books by that finicky old curmudgeon. He seems to want to substitute the words "the very best you can do" for "good enough". Imagine that! Oh well, maybe he was just old-fashioned. Don -Original Message- From: Graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 10:38 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? Oh, no, you have not been reading the list long enough. Autofocus is far more accurate than manual focusing. HAR, HAR, HAR, ... My camera is smarter than your camera! graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- David Zaninovic wrote: Forget manual focusing too, autofocus is "good enough". :) - Original Message - From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 10:55 AM Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? - Original Message - From: "David Zaninovic" Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? That's right, if you shoot raw and you captured all the info who cares about the exposure, you can change exposure during raw converting process and the result will be identical as if you compensated the exposure correctly at the time of shooting. The important thing to take care of is not to have blown highlights or shadow go to pure black and matrix metering in flat light will take care of that in most of the cases. I still would compensate for black or white door but for the sake of discussion I don't think it would make so much difference as you think. There you have it kids. Forget metering, accurate exposure doesn't matter anymore. Just fix it in Photoshop. William Robb -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.15 - Release Date: 5/22/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.15 - Release Date: 5/22/2005
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 07:12:16PM +0100, Cotty wrote: > On 23/5/05, John Francis, discombobulated, unleashed: > > >quantisation > > That a word? You're just making it up! That's quantization to you, smarty-pants. And no, it's nothing to do with an Australian airline.
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 10:46:11AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I don't think that's exactly what's being said -- "accurate" exposure > /does/ matter, it's just that accurate exposure can be defined as > "capturing the entire range of the scene". > > Suppose I've got a histogram with four segments and my exposure is > entirely contained in the second segment (counting from the left). If > I'd have kept all other things equal but increased my exposure time by a > couple of stops or so and ended up with the scene entirely contained in > the third segment, I'd have taken the same picture, only with a longer > shutter speed -- either of those exposures could be "converted" to the > other just by dragging the exposure slider in Photoshop on import of the > pictures. One would likely be the "better" shot, though, due to having > more or less motion blur, camera shake, whatever. Of course, this > doesn't take into account non-linear response from the sensor, etc. or > that many scenes have a range that exceeds the dynamic range of the > sensor. > > That's my understanding, at least; someone please correct me if I'm > wrong. You're (sort of) right, as far as it goes. A couple of observations: If you increased the exposure to get the right-hand edge of your histogram at the end of the third segment, rather than at the end of the second segment, you wouldn't end up with a histogram that was entirely in the third segment; it would go roughly from half- way along the second segment to the end of the third segment. (i.e. instead of going from 1.0 to 2.0, it would go from 1.5 to 3.0) Histograms don't do that - they always go all the way to the left edge (unless you're shooting a scene with absolutely no black areas, which is extremely uncommon). One further correction: under any normal conditions, the sensors don't suffer from non-linear response. In fact the linearity of their response is one of the problems; they respond directly to the amount of light falling on them, rather than responding in a fashion more like the logarithmic response of the eye. This means that of the 4096 intensity levels that can be used by a 12-bit sensor such as that in the *ist-D, 2048 are used in the brightest part of the image (highlights, etc.). 1024 levels are used for the next brightest range, then 512, 256, 128, 64, 32 ... If we consider a scene that has eight stops of dynamic range, we'll be trying to map those levels into a logarithmically- encoded representation. To produce an eight-bit JPEG we'll want about 256/8 = 32 levels of brightness for each stop. That's fine for the brightest part of the scene, but as we can see by the time we get down to the darkest part of the image we're trying to do a non-linear mapping from 32 input levels to 32 output levels. This is going to introduce some quantisation errors (visible as pixelation in the shadows). If we don't start off with the full range of recorded values, but instead under-expose by a stop (so the RAW values run from zero to 2047) we'll only have 16 sensor values to map to those 32 output values, which increases the quantisation. That's why it's important to expose properly in-camera, and to get the histogram to stretch as far to the right as possible without totally blowing out the highlights; if you don't do that, you're going to end up with (more) noise in the shadows.
RE: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
A lot of people here make that same substitution. Must be a generational thing ... Shel > [Original Message] > From: Don Sanderson > This is a really interesting thread to be reading > while I'm in the middle of studying the Ansel Adams > 3 volume "Photography Series" (The Camera, The > Negative and The Print) for the fourth time. [...] > He seems to want to substitute the words "the very > best you can do" for "good enough". Imagine that! > Oh well, maybe he was just old-fashioned.
RE: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
How many cameras are in a case? I'd need a minimum of "too" gross by Friday. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Don Sanderson > Shel, I just traded my K135/2.5 for an ENTIRE CASE of Fuji > single use cameras! You know, the ones with no pesky settings > to mess with. > I think I can get you folks the same deal if you're interested. > > Don > > > -Original Message- > > From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 12:21 PM > > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > > Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > > > > > This discussion is very confusing to me. I don't know if David > > is serious, > > seriously deranged, or just being sarcastic and funny. I don't know > > whether I should laugh or cry - right now I'm laughing through my tears - > > or just take all my photo gear and toss the items into the bay, and make > > images using Crayolas and a coloring book. > > > > I'm going to watch how this unfolds and perhaps comment a little later, > > when I can see and read these messages more clearly. Right now > > my eyes are > > filled with tears. I am, however, reminded of the blind photographer in > > the movie Pecker and am thinking about a one pixel sensor.
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
John, You're gonna confuse poor David with facts and reality. Of course, the problems in the shadows can be repaired in Photoshop and then the results can be printed automatically later on. So really, why bother to get it right from the beginning when it can be kludged at the end Shel > David Zaninovic wrote: > > That's right, if you shoot raw and you captured > > all the info who cares about the exposure, you can > > change exposure during raw converting process and > > the result will be identical as if you compensated the > > exposure correctly at the time of shooting. > [Original Message] > From: John Francis > No it won't. > > In particular, you'll see addional quantisation in the shadows.
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
That is why I said flat light, so no shadows. If there are harsh shadows the whole deal is off. - Original Message - From: "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 1:50 PM Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 10:24:59AM -0400, David Zaninovic wrote: > > That's right, if you shoot raw and you captured all the info who cares > > about the exposure, you can change exposure during raw > > converting process and the result will be identical as if you compensated > > the exposure correctly at the time of shooting. > > No it won't. > > In particular, you'll see addional quantisation in the shadows. >
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
On 23/5/05, John Francis, discombobulated, unleashed: >quantisation That a word? You're just making it up! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
it is already working there will be plenty of cheap pentax lenses on ebay soon. - Original Message - From: "Don Sanderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 1:35 PM Subject: RE: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > Shel, I just traded my K135/2.5 for an ENTIRE CASE of Fuji > single use cameras! You know, the ones with no pesky settings > to mess with. > I think I can get you folks the same deal if you're interested. > > Don > > > -Original Message- > > From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 12:21 PM > > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > > Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > > > > > This discussion is very confusing to me. I don't know if David > > is serious, > > seriously deranged, or just being sarcastic and funny. I don't know > > whether I should laugh or cry - right now I'm laughing through my tears - > > or just take all my photo gear and toss the items into the bay, and make > > images using Crayolas and a coloring book. > > > > I'm going to watch how this unfolds and perhaps comment a little later, > > when I can see and read these messages more clearly. Right now > > my eyes are > > filled with tears. I am, however, reminded of the blind photographer in > > the movie Pecker and am thinking about a one pixel sensor. >
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
There's Focus Magic as one option: http://www.focusmagic.com/ Once again the blind photographer in the movie Pecker comes to mind. (Even BIGGER Grin ) Shel > [Original Message] > From: Kenneth Waller > Now if they would just develop a plug in for PS, > so we wouldn't have to worry about the pesky issue > of focusing in-camera. We could just aim in the general > direction of the scene we want to capture, fire away > and let PS take care of the details. > > <>
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
And what if the light is not flat? How about if you want to =interpret= the scene? What if you're not shooting digital, or using matrix metering (assuming that matrix metering is the panacea you think it is?) Shel > From: "David Zaninovic" > Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > > > That's right, if you shoot raw and you captured all the info who cares > > about the exposure, you can change exposure during raw > > converting process and the result will be identical as if you compensated > > the exposure correctly at the time of shooting. The > > important thing to take care of is not to have blown highlights or shadow > > go to pure black and matrix metering in flat light will > > take care of that in most of the cases. I still would compensate for > > black or white door but for the sake of discussion I don't > > think it would make so much difference as you think.
RE: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
No, accurate expose is that which captures the scene in the manner that photographer wishes to portray it. If one captures the entire range of a scene (assuming that it can be done, as some scenes, as you noted, are of a contrast range that is outside the range of the film or the sensor that's being used), the use of creative exposure, which may better be able to express the story of the image, may be negated. Maybe you want to lose shadow detail, or reduce highlights from bright to mid grey, or let 'em blow out for a particular look. Exposure isn't just using matrix metering to get all the information in a scene. Exposure is about using the camera settings to enable the photographer to better tell his or her story. It's a creative technique, just as good printing can be done creatively, or manipulation in Photoshop or camera raw. And let's not forget scenes that are flat, and may need some extra contrast to give them life. Here again we want our exposure to be creative, not just what the meter tells us it should be. In such a situation not only must the exposure be chosen carefully, but the choice of film or the method of post processing by digital or chemical means must be considered as well. What makes this discussion even more interesting is the number of participants who see the situation only through digital eyes and camera raw and Photoshop adjustments. Shel > [Original Message] > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Date: 5/23/2005 8:47:53 AM > Subject: RE: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > I don't think that's exactly what's being said -- "accurate" exposure > /does/ matter, it's just that accurate exposure can be defined as > "capturing the entire range of the scene". > > Suppose I've got a histogram with four segments and my exposure is > entirely contained in the second segment (counting from the left). If > I'd have kept all other things equal but increased my exposure time by a > couple of stops or so and ended up with the scene entirely contained in > the third segment, I'd have taken the same picture, only with a longer > shutter speed -- either of those exposures could be "converted" to the > other just by dragging the exposure slider in Photoshop on import of the > pictures. One would likely be the "better" shot, though, due to having > more or less motion blur, camera shake, whatever. Of course, this > doesn't take into account non-linear response from the sensor, etc. or > that many scenes have a range that exceeds the dynamic range of the > sensor. > > That's my understanding, at least; someone please correct me if I'm > wrong.
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 10:24:59AM -0400, David Zaninovic wrote: > That's right, if you shoot raw and you captured all the info who cares about > the exposure, you can change exposure during raw > converting process and the result will be identical as if you compensated the > exposure correctly at the time of shooting. No it won't. In particular, you'll see addional quantisation in the shadows.
RE: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
Shel, I just traded my K135/2.5 for an ENTIRE CASE of Fuji single use cameras! You know, the ones with no pesky settings to mess with. I think I can get you folks the same deal if you're interested. Don > -Original Message- > From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 12:21 PM > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > > This discussion is very confusing to me. I don't know if David > is serious, > seriously deranged, or just being sarcastic and funny. I don't know > whether I should laugh or cry - right now I'm laughing through my tears - > or just take all my photo gear and toss the items into the bay, and make > images using Crayolas and a coloring book. > > I'm going to watch how this unfolds and perhaps comment a little later, > when I can see and read these messages more clearly. Right now > my eyes are > filled with tears. I am, however, reminded of the blind photographer in > the movie Pecker and am thinking about a one pixel sensor.
RE: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
This is a really interesting thread to be reading while I'm in the middle of studying the Ansel Adams 3 volume "Photography Series" (The Camera, The Negative and The Print) for the fourth time. If focus, exposure and printing are no longer some- thing to concern myself with then I'm wasting a good bit of time reading books by that finicky old curmudgeon. He seems to want to substitute the words "the very best you can do" for "good enough". Imagine that! Oh well, maybe he was just old-fashioned. Don > -Original Message- > From: Graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 10:38 AM > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > > Oh, no, you have not been reading the list long enough. Autofocus > is far more accurate than manual focusing. > > HAR, HAR, HAR, ... > > My camera is smarter than your camera! > > graywolf > http://www.graywolfphoto.com > "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" > --- > > > David Zaninovic wrote: > > Forget manual focusing too, autofocus is "good enough". :) > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: > > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 10:55 AM > > Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > > > > > > >>- Original Message - > >>From: "David Zaninovic" > >>Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > >> > >> > >> > >>>That's right, if you shoot raw and you captured all the info who cares > >>>about the exposure, you can change exposure during raw > >>>converting process and the result will be identical as if you > compensated > >>>the exposure correctly at the time of shooting. The > >>>important thing to take care of is not to have blown > highlights or shadow > >>>go to pure black and matrix metering in flat light will > >>>take care of that in most of the cases. I still would compensate for > >>>black or white door but for the sake of discussion I don't > >>>think it would make so much difference as you think. > >> > >>There you have it kids. > >>Forget metering, accurate exposure doesn't matter anymore. > >>Just fix it in Photoshop. > >> > >>William Robb > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.15 - Release Date: 5/22/2005 >
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
This discussion is very confusing to me. I don't know if David is serious, seriously deranged, or just being sarcastic and funny. I don't know whether I should laugh or cry - right now I'm laughing through my tears - or just take all my photo gear and toss the items into the bay, and make images using Crayolas and a coloring book. I'm going to watch how this unfolds and perhaps comment a little later, when I can see and read these messages more clearly. Right now my eyes are filled with tears. I am, however, reminded of the blind photographer in the movie Pecker and am thinking about a one pixel sensor. > [Original Message] > From: David Zaninovic > They should just make the sensor smaller, the smaller the sensor the less you have to worry about focusing. Just shoot in the > general direction and don't worry about it. :)
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
They should just make the sensor smaller, the smaller the sensor the less you have to worry about focusing. Just shoot in the general direction and don't worry about it. :) - Original Message - From: "Kenneth Waller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 11:31 AM Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > >There you have it kids. > >Forget metering, accurate exposure doesn't matter anymore. > >Just fix it in Photoshop > > Now if they would just develop a plug in for PS, so we wouldn't have to worry > about the pesky issue of focusing in-camera. We could just aim in the general direction of the scene we want to capture, fire away and let PS take care of the details. > > <> > > Kenneth Waller > > -----Original Message- > From: William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > > - Original Message - > From: "David Zaninovic" > Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > > > That's right, if you shoot raw and you captured all the info who cares > > about the exposure, you can change exposure during raw > > converting process and the result will be identical as if you compensated > > the exposure correctly at the time of shooting. The > > important thing to take care of is not to have blown highlights or shadow > > go to pure black and matrix metering in flat light will > > take care of that in most of the cases. I still would compensate for > > black or white door but for the sake of discussion I don't > > think it would make so much difference as you think. > > There you have it kids. > Forget metering, accurate exposure doesn't matter anymore. > Just fix it in Photoshop. > > William Robb > > > > > > PeoplePC Online > A better way to Internet > http://www.peoplepc.com >
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
I am sure William is against autofocus too. :) Autofocus corrupted photography. - Original Message - From: "Graywolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 11:38 AM Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > Oh, no, you have not been reading the list long enough. Autofocus is far more > accurate than manual focusing. > > HAR, HAR, HAR, ... > > My camera is smarter than your camera! > > graywolf > http://www.graywolfphoto.com > "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" > --- > > > David Zaninovic wrote: > > Forget manual focusing too, autofocus is "good enough". :) > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: > > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 10:55 AM > > Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > > > > > > >>- Original Message - > >>From: "David Zaninovic" > >>Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > >> > >> > >> > >>>That's right, if you shoot raw and you captured all the info who cares > >>>about the exposure, you can change exposure during raw > >>>converting process and the result will be identical as if you compensated > >>>the exposure correctly at the time of shooting. The > >>>important thing to take care of is not to have blown highlights or shadow > >>>go to pure black and matrix metering in flat light will > >>>take care of that in most of the cases. I still would compensate for > >>>black or white door but for the sake of discussion I don't > >>>think it would make so much difference as you think. > >> > >>There you have it kids. > >>Forget metering, accurate exposure doesn't matter anymore. > >>Just fix it in Photoshop. > >> > >>William Robb > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.15 - Release Date: 5/22/2005 >
RE: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
I don't think that's exactly what's being said -- "accurate" exposure /does/ matter, it's just that accurate exposure can be defined as "capturing the entire range of the scene". Suppose I've got a histogram with four segments and my exposure is entirely contained in the second segment (counting from the left). If I'd have kept all other things equal but increased my exposure time by a couple of stops or so and ended up with the scene entirely contained in the third segment, I'd have taken the same picture, only with a longer shutter speed -- either of those exposures could be "converted" to the other just by dragging the exposure slider in Photoshop on import of the pictures. One would likely be the "better" shot, though, due to having more or less motion blur, camera shake, whatever. Of course, this doesn't take into account non-linear response from the sensor, etc. or that many scenes have a range that exceeds the dynamic range of the sensor. That's my understanding, at least; someone please correct me if I'm wrong. -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 9:55 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? - Original Message - From: "David Zaninovic" Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > That's right, if you shoot raw and you captured all the info who cares > about the exposure, you can change exposure during raw > converting process and the result will be identical as if you compensated > the exposure correctly at the time of shooting. The > important thing to take care of is not to have blown highlights or shadow > go to pure black and matrix metering in flat light will > take care of that in most of the cases. I still would compensate for > black or white door but for the sake of discussion I don't > think it would make so much difference as you think. There you have it kids. Forget metering, accurate exposure doesn't matter anymore. Just fix it in Photoshop. William Robb
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
Oh, no, you have not been reading the list long enough. Autofocus is far more accurate than manual focusing. HAR, HAR, HAR, ... My camera is smarter than your camera! graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- David Zaninovic wrote: Forget manual focusing too, autofocus is "good enough". :) - Original Message - From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 10:55 AM Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? - Original Message - From: "David Zaninovic" Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? That's right, if you shoot raw and you captured all the info who cares about the exposure, you can change exposure during raw converting process and the result will be identical as if you compensated the exposure correctly at the time of shooting. The important thing to take care of is not to have blown highlights or shadow go to pure black and matrix metering in flat light will take care of that in most of the cases. I still would compensate for black or white door but for the sake of discussion I don't think it would make so much difference as you think. There you have it kids. Forget metering, accurate exposure doesn't matter anymore. Just fix it in Photoshop. William Robb -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.15 - Release Date: 5/22/2005
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
>There you have it kids. >Forget metering, accurate exposure doesn't matter anymore. >Just fix it in Photoshop Now if they would just develop a plug in for PS, so we wouldn't have to worry about the pesky issue of focusing in-camera. We could just aim in the general direction of the scene we want to capture, fire away and let PS take care of the details. <> Kenneth Waller -Original Message- From: William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? - Original Message - From: "David Zaninovic" Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > That's right, if you shoot raw and you captured all the info who cares > about the exposure, you can change exposure during raw > converting process and the result will be identical as if you compensated > the exposure correctly at the time of shooting. The > important thing to take care of is not to have blown highlights or shadow > go to pure black and matrix metering in flat light will > take care of that in most of the cases. I still would compensate for > black or white door but for the sake of discussion I don't > think it would make so much difference as you think. There you have it kids. Forget metering, accurate exposure doesn't matter anymore. Just fix it in Photoshop. William Robb PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
Re: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
Yes, just sit there feed the printer and don't do anything. - Original Message - From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 11:09 AM Subject: Re: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > - Original Message - > From: "mike wilson" > Subject: Re: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > > > > >> > > I don't know whether to laugh or cry. > > > > I'm still laughing. I've forwarded that one to the lab operators guild. > Share the humour and all that. > > William Robb > >
Re: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
Why would I want somebody changing my pictures ? I just need icc profile so I can see how it will look when printed. I certainly don't want somebody changing the color balance or anything else about the picture. That is the reason #1 I don't shoot film any more. - Original Message - From: "mike wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 11:01 AM Subject: Re: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > > > > From: "David Zaninovic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: 2005/05/23 Mon PM 02:14:40 GMT > > To: > > Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > > > Too bad printers are not needed with digital, it can be all done > > automatically. The only thing required is for printer to create > > good icc profile. > > I don't know whether to laugh or cry. > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: > > Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 6:27 PM > > Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > From: "David Zaninovic" > > > Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > > > > > > > > > Don't worry about correct exposure so much, what would printers do all > > > > day > > > > if everything was perfect. They would be out of work. :) > > > > > > We would be providing photographers with better pictures if they did their > > > end of the job correctly. > > > > > > William Robb > > > > > > > > > > > > - > Email sent from www.ntlworld.com > virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software > visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information > >
Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
Forget manual focusing too, autofocus is "good enough". :) - Original Message - From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 10:55 AM Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > - Original Message - > From: "David Zaninovic" > Subject: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? > > > > That's right, if you shoot raw and you captured all the info who cares > > about the exposure, you can change exposure during raw > > converting process and the result will be identical as if you compensated > > the exposure correctly at the time of shooting. The > > important thing to take care of is not to have blown highlights or shadow > > go to pure black and matrix metering in flat light will > > take care of that in most of the cases. I still would compensate for > > black or white door but for the sake of discussion I don't > > think it would make so much difference as you think. > > There you have it kids. > Forget metering, accurate exposure doesn't matter anymore. > Just fix it in Photoshop. > > William Robb > >
Re: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations?
- Original Message - From: "mike wilson" Subject: Re: Re: Understanding exposure? Recommendations? I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I'm still laughing. I've forwarded that one to the lab operators guild. Share the humour and all that. William Robb
