RE: Fixed lens digital cameras : Why not go larger than, 24x36?

[John Sessoms]

From: "J.C. O'Connell"


As long as the megapixels arent too great, say 24MP, I dont know
why a larger sensor is more expensive to make, it should be cheaper
than a small one intuitively. limiting the resolution would keep cost
down while still allowing for many advantages of larger format sensor.

Another cool camera would be a digital version of the 6x17.


The sensor chips are made on a circular silicon "wafer". You get fewer 
"full-frame" rectangles out of a given circular "wafer" than you do 
APS-C rectangles.


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Fixed lens digital cameras : Why not go larger than 24x36?

[Bob W]

> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
> P. J. Alling
> 
> Sales price might be a bit prohibitive unless your companies name is
> Leica, or maybe Hasselblad.
> 
> And speaking of Hasselblad, anyone want to over pay an outragious
> amount of money for a Sony NEX?
> 
> http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/0
> 9/new-term.html
> 
> (Linked just for the new term).
> 

Tasty! I want a poster-sized print of one of those, with The Hoff straddling
the lens barrel in his budgie-smugglers.

B


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Fixed lens digital cameras : Why not go larger than 24x36?

[P. J. Alling]

Sales price might be a bit prohibitive unless your companies name is 
Leica, or maybe Hasselblad.


And speaking of Hasselblad, anyone want to over pay an outragious amount 
of money for a Sony NEX?


http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/09/new-term.html

(Linked just for the new term).

On 9/19/2012 7:34 PM, Mark C wrote:
Like a digital version of a Fujifilm GSW 6x7 or 6x9 camera? That would 
be swt


Mark

On 9/19/2012 5:48 PM, J.C. O'Connell wrote:

NO, I mean a fixed lens digital camera with very large sensor

-
J.C.O'Connell
hifis...@gate.net
-

-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
l...@red4est.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 5:01 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Fixed lens digital cameras : Why not go larger than 24x36?

You mean like a 645D?

"J.C. O'Connell"  wrote:



-
J.C.O'Connell
hifis...@gate.net
-

If your gonna put a fixed lens on a camera, why not have the
sensor even bigger than 24x36?  Quality could increase
substantially






--
Don't lose heart, they might want to cut it out, and they'll want to avoid a 
lengthly search.


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Fixed lens digital cameras : Why not go larger than 24x36?

[Anthony Farr]

On 20 September 2012 10:03, Godfrey DiGiorgi  wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Mark C  wrote:
>> Like a digital version of a Fujifilm GSW 6x7 or 6x9 camera? That would be
>> swt
>
> It would be grand, but it would be very very costly. A big sensor like
> that is the most expensive component of the camera.
>
> I'd love a true 6x6 digital camera with a 75 mm lens. The available,
> new film cameras (Fuji GF670 $1600, or Voigtländer Bessa III $2995, or
> Rolleiflex TLR $5500) are already a great deal of money. Add a $10,000
> sensor/data system package ... Eventually, someone will make it, I'm
> sure.
>

Granted, they aren't fixed lens cameras, but in their configuration
some of the Alpas are functionally like fixed lens cameras.  They
don't look like they'd be very handy for quick change of lenses, and
extra lenses on their boards would be very UNhandy to carry about.
But a set up Alpa looks sweet.  I'd love to hit the streets with an
Alpa 12 TC, http://www.alpa.ch/en/products/cameras/camera-bodies/alpa-12-tc.html

It's got the kind of presence that says, "Never mind me, I'm just a
photographer going about my business.  I'm certainly not a creepy old
guy with a big, expensive black camera".

regards, Anthony

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Fixed lens digital cameras : Why not go larger than 24x36?

[Larry Colen]

Wow, you said it in English, I was lazy and said it in math.

On Sep 19, 2012, at 5:22 PM, David Parsons wrote:

> It's not the sensel density, it's the chip size.  The larger the chip,
> the fewer that you can fit onto standardized silicon wafers.  Since
> the defect rate is fairly constant across a wafer, having larger chips
> means that you have fewer chips per wafer, and with the defect rate, a
> smaller percentage of usable chips.
> 
> That's the reason why MFD is so expensive.
> 
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 8:11 PM, J.C. O'Connell  wrote:
>> As long as the megapixels arent too great, say 24MP, I dont know
>> why a larger sensor is more expensive to make, it should be cheaper
>> than a small one intuitively. limiting the resolution would keep cost
>> down while still allowing for many advantages of larger format sensor.
>> 
>> Another cool camera would be a digital version of the 6x17.
>> 
>> -
>> J.C.O'Connell
>> hifis...@gate.net
>> -
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
>> Godfrey DiGiorgi
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 8:04 PM
>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> Subject: Re: Fixed lens digital cameras : Why not go larger than 24x36?
>> 
>> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Mark C  wrote:
>>> Like a digital version of a Fujifilm GSW 6x7 or 6x9 camera? That would be
>>> swt
>> 
>> It would be grand, but it would be very very costly. A big sensor like
>> that is the most expensive component of the camera.
>> 
>> I'd love a true 6x6 digital camera with a 75 mm lens. The available,
>> new film cameras (Fuji GF670 $1600, or Voigtländer Bessa III $2995, or
>> Rolleiflex TLR $5500) are already a great deal of money. Add a $10,000
>> sensor/data system package ... Eventually, someone will make it, I'm
>> sure.
>> 
>> --
>> Godfrey
>>  godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com
>> 
>> --
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
>> follow the directions.
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
>> follow the directions.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> David Parsons Photography
> http://www.davidparsonsphoto.com
> 
> Aloha Photographer Photoblog
> http://alohaphotog.blogspot.com/
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.

--
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Fixed lens digital cameras : Why not go larger than 24x36?

[Larry Colen]

On Sep 19, 2012, at 5:11 PM, J.C. O'Connell wrote:

> As long as the megapixels arent too great, say 24MP, I dont know
> why a larger sensor is more expensive to make, it should be cheaper
> than a small one intuitively. limiting the resolution would keep cost
> down while still allowing for many advantages of larger format sensor.

The probability of errors is proportional to the area of the chip.  If there is 
a 1% chance of an error on any square centimeter, and you can put 150 1cm^2 
sensors on a wafer, but only 10 10cm^2 on a singe round wafer, you'll get about 
135 1cm^2 sensors, and 10*(.9^10) 10cm^2 sensors.

In short, out of each wafer you'll get fewer sensors, and each sensor will have 
a much higher chance of failure.

Then there is the economy of scale issue, the development of an APS sensor is 
amortized over millions of units, a MF sensor is amortized over thousands of 
units.


> 
> Another cool camera would be a digital version of the 6x17.
> 
> -
> J.C.O'Connell
> hifis...@gate.net
> -
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
> Godfrey DiGiorgi
> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 8:04 PM
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: Fixed lens digital cameras : Why not go larger than 24x36?
> 
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Mark C  wrote:
>> Like a digital version of a Fujifilm GSW 6x7 or 6x9 camera? That would be
>> swt
> 
> It would be grand, but it would be very very costly. A big sensor like
> that is the most expensive component of the camera.
> 
> I'd love a true 6x6 digital camera with a 75 mm lens. The available,
> new film cameras (Fuji GF670 $1600, or Voigtländer Bessa III $2995, or
> Rolleiflex TLR $5500) are already a great deal of money. Add a $10,000
> sensor/data system package ... Eventually, someone will make it, I'm
> sure.
> 
> -- 
> Godfrey
>  godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> follow the directions.
> 
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.

--
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Fixed lens digital cameras : Why not go larger than 24x36?

[David Parsons]

It's not the sensel density, it's the chip size.  The larger the chip,
the fewer that you can fit onto standardized silicon wafers.  Since
the defect rate is fairly constant across a wafer, having larger chips
means that you have fewer chips per wafer, and with the defect rate, a
smaller percentage of usable chips.

That's the reason why MFD is so expensive.

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 8:11 PM, J.C. O'Connell  wrote:
> As long as the megapixels arent too great, say 24MP, I dont know
> why a larger sensor is more expensive to make, it should be cheaper
> than a small one intuitively. limiting the resolution would keep cost
> down while still allowing for many advantages of larger format sensor.
>
> Another cool camera would be a digital version of the 6x17.
>
> -
> J.C.O'Connell
> hifis...@gate.net
> -
>
> -Original Message-
> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
> Godfrey DiGiorgi
> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 8:04 PM
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: Fixed lens digital cameras : Why not go larger than 24x36?
>
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Mark C  wrote:
>> Like a digital version of a Fujifilm GSW 6x7 or 6x9 camera? That would be
>> swt
>
> It would be grand, but it would be very very costly. A big sensor like
> that is the most expensive component of the camera.
>
> I'd love a true 6x6 digital camera with a 75 mm lens. The available,
> new film cameras (Fuji GF670 $1600, or Voigtländer Bessa III $2995, or
> Rolleiflex TLR $5500) are already a great deal of money. Add a $10,000
> sensor/data system package ... Eventually, someone will make it, I'm
> sure.
>
> --
> Godfrey
>   godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> follow the directions.
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.



-- 
David Parsons Photography
http://www.davidparsonsphoto.com

Aloha Photographer Photoblog
http://alohaphotog.blogspot.com/

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Fixed lens digital cameras : Why not go larger than 24x36?

[J.C. O'Connell]

As long as the megapixels arent too great, say 24MP, I dont know
why a larger sensor is more expensive to make, it should be cheaper
than a small one intuitively. limiting the resolution would keep cost
down while still allowing for many advantages of larger format sensor.

Another cool camera would be a digital version of the 6x17.

-
J.C.O'Connell
hifis...@gate.net
-

-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
Godfrey DiGiorgi
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 8:04 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Fixed lens digital cameras : Why not go larger than 24x36?

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Mark C  wrote:
> Like a digital version of a Fujifilm GSW 6x7 or 6x9 camera? That would be
> swt

It would be grand, but it would be very very costly. A big sensor like
that is the most expensive component of the camera.

I'd love a true 6x6 digital camera with a 75 mm lens. The available,
new film cameras (Fuji GF670 $1600, or Voigtländer Bessa III $2995, or
Rolleiflex TLR $5500) are already a great deal of money. Add a $10,000
sensor/data system package ... Eventually, someone will make it, I'm
sure.

-- 
Godfrey
  godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Fixed lens digital cameras : Why not go larger than 24x36?

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Mark C  wrote:
> Like a digital version of a Fujifilm GSW 6x7 or 6x9 camera? That would be
> swt

It would be grand, but it would be very very costly. A big sensor like
that is the most expensive component of the camera.

I'd love a true 6x6 digital camera with a 75 mm lens. The available,
new film cameras (Fuji GF670 $1600, or Voigtländer Bessa III $2995, or
Rolleiflex TLR $5500) are already a great deal of money. Add a $10,000
sensor/data system package ... Eventually, someone will make it, I'm
sure.

-- 
Godfrey
  godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Fixed lens digital cameras : Why not go larger than 24x36?

[J.C. O'Connell]

I wasnt thinking that large of sensor, but its a good idea if cost wasnt
prohibitive for the sensor alone...

-
J.C.O'Connell
hifis...@gate.net
-

-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Mark
C
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 7:34 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Fixed lens digital cameras : Why not go larger than 24x36?

Like a digital version of a Fujifilm GSW 6x7 or 6x9 camera? That would 
be swt

Mark

On 9/19/2012 5:48 PM, J.C. O'Connell wrote:
> NO, I mean a fixed lens digital camera with very large sensor
>
> -
> J.C.O'Connell
> hifis...@gate.net
> -
>
> -Original Message-
> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
> l...@red4est.com
> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 5:01 PM
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: Fixed lens digital cameras : Why not go larger than 24x36?
>
> You mean like a 645D?
>
> "J.C. O'Connell"  wrote:
>
>>
>> -
>> J.C.O'Connell
>> hifis...@gate.net
>> -
>>
>> If your gonna put a fixed lens on a camera, why not have the
>> sensor even bigger than 24x36?  Quality could increase
>> substantially


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Fixed lens digital cameras : Why not go larger than 24x36?

[Mark C]

Like a digital version of a Fujifilm GSW 6x7 or 6x9 camera? That would 
be swt


Mark

On 9/19/2012 5:48 PM, J.C. O'Connell wrote:

NO, I mean a fixed lens digital camera with very large sensor

-
J.C.O'Connell
hifis...@gate.net
-

-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
l...@red4est.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 5:01 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Fixed lens digital cameras : Why not go larger than 24x36?

You mean like a 645D?

"J.C. O'Connell"  wrote:



-
J.C.O'Connell
hifis...@gate.net
-

If your gonna put a fixed lens on a camera, why not have the
sensor even bigger than 24x36?  Quality could increase
substantially



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Fixed lens digital cameras : Why not go larger than 24x36?

[J.C. O'Connell]

NO, I mean a fixed lens digital camera with very large sensor

-
J.C.O'Connell
hifis...@gate.net
-

-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
l...@red4est.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 5:01 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Fixed lens digital cameras : Why not go larger than 24x36?

You mean like a 645D?

"J.C. O'Connell"  wrote:

>
>
>-
>J.C.O'Connell
>hifis...@gate.net
>-
>
>If your gonna put a fixed lens on a camera, why not have the 
>sensor even bigger than 24x36?  Quality could increase
>substantially

-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Fixed lens digital cameras : Why not go larger than 24x36?

[Larry Colen]

On Sep 19, 2012, at 2:01 PM, l...@red4est.com wrote:

> You mean like a 645D?

Oops, didn't notice the "fixed lens" bit until after I hit send.


> 
> "J.C. O'Connell"  wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> J.C.O'Connell
>> hifis...@gate.net
>> -
>> 
>> If your gonna put a fixed lens on a camera, why not have the 
>> sensor even bigger than 24x36?  Quality could increase
>> substantially
> 
> -- 
> Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.

--
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Fixed lens digital cameras : Why not go larger than 24x36?

[lrc]

You mean like a 645D?

"J.C. O'Connell"  wrote:

>
>
>-
>J.C.O'Connell
>hifis...@gate.net
>-
>
>If your gonna put a fixed lens on a camera, why not have the 
>sensor even bigger than 24x36?  Quality could increase
>substantially

-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Fixed lens digital cameras : Why not go larger than 24x36?

[J.C. O'Connell]

-
J.C.O'Connell
hifis...@gate.net
-

If your gonna put a fixed lens on a camera, why not have the 
sensor even bigger than 24x36?  Quality could increase substantially


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Calibrating light meters and digital cameras

[Bob W]

Thanks George,

I know how to use the meter, and I already have an L-308 and L-608. I'm
trying to understand the supposed benefits of digital meters and calibrating
them; nobody has been able to point out any benefits, so maybe there aren't
any, maybe it's just sales fluff. However, it's a good suggestion to rent
one, so I'll look into that. I'm in the UK so borrowlenses.com is no good to
me.

Bob

> -Original Message-
> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
> George Sinos
> Sent: 15 May 2012 20:18
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: Calibrating light meters and digital cameras
> 
> Bob -
> 
> After reading all of these replies, you're starting to get a lot of
> different ideas of how the meter can be used.
> 
> Before you spend a bunch of money on a meter, think about renting one
> from borrowlenses.com.
> 
> <http://www.borrowlenses.com/category/Lightmeters>
> 
> This page shows the two-week rental fee for a Sekonic 358 as $28.  The
> cost of that meter is a little over $300 at B&H.
> 
> You could try out a lot of ideas and see if they make any difference to
> you for a very little bit of money.  That would be money well spent if
> you decided that you didn't want to make the purchase.  If you did buy
> the meter, you could think of the rental fee as the cost of education.
> 
> gs
> 
> George Sinos
> 
> gsi...@gmail.com
> www.georgesphotos.net
> plus.georgesinos.com
> 
> 
> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Bob W  wrote:
> > The thread about exposure differences for film and digital set me
> > browsing the Sekonic site, where they now offer specifically digital
> > light meters <http://www.sekonic.com/Products/All/Overview.aspx>.
> >
> > Mine are both relics of the film days, including a L-308s and
> whatever
> > was the equivalent back then of the L-758 meters.
> >
> > I get a lot of use out of the L-308s and noting that they now do the
> > L-308DC I wonder if it's worthwhile to get one. The main difference
> > that interests me is calibration.
> >
> > Is anyone else here using a calibrated meter / camera combo? If so,
> > how much difference does it make, and is it easy to use or just
> > another damn thing getting in the way?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Bob
> >
> >
> > --
> > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> > PDML@pdml.net
> > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above
> and follow the directions.
> 
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> follow the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Calibrating light meters and digital cameras

[George Sinos]

Bob -

After reading all of these replies, you're starting to get a lot of
different ideas of how the meter can be used.

Before you spend a bunch of money on a meter, think about renting one
from borrowlenses.com.



This page shows the two-week rental fee for a Sekonic 358 as $28.  The
cost of that meter is a little over $300 at B&H.

You could try out a lot of ideas and see if they make any difference
to you for a very little bit of money.  That would be money well spent
if you decided that you didn't want to make the purchase.  If you did
buy the meter, you could think of the rental fee as the cost of
education.

gs

George Sinos

gsi...@gmail.com
www.georgesphotos.net
plus.georgesinos.com


On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Bob W  wrote:
> The thread about exposure differences for film and digital set me browsing
> the Sekonic site, where they now offer specifically digital light meters
> .
>
> Mine are both relics of the film days, including a L-308s and whatever was
> the equivalent back then of the L-758 meters.
>
> I get a lot of use out of the L-308s and noting that they now do the L-308DC
> I wonder if it's worthwhile to get one. The main difference that interests
> me is calibration.
>
> Is anyone else here using a calibrated meter / camera combo? If so, how much
> difference does it make, and is it easy to use or just another damn thing
> getting in the way?
>
> Thanks,
> Bob
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Calibrating light meters and digital cameras

[Larry Colen]

thanks.


On May 15, 2012, at 5:15 AM, Darren Addy wrote:

>> I seriously don't see what  light meter will get you that a little creative 
>> work with the camera and histogram won't.
> 
> Let me Google that for you: http://www.scantips.com/lights/metering3.html
> See also: http://www.scantips.com/lights/metering2.html and
> http://www.scantips.com/lights/metering.html
> 
> Sekonic classroom:
> What is a Histogram:
> http://www.sekonic.com/Classroom/WhatIsaHistogram/WhatIsaHistogram.aspx
> 4 Ways they Compare (Histograms & Lightmeters):
> http://www.sekonic.com/Classroom/WhatIsaHistogram/4WaysTheyCompare.aspx
> Push/Pull Processing:
> http://www.sekonic.com/Classroom/WhatIsaHistogram/PushPullProcessing.aspx
> Do You Need a Lightmeter:
> http://www.sekonic.com/Classroom/WhatIsaHistogram/DoYouNeedaLightMeter.aspx
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.

--
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Calibrating light meters and digital cameras

[Larry Colen]

On May 15, 2012, at 6:00 AM, Bruce Walker wrote:

> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 12:34 AM, Larry Colen  wrote:
>> I was asking a serious question here.
> 
> Larry, believe it or not, I was answering you seriously. My silly
> scenario has been repeated at many studio workshop shoots I've
> attended. And it contains the basic truth that you aren't yet
> grokking. But I hope I may be close to a breakthrough. :)
> 
> Larry, I'm taking the time to answer you at length because I know you
> to be a serious student of photography, like myself. You dig
> deep--deeper than most--for understanding. I totally get that because
> I spend many hours experimenting with basic principals myself in order
> to get better results.

Thank you.

> 
> 
> Now, perspective: my use of incident metering is confined almost
> entirely to the studio environment. I've used my meter outdoors too,
> and gotten good results, but the payback isn't as obvious for me so I
> don't do it. I'm also using an incident *flash* meter.

When I bought a big pile of gear from a widow friend, whose husband had done 
photography, there was a flash meter in the pile.  I will have to experiment 
with it.

> 
> So, no, I don't advocate it for solving the sunlight-off-silver-car
> issues that Doug has.

That makes sens.

> 
> 
> Thought experiment time. Your scene:
> 
> - white seamless background
> - black clothing on model with fair skin

I meant  black background black clothing, white background white clothing.

> 
> Goal: light this scene so detail is reasonably retained in both skin
> and black clothing. Some artistic latitude is allowed.
> 
> How to set exposure? After initial light placement, here are the usual ways:
> 
> 1. take a shot, study histo, adjust until highlights are not blown,
> don't worry about too-dark areas.
> 2. take a shot, study histo, adjust until dark areas are detailed,
> don't worry about blown-out areas.
> 3. use HDR: combine 1 & 2 and bracket. layer results later and tone-map.
> 
> 1 and 2 are fine for art and many fashion shots. If that's what you're
> after, great! We're done here and you and I can go our separate ways.
> 
> 3 is a fine method too and works for landscapes and architectural interiors.
> 
> But! #3 will not work for moving subjects, like models (or racing cars).
> 
> Wait, there's a method #4 ...

This is starting to get me what I was asking for.

> 
> 4. roam the scene with an incident meter and measure the light falling
> on it. Adjust the light sources by turning them up or down, moving
> them, adding a reflector, a scrim, block too-bright sources with
> gobos. Keep light ratios in mind: you may want to light one side of
> subject twice as brightly as other for some shape definition. (This is
> what the lighting guys in TV and film do. Ask them if histograms are
> enough.)

Now, we are getting to the meat of the matter.  An incident light meter will 
measure the intensity of the light field in the whole space.  That is what a 
light meter will get me that the histogram won't.  There is some question as to 
whether a clever individual could use their camera to obtain similar results, 
by setting it up and checking the histogram of the whole scene, or 
photographing grey cards (or better yet, grey spheres) in any place in the 
scene.

Hmm, that gives me an idea for a gadget.  A small (8-10") 18% neutral grey 
umbrella mounted so that it is facing the camera a couple feet away from the 
lens to get histograms of the light intensity throughout a set.  It probably 
wouldn't actually work better than an expodisc though.

> 
> Basically, you reduce the overall contrast of the scene until all
> camera-facing parts of the scene have some light falling on them. You
> are attempting to contain the dynamic range to 6-7 stops or so to
> match what your sensor can handle.

Now, I understand what you are using the meter for, to adjust the light 
intensity, not to measure the light intensity.

> 
> Then, and this the key thing: you measure the *brightest* light
> falling on your scene, often the subject's face. By definition, all
> points in your scene will return light the same or less than that. You
> point your meter at the light source itself to do this, and you
> measure this right at the subject. You cannot trust reflected light.
> 
> If you set your camera manually to the aperture you get from the
> meter, you will not have blow-outs (nothing returns light brighter
> than the brightest light falling on it unless something lases). And
> you will get detail in the darker objects because you took care to get
> light on them too and they are within your sensor's range.
> 
> 
> 
>>> Definitely, that's one of the big advantages. But there's more.
>>> 
>>> The histogram is fooled entirely by the scene as it's showing you
>>> what's reflecting from it. If the scene is a white dress against a
>>> white backdrop, or a largely black business suit against a black
>>> backdrop, I wish you good luck histogramming that.
>> 
>> I dunno 

Re: Calibrating light meters and digital cameras

[David J Brooks]

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Bob W  wrote:

>
> Is anyone else here using a calibrated meter / camera combo? If so, how much
> difference does it make, and is it easy to use or just another damn thing
> getting in the way?
>
> Thanks,
> Bob

I still have my Minolta IVF but i find it underexposes from what the
digital meter is giving me.

Dave
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.



-- 
Documenting Life in Rural Ontario.
www.caughtinmotion.com
http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/
York Region, Ontario, Canada

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Calibrating light meters and digital cameras

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

Proper exposure requires several bits of information:

- how much light is available to work with
- how a particular recording medium reacts to light
- what is important in the scene and where to place it in the range
that the medium can record
- what is unimportant in the scene and when/how to ignore it (or hide it)

In-camera meters operate on reflected light, which alters their
assessment of how much light is available as the dynamics of
reflection and absorption in the scene also causes variations in the
meter reading. Live Histograms, review histograms, saturation/clipping
blinkies are all tools to allow you to assess what the meter is
seeing. Useful tools, but you still have to understand how scene's
dynamics influence total exposure to make best use of them, and what
exactly they are reading from relative to your desired output product
from the camera.

Hand-held meters can operate on both reflected and incident light.
Incident light metering nets a more direct measure of the light
falling on a subject regardless of subject reflectivity, relative to a
calibration constant (usually 18% average reflectance). Reflected
light meters are subject to the same considerations as in-camera
meters, but can be used with optics to limit the area they are
measuring, etc, for accurate assessment of the light values and
comparison of same.

I've never seen any useful benefit from trying to calibrate meters to
digital cameras other than very casually. I more often take the
strategy of using a good, reliable incident light meter as a reference
against which to understand the behavior of the camera's sensor and
metering system. A hand-held incident light meter is a simple thing
and easily understood. I can use that understanding to determine
whether the ISO settings on the camera are conservative or optimistic,
what the dynamic range is in approximation for each ISO setting, and
what the camera's metering calibration is set for. A couple of quick
test shots with a triple-target (black, white, gray) with the camera
set to the reference meter's recommendations for each ISO setting, and
noting what the camera's meter recommends by comparison, provides all
this information.

My reference hand held meter is a Sekonic L328. I'd like to upgrade to
the L-358 model sometime as it has a much larger integrating dome, a
larger range, and is more accurate. I use the L-328 a lot: it provides
superb light readings for use with all my cameras.
-- 
Godfrey
  godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Calibrating light meters and digital cameras

[John Sessoms]

From: Larry Colen


I don't have time for a full on discussion right now, but my issue
with incident light meters is that they don't take into account the
reflectivity of the subject.


The incident meter tells you how much light is falling on the subject.

Expose for the amount of light that's falling on the subject & your 
histograms will be as solid as the Rock of Gibraltar.


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Calibrating light meters and digital cameras

[Bruce Walker]

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 12:34 AM, Larry Colen  wrote:
> I was asking a serious question here.

Larry, believe it or not, I was answering you seriously. My silly
scenario has been repeated at many studio workshop shoots I've
attended. And it contains the basic truth that you aren't yet
grokking. But I hope I may be close to a breakthrough. :)

Larry, I'm taking the time to answer you at length because I know you
to be a serious student of photography, like myself. You dig
deep--deeper than most--for understanding. I totally get that because
I spend many hours experimenting with basic principals myself in order
to get better results.


Now, perspective: my use of incident metering is confined almost
entirely to the studio environment. I've used my meter outdoors too,
and gotten good results, but the payback isn't as obvious for me so I
don't do it. I'm also using an incident *flash* meter.

So, no, I don't advocate it for solving the sunlight-off-silver-car
issues that Doug has.


Thought experiment time. Your scene:

- white seamless background
- black clothing on model with fair skin

Goal: light this scene so detail is reasonably retained in both skin
and black clothing. Some artistic latitude is allowed.

How to set exposure? After initial light placement, here are the usual ways:

1. take a shot, study histo, adjust until highlights are not blown,
don't worry about too-dark areas.
2. take a shot, study histo, adjust until dark areas are detailed,
don't worry about blown-out areas.
3. use HDR: combine 1 & 2 and bracket. layer results later and tone-map.

1 and 2 are fine for art and many fashion shots. If that's what you're
after, great! We're done here and you and I can go our separate ways.

3 is a fine method too and works for landscapes and architectural interiors.

But! #3 will not work for moving subjects, like models (or racing cars).

Wait, there's a method #4 ...

4. roam the scene with an incident meter and measure the light falling
on it. Adjust the light sources by turning them up or down, moving
them, adding a reflector, a scrim, block too-bright sources with
gobos. Keep light ratios in mind: you may want to light one side of
subject twice as brightly as other for some shape definition. (This is
what the lighting guys in TV and film do. Ask them if histograms are
enough.)

Basically, you reduce the overall contrast of the scene until all
camera-facing parts of the scene have some light falling on them. You
are attempting to contain the dynamic range to 6-7 stops or so to
match what your sensor can handle.

Then, and this the key thing: you measure the *brightest* light
falling on your scene, often the subject's face. By definition, all
points in your scene will return light the same or less than that. You
point your meter at the light source itself to do this, and you
measure this right at the subject. You cannot trust reflected light.

If you set your camera manually to the aperture you get from the
meter, you will not have blow-outs (nothing returns light brighter
than the brightest light falling on it unless something lases). And
you will get detail in the darker objects because you took care to get
light on them too and they are within your sensor's range.



>> Definitely, that's one of the big advantages. But there's more.
>>
>> The histogram is fooled entirely by the scene as it's showing you
>> what's reflecting from it. If the scene is a white dress against a
>> white backdrop, or a largely black business suit against a black
>> backdrop, I wish you good luck histogramming that.
>
> I dunno about you, but my K-5 isn't glued to the tripod that's nailed to
> the floor.  If I've got a tricky situation I have to histogram, I'll just
> carry the camera over close enough that it pretty much fills the screen,
> take a photo and look at the histogram.

That still won't help you. It's still the same old reflected light.


>> The meter OTOH tells you the correct exposure for the light actually
>> hitting the scene. Put your meter under the model's chin, pop your
>> lights, read off the exposure, set it and you are done. It doesn't
>> matter the clothing or skin colour, the textures, the backdrop,
>> nothin'. You may have issues with hotspots in the scene or areas that
>> are too dark, but that's lighting design. You need to add reflectors
>> to get fill into too dark areas or add gobos to solve hotspots, but
>> that doesn't alter the basic exposure.
>
> I'm confused here.  Because if I set up the lights, and I have two scenes.
> One of which has a black backdrop, perhaps cut velvet so there is subtle
> details in the dark, and a model wearing dark clothes, and a hat, with their
> face in the shadow. The other has white cut velvet, and a blond, fair
> skinned model, wearing a white satin dress with white lace and embroidery,
> I'm going to need to expose the scene completely differently, even if the
> incident meter says the same thing with the same lights.

Nope. One exposure. Once the lights

Re: Calibrating light meters and digital cameras

[Darren Addy]

> I seriously don't see what  light meter will get you that a little creative 
> work with the camera and histogram won't.

Let me Google that for you: http://www.scantips.com/lights/metering3.html
See also: http://www.scantips.com/lights/metering2.html and
http://www.scantips.com/lights/metering.html

Sekonic classroom:
What is a Histogram:
http://www.sekonic.com/Classroom/WhatIsaHistogram/WhatIsaHistogram.aspx
4 Ways they Compare (Histograms & Lightmeters):
http://www.sekonic.com/Classroom/WhatIsaHistogram/4WaysTheyCompare.aspx
Push/Pull Processing:
http://www.sekonic.com/Classroom/WhatIsaHistogram/PushPullProcessing.aspx
Do You Need a Lightmeter:
http://www.sekonic.com/Classroom/WhatIsaHistogram/DoYouNeedaLightMeter.aspx

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Calibrating light meters and digital cameras

[Paul Stenquist]

On May 15, 2012, at 2:17 AM, Bob W wrote:

>> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
>> Larry Colen
> [...]
>> 
>> People seem to have taken my question as a challenge to their adulthood
>> or something.  I seriously don't see what  light meter will get you
>> that a little creative work with the camera and histogram won't.
>> 
> 
> Meanwhile, nobody's answering my actual question. 

I have a calibrated spot meter that I used when shooting medium format film. 
But it hasn't been checked in years, and it's almost as large as my camera, so 
I don't use it any more. But having a pro meter service calibrate the equipment 
does bring some peace of mind in those one-chance situations. Most of the DPs 
who work in Holly wood have their meters checked on a regular basis.

> 
> Bienvenue a l'internet.
> 
> B
> 
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Calibrating light meters and digital cameras

[Paul Stenquist]

On May 15, 2012, at 12:34 AM, Larry Colen wrote:

> I was asking a serious question here.  I grew up using the meter in my 
> camera, or occasionally the luna pro, or some other meter.  Once I learned 
> about the histogram I was blown away by how much more information it gave me. 
>  It's the difference between a scalar and a vector, the light meter just 
> gives you a single number, but the histogram gives you a lot more information 
> across the whole range, and in each color channel.  Not only that, you don't 
> have to worry about reciprocity, not being able to see the meter in the low 
> light, you get pretty much exactly what the sensor is seeing (modulo jpeg 
> processing, a huge gripe of mine).
> 
> People seem to have taken my question as a challenge to their adulthood or 
> something.  I seriously don't see what  light meter will get you that a 
> little creative work with the camera and histogram won't. 
> 
> On May 14, 2012, at 7:44 PM, Bruce Walker wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Mark Roberts
>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Bruce Walker wrote:
>>> 
 Bob and Darren have actually said all that needs to be said in defense
 of using a meter, and nothing more needs to be said, so here I go ...
 
 You're in the studio. There's seamless setup, the model has come out
 of makeup and hair and is raring to go. The studio costs $50 an hour.
 So does the model. The lights are setup: a couple on the background to
 blow it to white, two on the model.
 
 Larry: I'l take a test shot.
 Model: okay.
 L: POP
 L: hang on, I'm checking the histogram.
 L: ...
 L: hmmm. I think that's underexposed. Let me fix that.
 L: POP
 L: hang on, I'm checking the histogram again.
 L: Um. That might be overexposed. Shit, there's a huge spike at the
 right. WTF?
 M: I think my lipstick is smeared. 
> 
> You are also assuming that when setting up the lights, you don't have anybody 
> to stand in place for a couple of minutes while you adjust the lights, and 
> take a few test shots to check the exposure.
> 
> Which is right up there with doing the whole expensive shoot, and afterwards 
> finding that every shot of the white dress is blown out because you never 
> checked the histograms or blinkies.
> 
> Or, taking photos of flowers and finding that the blue channel, or the red, 
> is completely blown out, because the meter averages all of the colors 
> together. 
> 
> 
 
 Versus:
 
 Bruce: I'm going to meter the light.
 Model: okay.
 B: POP
 B: f/8
 B: okay, Shel, I want you to pout. Great! Now smile. Super! ...
> 
> My experience has more often been along the lines of..  The big light is 6 
> feet away, I'm shooting through an umbrella, ISO 80, let's try f/16.
> POP
> hmm, looks like I'm have a stop under.
> 
> I've actually been boggled by the number of times that I'll do a SCWAG on the 
> exposure, and nail it dead on.
> 
>>> 
>>> Of course, Bruce, in a studio situation, that only applies to the very
>>> first shot. After that you've got the exposure nailed and you just go
>>> on. I think Bill's example of using the meter to get lighting ratios
>>> is the real advantage of an incident meter here.
> 
> Serious question:  Rather than spending $BIGNUM on a light meter, why not get 
> an ExpoDisc, or the equivalent, and use the the camera?
> 
>> 
>> Definitely, that's one of the big advantages. But there's more.
>> 
>> The histogram is fooled entirely by the scene as it's showing you
>> what's reflecting from it. If the scene is a white dress against a
>> white backdrop, or a largely black business suit against a black
>> backdrop, I wish you good luck histogramming that.
> 
> I dunno about you, but my K-5 isn't glued to the tripod that's nailed to the 
> floor.  If I've got a tricky situation I have to histogram, I'll just carry 
> the camera over close enough that it pretty much fills the screen, take a 
> photo and look at the histogram.
>> 
>> The meter OTOH tells you the correct exposure for the light actually
>> hitting the scene. Put your meter under the model's chin, pop your
>> lights, read off the exposure, set it and you are done. It doesn't
>> matter the clothing or skin colour, the textures, the backdrop,
>> nothin'. You may have issues with hotspots in the scene or areas that
>> are too dark, but that's lighting design. You need to add reflectors
>> to get fill into too dark areas or add gobos to solve hotspots, but
>> that doesn't alter the basic exposure.
> 
> I'm confused here.  Because if I set up the lights, and I have two scenes. 
> One of which has a black backdrop, perhaps cut velvet so there is subtle 
> details in the dark, and a model wearing dark clothes, and a hat, with their 
> face in the shadow. The other has white cut velvet, and a blond, fair skinned 
> model, wearing a white satin dress with white lace and embroidery, I'm going 
> to need to expose the scene completely differently, even i

Re: Calibrating light meters and digital cameras

[Paul Stenquist]

On May 14, 2012, at 10:44 PM, Bruce Walker wrote:

> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Mark Roberts
>  wrote:
>> 
>> Bruce Walker wrote:
>> 
>>> Bob and Darren have actually said all that needs to be said in defense
>>> of using a meter, and nothing more needs to be said, so here I go ...
>>> 
>>> You're in the studio. There's seamless setup, the model has come out
>>> of makeup and hair and is raring to go. The studio costs $50 an hour.
>>> So does the model. The lights are setup: a couple on the background to
>>> blow it to white, two on the model.
>>> 
>>> Larry: I'l take a test shot.
>>> Model: okay.
>>> L: POP
>>> L: hang on, I'm checking the histogram.
>>> L: ...
>>> L: hmmm. I think that's underexposed. Let me fix that.
>>> L: POP
>>> L: hang on, I'm checking the histogram again.
>>> L: Um. That might be overexposed. Shit, there's a huge spike at the
>>> right. WTF?
>>> M: I think my lipstick is smeared. 
>>> 
>>> Versus:
>>> 
>>> Bruce: I'm going to meter the light.
>>> Model: okay.
>>> B: POP
>>> B: f/8
>>> B: okay, Shel, I want you to pout. Great! Now smile. Super! ...
>> 
>> Of course, Bruce, in a studio situation, that only applies to the very
>> first shot. After that you've got the exposure nailed and you just go
>> on. I think Bill's example of using the meter to get lighting ratios
>> is the real advantage of an incident meter here.
> 
> Definitely, that's one of the big advantages. But there's more.
> 
> The histogram is fooled entirely by the scene as it's showing you
> what's reflecting from it. If the scene is a white dress against a
> white backdrop, or a largely black business suit against a black
> backdrop, I wish you good luck histogramming that.
> 
> The meter OTOH tells you the correct exposure for the light actually
> hitting the scene. Put your meter under the model's chin, pop your
> lights, read off the exposure, set it and you are done. It doesn't
> matter the clothing or skin colour, the textures, the backdrop,
> nothin'. You may have issues with hotspots in the scene or areas that
> are too dark, but that's lighting design. You need to add reflectors
> to get fill into too dark areas or add gobos to solve hotspots, but
> that doesn't alter the basic exposure.
> 
> Anyways, this is one of those "you get it or you don't" issues, and
> can't be resolved to everyone's satisfaction here. I bought a digital
> flash meter and use it regularly after completely fscking up too many
> frames to count. I'm a happy camper now because when I work, I design
> my lighting and I carefully measure to get the results I want.
> 

I use an incident flash meter in the studio as well. It's foolproof.
Paul


> --
> -bmw
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Calibrating light meters and digital cameras

[Postmaster]

Doug Franklin wrote:

>When you're shooting action, especially outdoors, you're going to 
>take one in the forehead every so often, no matter what your technique.

Wisdom!

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Calibrating light meters and digital cameras

[Bob W]

> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
> Peter Loveday
> 
> I have an L-308s, I hadn't actually seen that they had new "digital"
> versions out.
> 
> As far as I can see, it's more or less just the added ability to
> calibrate that's different?  

There are some video / cine-related things as well.

> I don't get the impression it meters any
> differently to suit "digital" at all, more that you can calibrate it to
> match your (presumably incorrect ISO rated) digital sensor?
> 

Seems to be. The L-758 on the other hand has a much more complicated way of
calibrating but can adjust the indicated exposure automatically to make best
use of the dynamic range of the camera's sensor in the given conditions. 

It's very, very expensive though and not as convenient to carry around as
the L-308 (which is why I bought the L-308).

> I've never really had any problems using mine with my DSLRs, so I'm not
> really that convinced I need to upgrade.
> 

I'm coming to the same conclusion.

B


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Calibrating light meters and digital cameras

[Peter Loveday]

I have an L-308s, I hadn't actually seen that they had new "digital" 
versions out.


As far as I can see, it's more or less just the added ability to calibrate 
that's different?  I don't get the impression it meters any differently to 
suit "digital" at all, more that you can calibrate it to match your 
(presumably incorrect ISO rated) digital sensor?


I've never really had any problems using mine with my DSLRs, so I'm not 
really that convinced I need to upgrade.


- Peter


-Original Message- 
From: Bob W

Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 3:47 PM
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'
Subject: RE: Calibrating light meters and digital cameras


From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
Larry Colen

[...]


People seem to have taken my question as a challenge to their adulthood
or something.  I seriously don't see what  light meter will get you
that a little creative work with the camera and histogram won't.



Meanwhile, nobody's answering my actual question.

Bienvenue a l'internet.

B


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
follow the directions.



-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2171 / Virus Database: 2425/4999 - Release Date: 05/14/12 



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Calibrating light meters and digital cameras

[Bob W]

> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
> Larry Colen
[...]
> 
> People seem to have taken my question as a challenge to their adulthood
> or something.  I seriously don't see what  light meter will get you
> that a little creative work with the camera and histogram won't.
> 

Meanwhile, nobody's answering my actual question. 

Bienvenue a l'internet.

B


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Calibrating light meters and digital cameras

[Larry Colen]

I was asking a serious question here.  I grew up using the meter in my camera, 
or occasionally the luna pro, or some other meter.  Once I learned about the 
histogram I was blown away by how much more information it gave me.  It's the 
difference between a scalar and a vector, the light meter just gives you a 
single number, but the histogram gives you a lot more information across the 
whole range, and in each color channel.  Not only that, you don't have to worry 
about reciprocity, not being able to see the meter in the low light, you get 
pretty much exactly what the sensor is seeing (modulo jpeg processing, a huge 
gripe of mine).

People seem to have taken my question as a challenge to their adulthood or 
something.  I seriously don't see what  light meter will get you that a little 
creative work with the camera and histogram won't. 

On May 14, 2012, at 7:44 PM, Bruce Walker wrote:

> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Mark Roberts
>  wrote:
>> 
>> Bruce Walker wrote:
>> 
>>> Bob and Darren have actually said all that needs to be said in defense
>>> of using a meter, and nothing more needs to be said, so here I go ...
>>> 
>>> You're in the studio. There's seamless setup, the model has come out
>>> of makeup and hair and is raring to go. The studio costs $50 an hour.
>>> So does the model. The lights are setup: a couple on the background to
>>> blow it to white, two on the model.
>>> 
>>> Larry: I'l take a test shot.
>>> Model: okay.
>>> L: POP
>>> L: hang on, I'm checking the histogram.
>>> L: ...
>>> L: hmmm. I think that's underexposed. Let me fix that.
>>> L: POP
>>> L: hang on, I'm checking the histogram again.
>>> L: Um. That might be overexposed. Shit, there's a huge spike at the
>>> right. WTF?
>>> M: I think my lipstick is smeared. 

You are also assuming that when setting up the lights, you don't have anybody 
to stand in place for a couple of minutes while you adjust the lights, and take 
a few test shots to check the exposure.

Which is right up there with doing the whole expensive shoot, and afterwards 
finding that every shot of the white dress is blown out because you never 
checked the histograms or blinkies.

Or, taking photos of flowers and finding that the blue channel, or the red, is 
completely blown out, because the meter averages all of the colors together. 


>>> 
>>> Versus:
>>> 
>>> Bruce: I'm going to meter the light.
>>> Model: okay.
>>> B: POP
>>> B: f/8
>>> B: okay, Shel, I want you to pout. Great! Now smile. Super! ...

My experience has more often been along the lines of..  The big light is 6 feet 
away, I'm shooting through an umbrella, ISO 80, let's try f/16.
POP
hmm, looks like I'm have a stop under.

I've actually been boggled by the number of times that I'll do a SCWAG on the 
exposure, and nail it dead on.

>> 
>> Of course, Bruce, in a studio situation, that only applies to the very
>> first shot. After that you've got the exposure nailed and you just go
>> on. I think Bill's example of using the meter to get lighting ratios
>> is the real advantage of an incident meter here.

Serious question:  Rather than spending $BIGNUM on a light meter, why not get 
an ExpoDisc, or the equivalent, and use the the camera?

> 
> Definitely, that's one of the big advantages. But there's more.
> 
> The histogram is fooled entirely by the scene as it's showing you
> what's reflecting from it. If the scene is a white dress against a
> white backdrop, or a largely black business suit against a black
> backdrop, I wish you good luck histogramming that.

I dunno about you, but my K-5 isn't glued to the tripod that's nailed to the 
floor.  If I've got a tricky situation I have to histogram, I'll just carry the 
camera over close enough that it pretty much fills the screen, take a photo and 
look at the histogram.
> 
> The meter OTOH tells you the correct exposure for the light actually
> hitting the scene. Put your meter under the model's chin, pop your
> lights, read off the exposure, set it and you are done. It doesn't
> matter the clothing or skin colour, the textures, the backdrop,
> nothin'. You may have issues with hotspots in the scene or areas that
> are too dark, but that's lighting design. You need to add reflectors
> to get fill into too dark areas or add gobos to solve hotspots, but
> that doesn't alter the basic exposure.

I'm confused here.  Because if I set up the lights, and I have two scenes. One 
of which has a black backdrop, perhaps cut velvet so there is subtle details in 
the dark, and a model wearing dark clothes, and a hat, with their face in the 
shadow. The other has white cut velvet, and a blond, fair skinned model, 
wearing a white satin dress with white lace and embroidery, I'm going to need 
to expose the scene completely differently, even if the incident meter says the 
same thing with the same lights.  I'll want to adjust the exposure to get as 
much detail, and as little noise, on the sensor/in the raw file, and then I'll 
process the the final imag

Re: Calibrating light meters and digital cameras

[Doug Franklin]

On 2012-05-14 22:44, Bruce Walker wrote:


Anyways, this is one of those "you get it or you don't" issues, and


Well, it's partly that, and it's partly a "what you shoot" issue.  When 
you're shooting action, especially outdoors, you're going to take one in 
the forehead every so often, no matter what your technique.


And some subjects present reflectivity problems that an incident meter 
can't do much to help with, especially in an action situation.  Shot a 
race a year or two ago where most of the cars were normal racecar 
livery, but one was silver metallic (think mirror) and one was gold 
metallic (think Crown Jewels polish).  They presented some difficulties.


But I'll surely agree that an incident reading is a good place to start 
in most any photographic situation, assuming you're not doing "art for 
art's sake" sorts of stuff. :)


--
Doug "Lefty" Franklin
NutDriver Racing
http://NutDriver.org
Facebook "NutDriver Racing"
Sponsored by Murphy


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Calibrating light meters and digital cameras

[Doug Franklin]

On 2012-05-14 17:43, Bob W wrote:


You can't bracket a once-in-a-lifetime shot. If your subject is moving and
your timing is critical bracketing is not a viable option.


I don't remember Larry invoking bracketing as a solution, I'm just using 
this quotation as an entree' to reply. :-)


When shooting the races, even with all of the automation the camera 
system can provide, I find I get the best results when I preset as much 
as possible and leave as little as possible to the discretion of the 
automation.  Typically, I'll take some spot and average readings with 
the camera to get a feel for where things are right now when I get to a 
new position, or something big changes lighting-wise.  Then I'll set the 
camera in M mode.  And then I'll periodically get hosed when some car 
produces a big reflection of the sun, pointed right at me.


Sometimes I use AF, and sometimes I don't.  It's often a burden or a 
whole-hog disadvantage to use it, mostly due to "lock time" problems. 
Everything you ask the camera to do for you requires time.  Sometimes, 
that's too much time, even it's it's under a second.  For example, in 
many situations, the AF is way behind because of all the cogitating it 
does when I trip the shutter.  So much, that, if I don't compensate, on 
a scene with two fast cars thirty feet apart, if I'd trip the shutter 
when the AF confirms the first car in focus, the shot would actually 
have the second car in focus.  We're talking a few dozen milliseconds, 
or less, here biasing the shot.


It was a big enough PITA with fully manual cameras, and it's worse with 
automated ones, even in "M" mode.  At least with the manual cameras I 
could predict the lock time, because it was always the same.  The more 
modern, more automated cameras seem to do more navel gazing before 
allowing the shutter to actually "fall".  I can only speak to Pentax 
cameras, since I haven't used the competition.


--
Doug "Lefty" Franklin
NutDriver Racing
http://NutDriver.org
Facebook "NutDriver Racing"
Sponsored by Murphy


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Calibrating light meters and digital cameras

[Bruce Walker]

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Mark Roberts
 wrote:
>
> Bruce Walker wrote:
>
> >Bob and Darren have actually said all that needs to be said in defense
> >of using a meter, and nothing more needs to be said, so here I go ...
> >
> >You're in the studio. There's seamless setup, the model has come out
> >of makeup and hair and is raring to go. The studio costs $50 an hour.
> >So does the model. The lights are setup: a couple on the background to
> >blow it to white, two on the model.
> >
> >Larry: I'l take a test shot.
> >Model: okay.
> >L: POP
> >L: hang on, I'm checking the histogram.
> >L: ...
> >L: hmmm. I think that's underexposed. Let me fix that.
> >L: POP
> >L: hang on, I'm checking the histogram again.
> >L: Um. That might be overexposed. Shit, there's a huge spike at the
> > right. WTF?
> >M: I think my lipstick is smeared. 
> >
> >Versus:
> >
> >Bruce: I'm going to meter the light.
> >Model: okay.
> >B: POP
> >B: f/8
> >B: okay, Shel, I want you to pout. Great! Now smile. Super! ...
>
> Of course, Bruce, in a studio situation, that only applies to the very
> first shot. After that you've got the exposure nailed and you just go
> on. I think Bill's example of using the meter to get lighting ratios
> is the real advantage of an incident meter here.

Definitely, that's one of the big advantages. But there's more.

The histogram is fooled entirely by the scene as it's showing you
what's reflecting from it. If the scene is a white dress against a
white backdrop, or a largely black business suit against a black
backdrop, I wish you good luck histogramming that.

The meter OTOH tells you the correct exposure for the light actually
hitting the scene. Put your meter under the model's chin, pop your
lights, read off the exposure, set it and you are done. It doesn't
matter the clothing or skin colour, the textures, the backdrop,
nothin'. You may have issues with hotspots in the scene or areas that
are too dark, but that's lighting design. You need to add reflectors
to get fill into too dark areas or add gobos to solve hotspots, but
that doesn't alter the basic exposure.

Anyways, this is one of those "you get it or you don't" issues, and
can't be resolved to everyone's satisfaction here. I bought a digital
flash meter and use it regularly after completely fscking up too many
frames to count. I'm a happy camper now because when I work, I design
my lighting and I carefully measure to get the results I want.

--
-bmw

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Calibrating light meters and digital cameras

[Mark Roberts]

Bruce Walker wrote:

>Bob and Darren have actually said all that needs to be said in defense
>of using a meter, and nothing more needs to be said, so here I go ...
>
>You're in the studio. There's seamless setup, the model has come out
>of makeup and hair and is raring to go. The studio costs $50 an hour.
>So does the model. The lights are setup: a couple on the background to
>blow it to white, two on the model.
>
>Larry: I'l take a test shot.
>Model: okay.
>L: POP
>L: hang on, I'm checking the histogram.
>L: ...
>L: hmmm. I think that's underexposed. Let me fix that.
>L: POP
>L: hang on, I'm checking the histogram again.
>L: Um. That might be overexposed. Shit, there's a huge spike at the right. WTF?
>M: I think my lipstick is smeared. 
>
>Versus:
>
>Bruce: I'm going to meter the light.
>Model: okay.
>B: POP
>B: f/8
>B: okay, Shel, I want you to pout. Great! Now smile. Super! ...

Of course, Bruce, in a studio situation, that only applies to the very
first shot. After that you've got the exposure nailed and you just go
on. I think Bill's example of using the meter to get lighting ratios
is the real advantage of an incident meter here.
 
-- 
Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia
www.robertstech.com





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Calibrating light meters and digital cameras

[Bruce Walker]

Bob and Darren have actually said all that needs to be said in defense
of using a meter, and nothing more needs to be said, so here I go ...

You're in the studio. There's seamless setup, the model has come out
of makeup and hair and is raring to go. The studio costs $50 an hour.
So does the model. The lights are setup: a couple on the background to
blow it to white, two on the model.

Larry: I'l take a test shot.
Model: okay.
L: POP
L: hang on, I'm checking the histogram.
L: ...
L: hmmm. I think that's underexposed. Let me fix that.
L: POP
L: hang on, I'm checking the histogram again.
L: Um. That might be overexposed. Shit, there's a huge spike at the right. WTF?
M: I think my lipstick is smeared. 

Versus:

Bruce: I'm going to meter the light.
Model: okay.
B: POP
B: f/8
B: okay, Shel, I want you to pout. Great! Now smile. Super! ...



On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Larry Colen  wrote:
>
>
> On May 14, 2012, at 2:56 PM, Darren Addy wrote:
>
> > On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Larry Colen  wrote:
> >> One thing that I don't understand is how a handheld light meter would
> >> work significantly better with digital than taking a photo and looking at
> >> the histogram.  Or, for that matter, if it's an important shot, why not 
> >> just
> >> bracket.  Drop $100 on a light meter, and that will buy you a terabyte of
> >> storage.  Plus, if you bracket in digital, you always have the option of
> >> combining the frames in post production.
> >
> > I can't argue with your logic, Larry.
> > Oh, of course I can.
> > :)
>
> I don't have time for a full on discussion right now, but my issue with
> incident light meters is that they don't take into account the reflectivity
> of the subject.
>
> Note, that I also didn't suggest bracketing action shots, nor did I
> suggest that bracketing is always the answer.  My question is, what does
> taking a light meter reading get you that the histogram doesn't?
>
> For that matter, what does an expensive incident light meter get you that
> one of those incident light meter/ white balance lens caps doesn't?
>
>
>
> --
> Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> follow the directions.




--
-bmw

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Calibrating light meters and digital cameras

[Larry Colen]

On May 14, 2012, at 2:56 PM, Darren Addy wrote:

> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Larry Colen  wrote:
>> One thing that I don't understand is how a handheld light meter would work 
>> significantly better with digital than taking a photo and looking at the 
>> histogram.  Or, for that matter, if it's an important shot, why not just 
>> bracket.  Drop $100 on a light meter, and that will buy you a terabyte of 
>> storage.  Plus, if you bracket in digital, you always have the option of 
>> combining the frames in post production.
> 
> I can't argue with your logic, Larry.
> Oh, of course I can.
> :)

I don't have time for a full on discussion right now, but my issue with 
incident light meters is that they don't take into account the reflectivity of 
the subject.

Note, that I also didn't suggest bracketing action shots, nor did I suggest 
that bracketing is always the answer.  My question is, what does taking a light 
meter reading get you that the histogram doesn't?

For that matter, what does an expensive incident light meter get you that one 
of those incident light meter/ white balance lens caps doesn't?



--
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Calibrating light meters and digital cameras

[Darren Addy]

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Larry Colen  wrote:
> One thing that I don't understand is how a handheld light meter would work 
> significantly better with digital than taking a photo and looking at the 
> histogram.  Or, for that matter, if it's an important shot, why not just 
> bracket.  Drop $100 on a light meter, and that will buy you a terabyte of 
> storage.  Plus, if you bracket in digital, you always have the option of 
> combining the frames in post production.

I can't argue with your logic, Larry.
Oh, of course I can.
:)

Firstly, I hate this line of arguement because it implies that one
need not learn the principles of photography if one can only take
enough bracketed exposures of something. The problem is, that many
subjects are captured in a moment of time and the timing of the moment
of exposure is essential. (Simply mashing down on the shutter button
and shooting 5 fps *might* capture that same moment [or one close to
it] but again it might not. Similarly, one could shoot video and
extract a frame and call it a photograph but I wouldn't call such a
one a photographer.

The more automatic things become, the less today's photographers need
to learn & understand in the individual components (building blocks)
and how they inter-relate & how they apply to capturing a given scene
or situation. Even in digital, a lot of people don't understand what
they are giving up as they crank up the ISO. (I'm thinking that we
could make a similar argument to Larry's in explaining why we no
longer need tripods, we can just crank up the ISO to get the shot. But
clearly there are great benefits that will be visible in an image
taken at a lower ISO - especially if it is a wider dynamic range scene
that we are trying to capture.)

Secondly, not everyone wants to spend copious amounts of time in
post-processing. Theoretically, we could bracket every shot we take
and later combine them using HDR (or whatever pseudonym you prefer).
Which works pretty well, as long you have the time and nothing was
*moving* in the frame.

Thirdly, you can bracket all you want, as long as you weren't
pre-visualizing a certain amount of motion freezing/blurring (since
bracketing by changing shutter speed is going to affect that) or you
desired a certain amount of DOF (since bracketing by aperture is going
to affect that). In fact, your combining of images is going to
sacrifice something in one department or the other when you blend.

I'm not quite sure why so many of today's photographers are so willing
to sacrifice time in the planning/pre-visualizing/taking stages of
photography, but then so willing to spend that time (and more) in
post-processing. I think it may have something to do with being more
comfortable with the  computer than with the camera.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Calibrating light meters and digital cameras

[Bob W]

> >
> > One thing that I don't understand is how a handheld light meter would
> > work significantly better with digital than taking a photo and
> looking
> > at the histogram.
> 
> you get an incident light reading rather than a reflected reading, and
> you take the reading before you start shooting. You then stick with the
> settings that your meter gives you, so you're not spending your time
> checking the histogram instead of shooting.
> 

in addition, the histogram is just an approximation of the jpeg version of
your raw file, assuming you shoot raw, so it's not as accurate as a meter
reading.

B




-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Calibrating light meters and digital cameras

[Postmaster]

Larry Colen wrote:

>One thing that I don't understand is how a handheld light meter would work 
>significantly better with digital than taking a photo and looking at the 
>histogram.  Or, for that matter, if it's an important shot, why not just 
>bracket.  Drop $100 on a light meter, and that will buy you a terabyte of 
>storage.  Plus, if you bracket in digital, you always have the option of 
>combining the frames in post production.
>
>I could almost see some justification for using a hand held meter if you are 
>shooting JPEG, only have a 1GB card, and you camera doesn't have the ability 
>to display histograms or delete test shots.

I expressed this opinion a couple of years ago and Bill Rob explained
how light meters are invaluable for determining lighting ratios (among
multiple light sources) in studio photography.

Of course, for the kind of photography I do a light meter would be
just extra weight to carry, as you noted. In fact use my DSLR as a
light meter when shooting with my Pentax 67 (which has the non-metered
prism).

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Calibrating light meters and digital cameras

[Bob W]

> 
> > The thread about exposure differences for film and digital set me
> > browsing the Sekonic site, where they now offer specifically digital
> > light meters .
> >
> > Mine are both relics of the film days, including a L-308s and
> whatever
> > was the equivalent back then of the L-758 meters.
> >
> > I get a lot of use out of the L-308s and noting that they now do the
> > L-308DC I wonder if it's worthwhile to get one. The main difference
> > that interests me is calibration.
> >
> > Is anyone else here using a calibrated meter / camera combo? If so,
> > how much difference does it make, and is it easy to use or just
> > another damn thing getting in the way?
> 
> One thing that I don't understand is how a handheld light meter would
> work significantly better with digital than taking a photo and looking
> at the histogram.  

you get an incident light reading rather than a reflected reading, and you
take the reading before you start shooting. You then stick with the settings
that your meter gives you, so you're not spending your time checking the
histogram instead of shooting.

> Or, for that matter, if it's an important shot, why
> not just bracket. 

You can't bracket a once-in-a-lifetime shot. If your subject is moving and
your timing is critical bracketing is not a viable option.

> Drop $100 on a light meter, and that will buy you a
> terabyte of storage. 

I don't want a terabyte of storage. I want to be able to take a reliable
light reading matched to my cameras which will capture the optimum amount of
information when I open the shutter and reduce the amount of time I spend
checking the back and in post-production.

> Plus, if you bracket in digital, you always have
> the option of combining the frames in post production.

The time spent in post-production can be better wasted on other things. If
your exposure is out then you lose a lot of image quality too, so the post
production is just about trying to improve something that you could have got
right when you were shooting. It shouldn't just be about rescuing things.

> 
> I could almost see some justification for using a hand held meter if
> you are shooting JPEG, only have a 1GB card, and you camera doesn't
> have the ability to display histograms or delete test shots.



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Calibrating light meters and digital cameras

[Larry Colen]

On May 14, 2012, at 2:01 PM, Bob W wrote:

> The thread about exposure differences for film and digital set me browsing
> the Sekonic site, where they now offer specifically digital light meters
> .
> 
> Mine are both relics of the film days, including a L-308s and whatever was
> the equivalent back then of the L-758 meters.
> 
> I get a lot of use out of the L-308s and noting that they now do the L-308DC
> I wonder if it's worthwhile to get one. The main difference that interests
> me is calibration.
> 
> Is anyone else here using a calibrated meter / camera combo? If so, how much
> difference does it make, and is it easy to use or just another damn thing
> getting in the way? 

One thing that I don't understand is how a handheld light meter would work 
significantly better with digital than taking a photo and looking at the 
histogram.  Or, for that matter, if it's an important shot, why not just 
bracket.  Drop $100 on a light meter, and that will buy you a terabyte of 
storage.  Plus, if you bracket in digital, you always have the option of 
combining the frames in post production.

I could almost see some justification for using a hand held meter if you are 
shooting JPEG, only have a 1GB card, and you camera doesn't have the ability to 
display histograms or delete test shots.


--
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Calibrating light meters and digital cameras

[Bob W]

The thread about exposure differences for film and digital set me browsing
the Sekonic site, where they now offer specifically digital light meters
.

Mine are both relics of the film days, including a L-308s and whatever was
the equivalent back then of the L-758 meters.

I get a lot of use out of the L-308s and noting that they now do the L-308DC
I wonder if it's worthwhile to get one. The main difference that interests
me is calibration.

Is anyone else here using a calibrated meter / camera combo? If so, how much
difference does it make, and is it easy to use or just another damn thing
getting in the way? 

Thanks,
Bob


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[mike wilson]

On 06/02/2012 05:40, P. J. Alling wrote:

On 1/29/2012 3:13 AM, Bob W wrote:

From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
John Francis

[...]

But relying on auto exposure metering under tricky lighting conditions
is a pretty poor strategy. That's why your camera has a spot metering
mode, and an exposure compensation setting - so you can take control of
the situation yourself. Or you can go the whole hog, and use an
incident
light meter.

Well said! Every photographer should have a whole hog in his arsenal.


Unfortunately my whole hog won't fit in my bag...


You really should get with it and buy one of these modern, far-eastern 
miniaturised hogs.  Whilst they don't have the durability and sheer 
visible presence of a home-grown one, they do a pretty neat job and you 
can slip one into your bag with ease.  Better to have a hog when you 
need one than not - get a black one and everyone will still think you 
are a pro.


--
No fixed Adobe

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[P. J. Alling]

On 1/29/2012 3:13 AM, Bob W wrote:

From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
John Francis

[...]

But relying on auto exposure metering under tricky lighting conditions
is a pretty poor strategy.  That's why your camera has a spot metering
mode, and an exposure compensation setting - so you can take control of
the situation yourself. Or you can go the whole hog, and use an
incident
light meter.

Well said! Every photographer should have a whole hog in his arsenal.


Unfortunately my whole hog won't fit in my bag...


B





--
Don't lose heart!  They might want to cut it out, and they'll want to avoid a 
lengthily search.


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

But  Larry is such a playful guy.

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 5:53 AM, Steven Desjardins  wrote:
> Be careful how you reply, Cotty.  He's from California and that stuff
> is legally binding.
>
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 5:21 AM, Larry Colen  wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:06 AM, Cotty wrote:
>>
>>> On 30/1/12, Larry Colen, discombobulated, unleashed:
>>>
 Of course,
 that's what makes the PDML so much nicer than other online discussion
 groups, where 90% of the people would start out with an insult.
>>>
>>>
>>> Fuck off Colen.
>>
>> You want to kiss my what?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
>> follow the directions.
>
>
>
> --
> Steve Desjardins
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.



-- 
Godfrey
  godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[Steven Desjardins]

Be careful how you reply, Cotty.  He's from California and that stuff
is legally binding.

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 5:21 AM, Larry Colen  wrote:
>
> On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:06 AM, Cotty wrote:
>
>> On 30/1/12, Larry Colen, discombobulated, unleashed:
>>
>>> Of course,
>>> that's what makes the PDML so much nicer than other online discussion
>>> groups, where 90% of the people would start out with an insult.
>>
>>
>> Fuck off Colen.
>
> You want to kiss my what?
>
>
> --
> Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.



-- 
Steve Desjardins

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[Larry Colen]

On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:06 AM, Cotty wrote:

> On 30/1/12, Larry Colen, discombobulated, unleashed:
> 
>> Of course,
>> that's what makes the PDML so much nicer than other online discussion
>> groups, where 90% of the people would start out with an insult.
> 
> 
> Fuck off Colen.

You want to kiss my what?


--
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[Cotty]

On 30/1/12, Larry Colen, discombobulated, unleashed:

>Of course,
>that's what makes the PDML so much nicer than other online discussion
>groups, where 90% of the people would start out with an insult.


Fuck off Colen.

--


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)  | People, Places, Pastiche
--  http://www.cottysnaps.com
_



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[Cotty]

On 30/1/12, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed:

>In assuming you were drunk, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Mark.

--


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)  | People, Places, Pastiche
--  http://www.cottysnaps.com
_



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[Cotty]

On 30/1/12, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed:

>My understanding of the Fuji is that it is a non coupled viewfinder
>unless switched over to being an electronic one.

That is correct. the X100 is big and bright and you flick a switch to
play Space Invaders, er I mean engage the EVF. The X10 is merely an
optical finder with no info, not coupled, but does zoom - perfect for my
needs on a small AF camera.

>Is the Epson still current?

Negative. You really should try and handle one sometime - you would be
pleasantly surprised.



--


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)  | People, Places, Pastiche
--  http://www.cottysnaps.com
_



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[Cotty]

On 30/1/12, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:

>The Fuji X10, X100 and X-Pro1 optical finders
>have no focusing capabilities, they rely upon an EVF or AF system for
>focusing.

Which is exactly why I got an X10 - I didn't want to focus manually
through the optical viewfinder, I wanted to compose through it. If I
want to focus manually through an optical viewfinder i will put a manual
lens on a DSLR and do it that way, or get another R-D1, or even a Leica.
Sadly funds do not allow the latter!!

My point is that I see part of the picture-taking process as looking
through an optical viewfinder.

--


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)  | People, Places, Pastiche
--  http://www.cottysnaps.com
_



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[Steven Desjardins]

Nobody belongs in Saskatchewan. . . .And to a first approximation,
nobody lives there either.

Oooh.  A joint Mark!


On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Larry Colen  wrote:
>
>
> On 1/30/2012 3:24 PM, knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Nobody belongs in Saskatchewan.
>
>
> And to a first approximation, nobody lives there either.
>
> But being in Saskatchewan in winter?  That could go a ways towards
> explaining Bill's disposition.
>
>
> --
> Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (from dos4est)
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> follow the directions.



-- 
Steve Desjardins

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[Larry Colen]

On 1/30/2012 3:24 PM, knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote:

Nobody belongs in Saskatchewan.


And to a first approximation, nobody lives there either.

But being in Saskatchewan in winter?  That could go a ways towards 
explaining Bill's disposition.



--
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (from dos4est)

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[knarftheria...@gmail.com]

Nobody belongs in Saskatchewan.



(sorry, Bill, couldn't resist)

:-)

cheers,
frank

"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." -- 
Christopher Hitchens

--- Original Message ---

From: Paul Stenquist 
Sent: January 30, 2012 1/30/12
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
Subject: Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

Never fear, Frank. I'm done. I put Bill back where he belongs.

On Jan 30, 2012, at 6:16 PM, knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote:

> Now, now then boys. This sort of behaviour only hurts both of you. Shake 
> hands and make up. It's time to come in for dinner anyway. Why I bet by 
> tomorrow you'll have forgotten all about this and be playing like this never 
> happened.
> **
> Oh, sorry, I must have just had a childhood flashback or something. I'm okay 
> now.
> 
> Carry on...
> 
> ;-)
> 
> cheers,
> frank
> 
> "What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." -- 
> Christopher Hitchens
> 
> --- Original Message ---
> 
> From: Paul Stenquist 
> Sent: January 30, 2012 1/30/12
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
> Subject: Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
> 
> 
> On Jan 30, 2012, at 5:18 PM, William Robb wrote:
> 
>> On 29/01/2012 8:46 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Jan 29, 2012, at 9:23 PM, William Robb wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 29/01/2012 11:42 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I would find the trend toward more technology disturbing if there were no 
>>>>> options.
>>>> But since I can focus manually at will, or I can choose to use a single 
>>>> autofocus point
>>>> -- with the plus of being able to choose the location of that pint --
>>>> the presence of other options doesn't bother me in the least.
>>>> Camera makers, for the most part, aren't brain dead. They're not going to 
>>>> take away the
>>>> options that many of us require. More technology is fine, since it doesn't 
>>>> get in my way.
>>>>> 
>>>> You are thinking only in your own terms, not in the terms of photography 
>>>> in general.It's hard to discuss things with someone who only has an ego 
>>>> centrist viewpoint, but I'll try.
>>> 
>>> Ever the ass, eh Bill? Have another drink.
>> 
>> I was quite sober when I wrote that, are you sober now? You seem a little 
>> aggressive.
> 
> In assuming you were drunk, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I 
> would think that anyone who begins a discussion with a personal insult is 
> either drunk or mindless. 
> 
> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> As I said, it's hard to have a discussion with someone who is so full of 
>> themselves that all they see is what they think.
>> Harder still to have a discussion with someone who refuses to have a 
>> discussion at all, unless it's to lay down their own dogma.
>> You'd make a good Tea Bagger.
>> 
>> -- 
>> 
>> William Robb
>> 
>> -- 
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
>> follow the directions.
> 
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.
-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[Paul Stenquist]

Never fear, Frank. I'm done. I put Bill back where he belongs.

On Jan 30, 2012, at 6:16 PM, knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote:

> Now, now then boys. This sort of behaviour only hurts both of you. Shake 
> hands and make up. It's time to come in for dinner anyway. Why I bet by 
> tomorrow you'll have forgotten all about this and be playing like this never 
> happened.
> **
> Oh, sorry, I must have just had a childhood flashback or something. I'm okay 
> now.
> 
> Carry on...
> 
> ;-)
> 
> cheers,
> frank
> 
> "What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." -- 
> Christopher Hitchens
> 
> --- Original Message ---
> 
> From: Paul Stenquist 
> Sent: January 30, 2012 1/30/12
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
> Subject: Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
> 
> 
> On Jan 30, 2012, at 5:18 PM, William Robb wrote:
> 
>> On 29/01/2012 8:46 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Jan 29, 2012, at 9:23 PM, William Robb wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 29/01/2012 11:42 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I would find the trend toward more technology disturbing if there were no 
>>>>> options.
>>>> But since I can focus manually at will, or I can choose to use a single 
>>>> autofocus point
>>>> -- with the plus of being able to choose the location of that pint --
>>>> the presence of other options doesn't bother me in the least.
>>>> Camera makers, for the most part, aren't brain dead. They're not going to 
>>>> take away the
>>>> options that many of us require. More technology is fine, since it doesn't 
>>>> get in my way.
>>>>> 
>>>> You are thinking only in your own terms, not in the terms of photography 
>>>> in general.It's hard to discuss things with someone who only has an ego 
>>>> centrist viewpoint, but I'll try.
>>> 
>>> Ever the ass, eh Bill? Have another drink.
>> 
>> I was quite sober when I wrote that, are you sober now? You seem a little 
>> aggressive.
> 
> In assuming you were drunk, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I 
> would think that anyone who begins a discussion with a personal insult is 
> either drunk or mindless. 
> 
> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> As I said, it's hard to have a discussion with someone who is so full of 
>> themselves that all they see is what they think.
>> Harder still to have a discussion with someone who refuses to have a 
>> discussion at all, unless it's to lay down their own dogma.
>> You'd make a good Tea Bagger.
>> 
>> -- 
>> 
>> William Robb
>> 
>> -- 
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
>> follow the directions.
> 
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[Larry Colen]

On 1/30/2012 3:03 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:


In assuming you were drunk, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I would 
think that anyone who begins a discussion with a personal insult is either 
drunk or mindless.


Or me, or Bill, or Godfrey, or you, hell half the PDML might do so if 
we've had a bad day, we have to put the cuss in discussion. Of course, 
that's what makes the PDML so much nicer than other online discussion 
groups, where 90% of the people would start out with an insult.


--
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (from dos4est)

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[knarftheria...@gmail.com]

Now, now then boys. This sort of behaviour only hurts both of you. Shake hands 
and make up. It's time to come in for dinner anyway. Why I bet by tomorrow 
you'll have forgotten all about this and be playing like this never happened.
**
Oh, sorry, I must have just had a childhood flashback or something. I'm okay 
now.

Carry on...

;-)

cheers,
frank

"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." -- 
Christopher Hitchens

--- Original Message ---

From: Paul Stenquist 
Sent: January 30, 2012 1/30/12
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
Subject: Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?


On Jan 30, 2012, at 5:18 PM, William Robb wrote:

> On 29/01/2012 8:46 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>> 
>> On Jan 29, 2012, at 9:23 PM, William Robb wrote:
>> 
>>> On 29/01/2012 11:42 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I would find the trend toward more technology disturbing if there were no 
>>>> options.
>>> But since I can focus manually at will, or I can choose to use a single 
>>> autofocus point
>>> -- with the plus of being able to choose the location of that pint --
>>> the presence of other options doesn't bother me in the least.
>>> Camera makers, for the most part, aren't brain dead. They're not going to 
>>> take away the
>>> options that many of us require. More technology is fine, since it doesn't 
>>> get in my way.
>>>> 
>>> You are thinking only in your own terms, not in the terms of photography in 
>>> general.It's hard to discuss things with someone who only has an ego 
>>> centrist viewpoint, but I'll try.
>> 
>> Ever the ass, eh Bill? Have another drink.
> 
> I was quite sober when I wrote that, are you sober now? You seem a little 
> aggressive.

In assuming you were drunk, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I would 
think that anyone who begins a discussion with a personal insult is either 
drunk or mindless. 


> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> As I said, it's hard to have a discussion with someone who is so full of 
> themselves that all they see is what they think.
> Harder still to have a discussion with someone who refuses to have a 
> discussion at all, unless it's to lay down their own dogma.
> You'd make a good Tea Bagger.
> 
> -- 
> 
> William Robb
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.
-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[Paul Stenquist]

On Jan 30, 2012, at 5:18 PM, William Robb wrote:

> On 29/01/2012 8:46 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>> 
>> On Jan 29, 2012, at 9:23 PM, William Robb wrote:
>> 
>>> On 29/01/2012 11:42 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
 
 
 
 I would find the trend toward more technology disturbing if there were no 
 options.
>>> But since I can focus manually at will, or I can choose to use a single 
>>> autofocus point
>>> -- with the plus of being able to choose the location of that pint --
>>> the presence of other options doesn't bother me in the least.
>>> Camera makers, for the most part, aren't brain dead. They're not going to 
>>> take away the
>>> options that many of us require. More technology is fine, since it doesn't 
>>> get in my way.
 
>>> You are thinking only in your own terms, not in the terms of photography in 
>>> general.It's hard to discuss things with someone who only has an ego 
>>> centrist viewpoint, but I'll try.
>> 
>> Ever the ass, eh Bill? Have another drink.
> 
> I was quite sober when I wrote that, are you sober now? You seem a little 
> aggressive.

In assuming you were drunk, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I would 
think that anyone who begins a discussion with a personal insult is either 
drunk or mindless. 


> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> As I said, it's hard to have a discussion with someone who is so full of 
> themselves that all they see is what they think.
> Harder still to have a discussion with someone who refuses to have a 
> discussion at all, unless it's to lay down their own dogma.
> You'd make a good Tea Bagger.
> 
> -- 
> 
> William Robb
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[William Robb]

On 30/01/2012 7:58 AM, David Savage wrote:

The D700 has a nice big viewfinder.

Just saying.


And the D700 is a non SLR camera how? But point taken, it goes back to 
the egotistical rubbish I wrote about APS-C viefinders being small and 
tunnel like.





If you think I'm wrong, I challenge you to try to find a non SLR camera
with a fully functioning optical viewfinder of any kind, good or bad. As
a feature, it is almost completely phased out.




--

William Robb

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[William Robb]

On 30/01/2012 4:10 AM, Cotty wrote:

On 29/1/12, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed:


If you think I'm wrong, I challenge you to try to find a non SLR camera
with a fully functioning optical viewfinder of any kind, good or bad. As
a feature, it is almost completely phased out.


This is the sad truth.

The Epson R-D1, Leica M8 and 9, Fuji X100 spring to mind. My X10 is a
compromise but does the job just enough that it's useful to me. I do use
it with just the rear LCD for some shooting, but that ties in with the
subject matter, eg macro for instance. That said, if I do some
considered portraits then the A*85/1.4 goes onto either the *ist Ds or
the 1D (although I have to ask to borrow that camera :) so for me it's a
particular tool for the job.


e gettin old!

My understanding of the Fuji is that it is a non coupled viewfinder 
unless switched over to being an electronic one. Is the Epson still current?

Leica is, of course, the exception to the rule.
--

William Robb

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[William Robb]

On 29/01/2012 8:46 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:


On Jan 29, 2012, at 9:23 PM, William Robb wrote:


On 29/01/2012 11:42 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:




I would find the trend toward more technology disturbing if there were no 
options.

But since I can focus manually at will, or I can choose to use a single 
autofocus point
-- with the plus of being able to choose the location of that pint --
the presence of other options doesn't bother me in the least.
Camera makers, for the most part, aren't brain dead. They're not going to take 
away the
options that many of us require. More technology is fine, since it doesn't get 
in my way.



You are thinking only in your own terms, not in the terms of photography in 
general.It's hard to discuss things with someone who only has an ego centrist 
viewpoint, but I'll try.


Ever the ass, eh Bill? Have another drink.


I was quite sober when I wrote that, are you sober now? You seem a 
little aggressive.







As I said, it's hard to have a discussion with someone who is so full of 
themselves that all they see is what they think.
Harder still to have a discussion with someone who refuses to have a 
discussion at all, unless it's to lay down their own dogma.

You'd make a good Tea Bagger.

--

William Robb

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[steve harley]

on 2012-01-29 15:01 Paul Stenquist wrote

You can test for the difference between gray and 5% below clipped highlights. 
You'll find it's about two stops. But you can tell by looking at a jpeg derived 
histo as well. If the highlights are clipped just a wee bit, you're golden.


i use the histogram like that all the time and it works well when the brightest 
highlight is my reference; but when spot metering it might not be the brightest 
highlight that i'd want to move to 5%, yet the histogram is based on the whole 
scene; if the histogram had a marker for where the spot-metered value lay, that 
would be a great aid


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[Mark Roberts]

Paul Stenquist wrote:

>
>On Jan 30, 2012, at 9:41 AM, David Savage wrote:
>
>> On 30 January 2012 22:37, Mark Roberts  wrote:
>>> David Savage wrote:
>>> 
 The D700 has a nice big viewfinder.
 
 Just saying.
 
 :-D
>>> 
>>> Sony A850, too. Gotta love full-frame ;-)
>> 
>> It's pretty rough.
>
>If Pentax were to abandon the DSLR market, I'd probably go to a full frame 
>Nikon but would also consider Sony.

If you ever get out to Boston (or to GFM) you can try out my Sony
A850. It has a truly great control setup: It's got lots of mechanical
settings where others have menus, and the pre-sets let you override
some mechanical settings (AF mode, for example). Where Pentax is
ergonomically superior is in the lens release button and the DOF
preview, both of which are awful on the Sony. If only I could combine
the best of both worlds...
 
-- 
Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia
www.robertstech.com





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[Paul Stenquist]

On Jan 30, 2012, at 9:41 AM, David Savage wrote:

> On 30 January 2012 22:37, Mark Roberts  wrote:
>> David Savage wrote:
>> 
>>> The D700 has a nice big viewfinder.
>>> 
>>> Just saying.
>>> 
>>> :-D
>> 
>> Sony A850, too. Gotta love full-frame ;-)
> 
> It's pretty rough.

If Pentax were to abandon the DSLR market, I'd probably go to a full frame 
Nikon but would also consider Sony. I'd like a bigger, brighter viewfinder, and 
when I was younger it would have been a priority, but given the deteriorating 
vision that plagues most of us oldsters and the accuracy of autofocus, it's not 
a critical need. I do still focus my 400/5.6 manually and am able to get a fair 
number of hits. I suppose I've become accustomed to the Pentax APS-C 
viewfinders. They're certainly better than most. But I do avoid looking through 
my old SLRs. No point in disrupting that acclimation process.

Paul
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 7:45 AM, George Sinos  wrote:

> ... It's almost impossible to engineer human judgement out of an artistic 
> process.

MARK!

I'm with ya 100%, George.
-- 
Godfrey
  godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 6:41 AM, David Savage  wrote:
> On 30 January 2012 22:37, Mark Roberts  wrote:
>> David Savage wrote:
>>
>>>The D700 has a nice big viewfinder.
>>>
>>>Just saying.
>>>
>>>:-D
>>
>> Sony A850, too. Gotta love full-frame ;-)
>
> It's pretty rough.

However, D700 and A850, and other FF or top of the line bodies, are
all DSLRs. (The Olympus E-5 viewfinder is in the same class.)

The Leica M8/M9 is a non-DSLR body which has a lovely optical
viewfinder with coupled optical rangefinder. The only other one like
it is the Epson R-D1. The Fuji X10, X100 and X-Pro1 optical finders
have no focusing capabilities, they rely upon an EVF or AF system for
focusing.

-- 
Godfrey
  godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[George Sinos]

Just what I was (not very clearly) trying to say with that long rant.

It's almost impossible to engineer human judgement out of an artistic process.

Whenever they add a new feature to make the process simpler, they
narrow the definition of "correct."  That leads to additional options
and adjustments for the user.

Eventually, those options and adjustments, outnumber the original
number of decisions you needed to make before all of the enhancements.
 In the end, this makes things more difficult for the beginner, who
was the target audience.

For those of us that read manuals and don't mind learning about this
stuff, it might lead to more flexibility.

That, however, is the exact opposite of what the camera manufacturers
had in mind.  They put many of those features on the camera to make
them more foolproof for beginners.

On the other hand, it keeps a steady stream of students signing up for
my classes.  So, I shouldn't complain.

gs

George Sinos

gsi...@gmail.com
www.georgesphotos.net
plus.georgesinos.com



On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Paul Stenquist
 wrote:
>
> On Jan 29, 2012, at 11:26 AM, George Sinos wrote:
>
>> In general, I appreciate the developments and improvements that the
>> camera designers have come up with the give us better tools and extend
>> our creative reach.
>>
>> At some point, it becomes problematic when they try to remove human
>> judgement from the equation.
>>
>> For instance, the developments in auto-focus.
>>
>> At one point the human would pick the point in the image on which to
>> focus, line up some little focusing aid in the viewfinder, the camera
>> would then adjust the lens to focus on the point.
>>
>> Making that happen faster and more accurately were welcome developments.
>>
>> At some point, picking that point in the image was deemed too hard to
>> teach and too much for the typical photographer to know.
>>
>> So, we came up with some algorithms to have  the camera pick that
>> focus point.  Some worked better than others, but none of them worked
>> (or work) all that well because every photographer is not trying to do
>> the same thing in every image.
>>
>> So, we came up with custom functions that let the smarter and more
>> persistent guys pick between super-duper-autofocus, spot focus,
>> pick-your sensor focus and any number of names the marketing guys came
>> up with.
>>
>> Now, instead of learning the simple act of aiming and focusing, we
>> have to learn all of that stuff.
>>
>> After that, some genius figured that most of the time, if there is a
>> face in the picture, that will be the place to focus the image.
>>
>> Cameras got smarter and learned how to detect and focus on faces.
>>
>> Of course, we got one more mode to pick from.  And besides, it didn't
>> always actually detect the face, and sometimes we took photos without
>> faces in them.  Even worse, sometimes there was more than one face in
>> the photo and they were at different distances from the camera!
>>
>> Engineers, being smart, said we can fix that.  Now we have face
>> detection that detects every face in the photo, picks one of the faces
>> for focus, highlights it in a different color so that we have the
>> option of picking one of the other faces, if only we can remember what
>> combination of buttons is used to pick a different face.
>>
>> All of that automation and stuff to learn just so that we don't have
>> to learn how to focus.  Wow.
>>
>> Take this example and apply it to histograms and jpg and raw as you
>> wish.  I'll step down from my soapbox now.
>>
>> GS
>>
>> George Sinos
>
>
>
> I would find the trend toward more technology disturbing if there were no 
> options. But since I can focus manually at will, or I can choose to use a 
> single autofocus point -- with the plus of being able to choose the location 
> of that pint -- the presence of other options doesn't bother me in the least. 
> Camera makers, for the most part, aren't brain dead. They're not going to 
> take away the options that many of us require. More technology is fine, since 
> it doesn't get in my way.
>
> Paul
>
>
>> 
>> gsi...@gmail.com
>> www.georgesphotos.net
>> plus.georgesinos.com
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 6:29 AM, Paul Stenquist  
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jan 29, 2012, at 12:16 AM, steve harley wrote:
>>>
 on 2012-01-28 21:57 Paul Stenquist wrote
> That's basically what today's best meters do. But they still can't gauge 
> reflectivity and color as well as the human eye can. The meter makes a 
> call and a good photographer makes the necessary adjustment. Most of the 
> time the meter will come close enough for all practical purposes. for 
> those times when it can't the photographer has to lend a hand. It 
> wouldn't be much fun if machines did all the work.

 i submit that most of us don't have "today's best meters"
>>>
>>> The K-5 comes somewhat close, but no it's not at the top of the heap. But 
>>> it's more t

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[David Savage]

On 30 January 2012 22:37, Mark Roberts  wrote:
> David Savage wrote:
>
>>The D700 has a nice big viewfinder.
>>
>>Just saying.
>>
>>:-D
>
> Sony A850, too. Gotta love full-frame ;-)

It's pretty rough.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[Mark Roberts]

David Savage wrote:

>The D700 has a nice big viewfinder.
>
>Just saying.
>
>:-D

Sony A850, too. Gotta love full-frame ;-)

 
-- 
Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia
www.robertstech.com





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[David Savage]

The D700 has a nice big viewfinder.

Just saying.

:-D


On 30 January 2012 21:54, Steven Desjardins  wrote:
> The DR of film cured many ills, at least if you didn't shoot slides.
> I generally rely now on AE in reasonable light, but switch to manual
> and the histogram otherwise.  Of course, that's often simply making
> the best of a bad situation.  As for viewfinders, all I have to do it
> pick up my old SP500 to remind myself of that downhill trend.  I swear
> I hung on to the 645 all those years just so I could look through it
> and sigh ;-)
>
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 5:10 AM, Cotty  wrote:
>> On 29/1/12, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed:
>>
>>>If you think I'm wrong, I challenge you to try to find a non SLR camera
>>>with a fully functioning optical viewfinder of any kind, good or bad. As
>>>a feature, it is almost completely phased out.
>>
>> This is the sad truth.
>>
>> The Epson R-D1, Leica M8 and 9, Fuji X100 spring to mind. My X10 is a
>> compromise but does the job just enough that it's useful to me. I do use
>> it with just the rear LCD for some shooting, but that ties in with the
>> subject matter, eg macro for instance. That said, if I do some
>> considered portraits then the A*85/1.4 goes onto either the *ist Ds or
>> the 1D (although I have to ask to borrow that camera :) so for me it's a
>> particular tool for the job.
>>
>> I would not consider a camera without a usable optical viewfinder. Must
>> be gettin old!
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>  Cotty
>>
>>
>> ___/\__
>> ||   (O)  |     People, Places, Pastiche
>> --      http://www.cottysnaps.com
>> _
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
>> follow the directions.
>
>
>
> --
> Steve Desjardins
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[Steven Desjardins]

The DR of film cured many ills, at least if you didn't shoot slides.
I generally rely now on AE in reasonable light, but switch to manual
and the histogram otherwise.  Of course, that's often simply making
the best of a bad situation.  As for viewfinders, all I have to do it
pick up my old SP500 to remind myself of that downhill trend.  I swear
I hung on to the 645 all those years just so I could look through it
and sigh ;-)

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 5:10 AM, Cotty  wrote:
> On 29/1/12, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
>>If you think I'm wrong, I challenge you to try to find a non SLR camera
>>with a fully functioning optical viewfinder of any kind, good or bad. As
>>a feature, it is almost completely phased out.
>
> This is the sad truth.
>
> The Epson R-D1, Leica M8 and 9, Fuji X100 spring to mind. My X10 is a
> compromise but does the job just enough that it's useful to me. I do use
> it with just the rear LCD for some shooting, but that ties in with the
> subject matter, eg macro for instance. That said, if I do some
> considered portraits then the A*85/1.4 goes onto either the *ist Ds or
> the 1D (although I have to ask to borrow that camera :) so for me it's a
> particular tool for the job.
>
> I would not consider a camera without a usable optical viewfinder. Must
> be gettin old!
>
> --
>
>
> Cheers,
>  Cotty
>
>
> ___/\__
> ||   (O)  |     People, Places, Pastiche
> --      http://www.cottysnaps.com
> _
>
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.



-- 
Steve Desjardins

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[Cotty]

On 29/1/12, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed:

>If you think I'm wrong, I challenge you to try to find a non SLR camera
>with a fully functioning optical viewfinder of any kind, good or bad. As
>a feature, it is almost completely phased out.

This is the sad truth.

The Epson R-D1, Leica M8 and 9, Fuji X100 spring to mind. My X10 is a
compromise but does the job just enough that it's useful to me. I do use
it with just the rear LCD for some shooting, but that ties in with the
subject matter, eg macro for instance. That said, if I do some
considered portraits then the A*85/1.4 goes onto either the *ist Ds or
the 1D (although I have to ask to borrow that camera :) so for me it's a
particular tool for the job.

I would not consider a camera without a usable optical viewfinder. Must
be gettin old!

--


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)  | People, Places, Pastiche
--  http://www.cottysnaps.com
_



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[Paul Stenquist]

On Jan 29, 2012, at 9:23 PM, William Robb wrote:

> On 29/01/2012 11:42 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I would find the trend toward more technology disturbing if there were no 
>> options.
> But since I can focus manually at will, or I can choose to use a single 
> autofocus point
> -- with the plus of being able to choose the location of that pint --
> the presence of other options doesn't bother me in the least.
> Camera makers, for the most part, aren't brain dead. They're not going to 
> take away the
> options that many of us require. More technology is fine, since it doesn't 
> get in my way.
>> 
> You are thinking only in your own terms, not in the terms of photography in 
> general.It's hard to discuss things with someone who only has an ego centrist 
> viewpoint, but I'll try.

Ever the ass, eh Bill? Have another drink.




-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[William Robb]

On 29/01/2012 11:42 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:




I would find the trend toward more technology disturbing if there were no 
options.
But since I can focus manually at will, or I can choose to use a single 
autofocus point

 -- with the plus of being able to choose the location of that pint --
the presence of other options doesn't bother me in the least.
Camera makers, for the most part, aren't brain dead. They're not going 
to take away the
options that many of us require. More technology is fine, since it 
doesn't get in my way.


You are thinking only in your own terms, not in the terms of photography 
in general. It's hard to discuss things with someone who only has an ego 
centrist viewpoint, but I'll try.
I think George's point, and it's hard to argue with it, is that 
photographers, like all other animals, will tend to take the easy way 
out. In the case of cameras, they won't learn how to meter a scene, or 
learn what the limitations of the meter are, they will put the camera on 
auto and hope for the best, or perhaps put the camera on manual and blow 
it because they don't really know how to interpret what their meter is 
telling them.
I spent enough time developing people's pictures during an era where we 
went from manual everything cameras to automatic everything cameras, and 
I did it in storefront labs that put me "on the spot" when it came time 
to tell customers exactly what went wrong with Aunt Martha's 90th 
birthday pictures, and yes, I'm sorry for you that she died yesterday 
and now you don't have pictures from her party either.
There really has been a very strong regression in the basic photography 
knowledge that people using cameras are willing to learn, even while 
they are willing to learn much more complex camera operations that have 
little to do with photography other than complicating it in it's own way.
We got automatic exposure and a fairly large % of people stopped 
learning how to set exposure properly.
We got autofocus and an equally large % of people stopped learning how 
to focus a camera (lots of overlap with the previous group).
Generally, they wouldn't learn until their ignorance came home to roost, 
and even then, they would generally be very convinced that it was the 
lab that caused the problem, even in the face of all evidence to the 
contrary.
Digital just made it worse, since it took away any possibility we had to 
fix things if the customer screwed up, and it gave the customer a lot of 
new and improved ways to bugger things up.
At least with film, I could print through 5 stops of over exposure and 
pull something out of the mess. At least with film, I didn't have to 
worry about customers wanting 8x10 prints from VGA sized files, and I 
could always read a negative, but quite often memory cards just wouldn't 
read in our equipment because the photographer had stuck the card into 
the camera and started writing files to it without formatting it.
If you think camera makers aren't going to take options away from us 
that we require, look at the viewfinder of your Pentax DSLR camera, 
compared to that of a good Pentax film camera from the 1980s.
It's small, tunnel like, and very hard to manual focus with even 
moderate wide angle lenses, even if you change the screen out to a 
Katz-Eye or some such (and having to do that kinda makes the point anyway).
Wait until you are forced into an electronic viewfinder, whether you 
like them or not because the camera company decides that while they are 
not as good as an optical finder, they are now "good enough".
If you think I'm wrong, I challenge you to try to find a non SLR camera 
with a fully functioning optical viewfinder of any kind, good or bad. As 
a feature, it is almost completely phased out.

So much for choice.

--

William Robb

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[Kenneth Waller]

>Just because I call you rude names doesn't mean that I disagree with you, or 
>even that I dislike you.


MARK !

-Original Message-
>From: Larry Colen 



>Subject: Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
>
>
>On Jan 29, 2012, at 1:13 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>
>>> I also agree with Godfrey on ease of manual use.
>> 
>> I'm glad we agree on something. ;-)
>
>Just because I call you rude names doesn't mean that I disagree with you, or 
>even that I dislike you.
>
>> 
>>> Part of the issue with digital exposure is that there is so much more 
>>> information potentially available that a simple match needle would through 
>>> away too much useful information.
>> 
>> I disagree. Until sensors data can be addressed to manipulate the
>> capture data by photosite address, you will always have one exposure
>> addressing all the photosites the same way. Whether you get there with
>> some ultra-smart evaluative metering system, or you use your brain as
>> the computational system and a meter as the dumb data input, the end
>> result is always an ISO @ aperture @ exposure time.
>
>Yes, a scalar meter for a scalar setting is about all you can do.  But there 
>is a lot more information available from a histogram than from a match needle, 
>and even more if the camera takes a test shot and reads the value of every 
>sensor site.
>
>There are many times when a match needle, or an AE system that follows the 
>match needle is good enough, or the best available.
>
>As to manipulating capture data by photosite address, there are times I'd 
>settle for being able to set the ISO of each color channel separately.
>I often have to underexpose two of the channels by a couple of stops to keep 
>from blowing out the third channel.
>
>> 
>> Knowing the characteristic curve of a sensor and how digital image
>> data exposure operates, it's very easy to 'place' the exposure where
>> you want it with a spot meter and a moment's thought: with the
>> brightest area of significant detail 5% below the saturation limit.
>
>Very true.  How do I find 5% below the saturation limit of my sensor when the 
>histogram only tells me the values on the JPEG, not on the sensor?  I'll note 
>that your M9 gives the sensor values, not the jpeg values.
>
>> Writing computational automation to understand the characteristic
>> curve of the sensor @ a specific ISO setting, analyzing the scene to
>> determine what is or isn't important, and setting that single exposure
>> point consistently ... Well, it's not that it can't be done, but it's
>> way more than most current in-camera computational processing is
>> capable of.
>
>In the time available for action shots.  But what if you had a mode where you 
>could press the "analyze" button, and let it churn away for a few seconds?  
>How long would it take to read 16M values into a buffer, and note the maximum 
>and minimum values?
>
>> 
>> I do this in my head faster than I can think about it. My E-5 had
>> Spot-Hi and Spot-Lo modes for metering complex scenes that simplify
>> manual metering (by comparison to just Spot in most other cameras,
>> which is based on 18% reflectance reference).
>
>I suspect I do a lot of this intuitively myself.  
>
>> 
>> With almost all cameras, I set my metering to centerweighted
>> averaging, evaluate the pattern, and use aperture priority AE or
>> manual mode. With the APAE mode, I look at the scene, see the dynamics
>> of the hot and dark areas, and tweak the EV comp to suit. With Manual,
>> I set it to the meter's null point then tweak it up or down the same
>> way, OR I just know what the scene type requires from past experience
>> and set it. My brain does this without me consciously thinking about
>> it, and FAR more consistently than any exposure automation I've ever
>> seen.
>
>Do you check your results with the histogram, or just decide that you're good 
>to go?
>
>> 
>>> Another issue is that digital isn't as tolerant of missed exposures as 
>>> film, though at ISO 100 the K-5 may be far more tolerant of underexposure 
>>> than most film.
>> 
>> I don't find this to be true in general. Digital capture is  more
>> sensitive to the saturation point than film because it's a hard clip
>> rather than a slow roll off, but it generally has more dynamic range
>> and, as long as you're under the clip point, is much much much more
>> manipulable. What's important to keep aware of is that as ISO
>

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Larry Colen  wrote:
>
> On Jan 29, 2012, at 1:13 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>
>>> I also agree with Godfrey on ease of manual use.
>> I'm glad we agree on something. ;-)
> Just because I call you rude names doesn't mean that I disagree with you, or 
> even that I dislike you.

LOL! Smooch! ;-)

> Very true.  How do I find 5% below the saturation limit of my sensor when the 
> histogram only tells me the values on the JPEG, not on the sensor?  I'll note 
> that your M9 gives the sensor values, not the jpeg values.

The M9 histogram and data processing is actually very sophisticated.
When you go to info mode on a zoomed in section of a photo, it allows
you to examine just that section in the histogram. Subtle, simple, yet
very sophisticated.

I don't know whether it is working on the raw or the JPEG data yet,
haven't had enough time to learn all that. But it's metering,
fundamentally simple as it is (APAE or manual only, strongly center
weighted) simply delivers the right results for me in nearly all cases
so I haven't even bothered looking at the histogram all that much yet.
The exposure is right on the money when I download it and open up the
files in Lightroom.

> In the time available for action shots.  But what if you had a mode where you 
> could press the "analyze" button, and let it churn away for a few seconds?  
> How long would it take to read 16M values into a buffer, and note the maximum 
> and minimum values?

Sure. How many dozen people would find this of value, and are the
hundreds of thousands of dollars in development time and testing worth
the investment?

> Do you check your results with the histogram, or just decide that you're good 
> to go?

When the lighting is really wretched or the scene very difficult, I
do. Or I just bracket and don't worry about it, work with what worked
well when it's time to render. I don't expect every shot to work out
perfectly ... If 10% of what I shoot is worth doing finish work on,
I'm good with that.

>> I don't know of any automation system
>> that can do this pre-exposure ... they simply don't have enough data
>> to work with like your eye and mind does.
>
> Exactly, that is why I want a mode that will take a test shot, or test shots, 
> analyze the data post exposure and report on the ideal exposure based on the 
> scene, and your tolerance for blown out highlights.  Ideally, it could do the 
> test shots, and even set optimal values for an HDR range for scenes that may 
> have something like a neon sign on a dark street where one exposure is ideal 
> for the sign, it skips four stops of exposure where the sign is over exposed 
> and the street is underexposed, and another exposure for the street.

You'd have loved an Olympus OM-4Ti. Multispot metering system built
into the camera. I almost bought one a few months ago purely for the
nostalgia of it. :-)

-- 
Godfrey
  godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[Paul Stenquist]

On Jan 29, 2012, at 4:53 PM, steve harley wrote:

> on 2012-01-29 14:13 Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote
>> Knowing the characteristic curve of a sensor and how digital image
>> data exposure operates, it's very easy to 'place' the exposure where
>> you want it with a spot meter and a moment's thought: with the
>> brightest area of significant detail 5% below the saturation limit.
> 
> okay, if the spot meter is cued to 15% gray, that means i'd meter as above, 
> then adjust exposure plus whatever the fractional number of stops between 15% 
> gray and 5% below saturation might be on my camera; i suppose i could test 
> that and memorize the adjustment for key ISO values (as the headroom varies); 
> i could preset that bias and be fairly efficient when highlight clipping is 
> my main concern.

You can test for the difference between gray and 5% below clipped highlights. 
You'll find it's about two stops. But you can tell by looking at a jpeg derived 
histo as well. If the highlights are clipped just a wee bit, you're golden.
> 
> but often i want to choose how much highlight to blow based on how much of my 
> shadows i want keep from turning to mud; and sometimes i'm willing to blow 
> one channel if i can count on keeping some contrast in the other two ... 
> that's when the histogram helps because the best exposure is often not 
> absolute, it's a creative compromise
> 
Exactly. And the histogram on my K-5 works well for that. While the histo may 
be based on a jpeg, the jpeg is merely the camera's conversion of the RAW. It's 
in a smaller color space than I work with and it may clip highlights that are 
useable in RAW conversion, but with some experience it's easy to predict where 
those lie.
Paul
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[steve harley]

on 2012-01-29 13:33 Larry Colen wrote

My career is to write embedded systems software.


as a mere generalist programmer and designer of systems, my frustration with 
the untapped potential of modern camera interfaces is probably a notch or two 
below yours; whilst we are accused of measurebation, i think it's really our 
imaginations that are getting us in trouble here



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[Paul Stenquist]

On Jan 29, 2012, at 4:13 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:

>> I also agree with Godfrey on ease of manual use.
> 
> I'm glad we agree on something. ;-)
> 
>> Part of the issue with digital exposure is that there is so much more 
>> information potentially available that a simple match needle would through 
>> away too much useful information.
> 
> I disagree. Until sensors data can be addressed to manipulate the
> capture data by photosite address, you will always have one exposure
> addressing all the photosites the same way. Whether you get there with
> some ultra-smart evaluative metering system, or you use your brain as
> the computational system and a meter as the dumb data input, the end
> result is always an ISO @ aperture @ exposure time.

Exactly. This doesn't have to be complicated.
> 
> Knowing the characteristic curve of a sensor and how digital image
> data exposure operates, it's very easy to 'place' the exposure where
> you want it with a spot meter and a moment's thought: with the
> brightest area of significant detail 5% below the saturation limit.
> That's in practical terms the only thing you can do ... anything else
> you do is a matter of processing the raw data (setting the appropriate
> blackpoint, colorspace, and rendering curve to suit the dynamics of
> the scene).
> 
> Writing computational automation to understand the characteristic
> curve of the sensor @ a specific ISO setting, analyzing the scene to
> determine what is or isn't important, and setting that single exposure
> point consistently ... Well, it's not that it can't be done, but it's
> way more than most current in-camera computational processing is
> capable of.
> 
> I do this in my head faster than I can think about it. My E-5 had
> Spot-Hi and Spot-Lo modes for metering complex scenes that simplify
> manual metering (by comparison to just Spot in most other cameras,
> which is based on 18% reflectance reference).
> 
> With almost all cameras, I set my metering to centerweighted
> averaging, evaluate the pattern, and use aperture priority AE or
> manual mode. With the APAE mode, I look at the scene, see the dynamics
> of the hot and dark areas, and tweak the EV comp to suit. With Manual,
> I set it to the meter's null point then tweak it up or down the same
> way, OR I just know what the scene type requires from past experience
> and set it. My brain does this without me consciously thinking about
> it, and FAR more consistently than any exposure automation I've ever
> seen.
> 
Exposure compensation is the digital photographer's best friend. It's a great 
tool.

>> Another issue is that digital isn't as tolerant of missed exposures as film, 
>> though at ISO 100 the K-5 may be far more tolerant of underexposure than 
>> most film.
> 
> I don't find this to be true in general. Digital capture is  more
> sensitive to the saturation point than film because it's a hard clip
> rather than a slow roll off, but it generally has more dynamic range
> and, as long as you're under the clip point, is much much much more
> manipulable.

That's the beauty of it, and I think all of us who worked with film for so many 
years can appreciate that. The RAW converter is a hell of a lot more flexible 
than the developing tank and the enlarger.

Paul
> What's important to keep aware of is that as ISO
> increases, DR decreases so if you're looking at scenes that require
> elevated ISOs for hand-holdability or subject movement, you have to
> understand that the DR will be decreased and pick your important
> detail areas more carefully. I don't know of any automation system
> that can do this pre-exposure ... they simply don't have enough data
> to work with like your eye and mind does.
> 
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Larry Colen  wrote:
>> Steve,
>> 
>> I get the feeling that you are the only one that actually understands what 
>> I'm saying.
>> 
>> On Jan 29, 2012, at 11:20 AM, steve harley wrote:
>> 
>>> on 2012-01-29 05:29 Paul Stenquist wrote
 
 On Jan 29, 2012, at 12:16 AM, steve harley wrote:
 
> on 2012-01-28 21:57 Paul Stenquist wrote
>> That's basically what today's best meters do. But they still can't gauge 
>> reflectivity and color as well as the human eye can. The meter makes a 
>> call and a good photographer makes the necessary adjustment. Most of the 
>> time the meter will come close enough for all practical purposes. for 
>> those times when it can't the photographer has to lend a hand. It 
>> wouldn't be much fun if machines did all the work.
> 
> i submit that most of us don't have "today's best meters"
 
 The K-5 comes somewhat close, but no it's not at the top of the heap. But 
 it's more than good enough when photographers use their brain as well as 
 their meters.
>>> 
>>> that may be, but i suspect that 1) most of us don't have K-5s, and 2) even 
>>> much worse metering systems are "good enough" — we can learn to compensate 
>>> for anything; some of

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[steve harley]

on 2012-01-29 14:13 Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote

Knowing the characteristic curve of a sensor and how digital image
data exposure operates, it's very easy to 'place' the exposure where
you want it with a spot meter and a moment's thought: with the
brightest area of significant detail 5% below the saturation limit.


okay, if the spot meter is cued to 15% gray, that means i'd meter as above, 
then adjust exposure plus whatever the fractional number of stops between 15% 
gray and 5% below saturation might be on my camera; i suppose i could test that 
and memorize the adjustment for key ISO values (as the headroom varies); i 
could preset that bias and be fairly efficient when highlight clipping is my 
main concern


but often i want to choose how much highlight to blow based on how much of my 
shadows i want keep from turning to mud; and sometimes i'm willing to blow one 
channel if i can count on keeping some contrast in the other two ... that's 
when the histogram helps because the best exposure is often not absolute, it's 
a creative compromise



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[Larry Colen]

On Jan 29, 2012, at 1:13 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:

>> I also agree with Godfrey on ease of manual use.
> 
> I'm glad we agree on something. ;-)

Just because I call you rude names doesn't mean that I disagree with you, or 
even that I dislike you.

> 
>> Part of the issue with digital exposure is that there is so much more 
>> information potentially available that a simple match needle would through 
>> away too much useful information.
> 
> I disagree. Until sensors data can be addressed to manipulate the
> capture data by photosite address, you will always have one exposure
> addressing all the photosites the same way. Whether you get there with
> some ultra-smart evaluative metering system, or you use your brain as
> the computational system and a meter as the dumb data input, the end
> result is always an ISO @ aperture @ exposure time.

Yes, a scalar meter for a scalar setting is about all you can do.  But there is 
a lot more information available from a histogram than from a match needle, and 
even more if the camera takes a test shot and reads the value of every sensor 
site.

There are many times when a match needle, or an AE system that follows the 
match needle is good enough, or the best available.

As to manipulating capture data by photosite address, there are times I'd 
settle for being able to set the ISO of each color channel separately.
I often have to underexpose two of the channels by a couple of stops to keep 
from blowing out the third channel.

> 
> Knowing the characteristic curve of a sensor and how digital image
> data exposure operates, it's very easy to 'place' the exposure where
> you want it with a spot meter and a moment's thought: with the
> brightest area of significant detail 5% below the saturation limit.

Very true.  How do I find 5% below the saturation limit of my sensor when the 
histogram only tells me the values on the JPEG, not on the sensor?  I'll note 
that your M9 gives the sensor values, not the jpeg values.

> Writing computational automation to understand the characteristic
> curve of the sensor @ a specific ISO setting, analyzing the scene to
> determine what is or isn't important, and setting that single exposure
> point consistently ... Well, it's not that it can't be done, but it's
> way more than most current in-camera computational processing is
> capable of.

In the time available for action shots.  But what if you had a mode where you 
could press the "analyze" button, and let it churn away for a few seconds?  How 
long would it take to read 16M values into a buffer, and note the maximum and 
minimum values?

> 
> I do this in my head faster than I can think about it. My E-5 had
> Spot-Hi and Spot-Lo modes for metering complex scenes that simplify
> manual metering (by comparison to just Spot in most other cameras,
> which is based on 18% reflectance reference).

I suspect I do a lot of this intuitively myself.  

> 
> With almost all cameras, I set my metering to centerweighted
> averaging, evaluate the pattern, and use aperture priority AE or
> manual mode. With the APAE mode, I look at the scene, see the dynamics
> of the hot and dark areas, and tweak the EV comp to suit. With Manual,
> I set it to the meter's null point then tweak it up or down the same
> way, OR I just know what the scene type requires from past experience
> and set it. My brain does this without me consciously thinking about
> it, and FAR more consistently than any exposure automation I've ever
> seen.

Do you check your results with the histogram, or just decide that you're good 
to go?

> 
>> Another issue is that digital isn't as tolerant of missed exposures as film, 
>> though at ISO 100 the K-5 may be far more tolerant of underexposure than 
>> most film.
> 
> I don't find this to be true in general. Digital capture is  more
> sensitive to the saturation point than film because it's a hard clip
> rather than a slow roll off, but it generally has more dynamic range
> and, as long as you're under the clip point, is much much much more
> manipulable. What's important to keep aware of is that as ISO
> increases, DR decreases so if you're looking at scenes that require
> elevated ISOs for hand-holdability or subject movement, you have to
> understand that the DR will be decreased and pick your important
> detail areas more carefully.

All of this is true.

> I don't know of any automation system
> that can do this pre-exposure ... they simply don't have enough data
> to work with like your eye and mind does.

Exactly, that is why I want a mode that will take a test shot, or test shots, 
analyze the data post exposure and report on the ideal exposure based on the 
scene, and your tolerance for blown out highlights.  Ideally, it could do the 
test shots, and even set optimal values for an HDR range for scenes that may 
have something like a neon sign on a dark street where one exposure is ideal 
for the sign, it skips four stops of exposure where the sign is over exposed 
and

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

> I also agree with Godfrey on ease of manual use.

I'm glad we agree on something. ;-)

> Part of the issue with digital exposure is that there is so much more 
> information potentially available that a simple match needle would through 
> away too much useful information.

I disagree. Until sensors data can be addressed to manipulate the
capture data by photosite address, you will always have one exposure
addressing all the photosites the same way. Whether you get there with
some ultra-smart evaluative metering system, or you use your brain as
the computational system and a meter as the dumb data input, the end
result is always an ISO @ aperture @ exposure time.

Knowing the characteristic curve of a sensor and how digital image
data exposure operates, it's very easy to 'place' the exposure where
you want it with a spot meter and a moment's thought: with the
brightest area of significant detail 5% below the saturation limit.
That's in practical terms the only thing you can do ... anything else
you do is a matter of processing the raw data (setting the appropriate
blackpoint, colorspace, and rendering curve to suit the dynamics of
the scene).

Writing computational automation to understand the characteristic
curve of the sensor @ a specific ISO setting, analyzing the scene to
determine what is or isn't important, and setting that single exposure
point consistently ... Well, it's not that it can't be done, but it's
way more than most current in-camera computational processing is
capable of.

I do this in my head faster than I can think about it. My E-5 had
Spot-Hi and Spot-Lo modes for metering complex scenes that simplify
manual metering (by comparison to just Spot in most other cameras,
which is based on 18% reflectance reference).

With almost all cameras, I set my metering to centerweighted
averaging, evaluate the pattern, and use aperture priority AE or
manual mode. With the APAE mode, I look at the scene, see the dynamics
of the hot and dark areas, and tweak the EV comp to suit. With Manual,
I set it to the meter's null point then tweak it up or down the same
way, OR I just know what the scene type requires from past experience
and set it. My brain does this without me consciously thinking about
it, and FAR more consistently than any exposure automation I've ever
seen.

> Another issue is that digital isn't as tolerant of missed exposures as film, 
> though at ISO 100 the K-5 may be far more tolerant of underexposure than most 
> film.

I don't find this to be true in general. Digital capture is  more
sensitive to the saturation point than film because it's a hard clip
rather than a slow roll off, but it generally has more dynamic range
and, as long as you're under the clip point, is much much much more
manipulable. What's important to keep aware of is that as ISO
increases, DR decreases so if you're looking at scenes that require
elevated ISOs for hand-holdability or subject movement, you have to
understand that the DR will be decreased and pick your important
detail areas more carefully. I don't know of any automation system
that can do this pre-exposure ... they simply don't have enough data
to work with like your eye and mind does.

On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Larry Colen  wrote:
> Steve,
>
> I get the feeling that you are the only one that actually understands what 
> I'm saying.
>
> On Jan 29, 2012, at 11:20 AM, steve harley wrote:
>
>> on 2012-01-29 05:29 Paul Stenquist wrote
>>>
>>> On Jan 29, 2012, at 12:16 AM, steve harley wrote:
>>>
 on 2012-01-28 21:57 Paul Stenquist wrote
> That's basically what today's best meters do. But they still can't gauge 
> reflectivity and color as well as the human eye can. The meter makes a 
> call and a good photographer makes the necessary adjustment. Most of the 
> time the meter will come close enough for all practical purposes. for 
> those times when it can't the photographer has to lend a hand. It 
> wouldn't be much fun if machines did all the work.

 i submit that most of us don't have "today's best meters"
>>>
>>> The K-5 comes somewhat close, but no it's not at the top of the heap. But 
>>> it's more than good enough when photographers use their brain as well as 
>>> their meters.
>>
>> that may be, but i suspect that 1) most of us don't have K-5s, and 2) even 
>> much worse metering systems are "good enough" — we can learn to compensate 
>> for anything; some of us whose professions are to designs ways to exploit 
>> technology, however, will instinctively imagine extending tools as far as is 
>> possible and efficient
>
> This is exactly what I'm doing.  My career is to write embedded systems 
> software.  Designing and writing the software for setting the exposure of a 
> camera would be a job that my 30 years of professional experience is almost 
> ideally suited for.  I recognize the limitations of the automatic systems, 
> know to check the exposure against the aids (histogram and blinkies).  What 
> 

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[Larry Colen]

Steve,

I get the feeling that you are the only one that actually understands what I'm 
saying.

On Jan 29, 2012, at 11:20 AM, steve harley wrote:

> on 2012-01-29 05:29 Paul Stenquist wrote
>> 
>> On Jan 29, 2012, at 12:16 AM, steve harley wrote:
>> 
>>> on 2012-01-28 21:57 Paul Stenquist wrote
 That's basically what today's best meters do. But they still can't gauge 
 reflectivity and color as well as the human eye can. The meter makes a 
 call and a good photographer makes the necessary adjustment. Most of the 
 time the meter will come close enough for all practical purposes. for 
 those times when it can't the photographer has to lend a hand. It wouldn't 
 be much fun if machines did all the work.
>>> 
>>> i submit that most of us don't have "today's best meters"
>> 
>> The K-5 comes somewhat close, but no it's not at the top of the heap. But 
>> it's more than good enough when photographers use their brain as well as 
>> their meters.
> 
> that may be, but i suspect that 1) most of us don't have K-5s, and 2) even 
> much worse metering systems are "good enough" — we can learn to compensate 
> for anything; some of us whose professions are to designs ways to exploit 
> technology, however, will instinctively imagine extending tools as far as is 
> possible and efficient

This is exactly what I'm doing.  My career is to write embedded systems 
software.  Designing and writing the software for setting the exposure of a 
camera would be a job that my 30 years of professional experience is almost 
ideally suited for.  I recognize the limitations of the automatic systems, know 
to check the exposure against the aids (histogram and blinkies).  What is 
frustrating is that those tools could give me exactly what I need, but they 
don't.  They tell me if the JPEG, which I don't use, would be properly exposed, 
I want to know what is happening on the sensor.  
Rather than red blinkies for over exposed and blue for underexposed portions of 
the jpeg, which will change if you change the color balance,  how about red 
blinkies if you are clipping the data on the sensor, and yellow blinkies if you 
are close enough to the limit of resolution that you'll get posterization (or 
whatever you call it when you get those annoying lines in the sky).

> 
> so as i gravitate toward a more manual process, i imagine the kind of tool i 
> want to work with; the histogram (preferably representing RAW exposure, and 
> live) simply offers a more direct means to an end; a camera's meter just 
> gives one data point; we have to guess how it has evaluated the scene to get 
> the what histogram gives us directly (or spot meter several points); i think 
> the histogram is a better tool for using our brain in conjunction with our 
> meters, and is better suited to intelligent but spontaneous photography

Exactly.  There are times when metering off the sensor would slow things down 
too much, use too much power, generate too much heat etc. But there are also 
times when it is the perfect tool.

> 
> i could even appreciate an interface that applies a little more calculus to 
> image data to indicate where in the image, and at what levels, the angle of 
> the histogram's curve is steepest and shallowest, which is part of what i 
> sort out (less effectively) with my brain now


I also wish that they'd tell me exactly what each of these modes does, rather 
than when I'm supposed to use them, and let me guess what the camera is doing.  
I understand that most people are happy with a magic box that does their 
thinking for them, so that they don't have to think about anything but 
composition, but at least tell those of us that want to know so that we can 
decide when to let the camera think for us, and when we should think for 
ourselves.  Instead, I'm left with having to always check the histogram and 
blinkies, which *almost* tell me what I need to know.

It's interesting how many people seem to despise the viewfinder that doesn't 
show the whole image, but don't seem to mind the histogram that doesn't show 
all of the information.

I also agree with Godfrey on ease of manual use.  Part of the issue with 
digital exposure is that there is so much more information potentially 
available that a simple match needle would through away too much useful 
information. Another issue is that digital isn't as tolerant of missed 
exposures as film, though at ISO 100 the K-5 may be far more tolerant of 
underexposure than most film.  When I got my K-5 I thought that I would not 
need to get a katzeye screen for it.  The stock screen seems a lot better than 
previous cameras, and the autofocus is a lot better.  However, I still find 
myself missing focus in so many cases where if I had a good manual focus 
screen, it would be trivial to nail focus perfectly.

Again, it's a case of optimizing the system for the automatic functions, that 
don't always work as well as manual.


> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[steve harley]

on 2012-01-29 05:29 Paul Stenquist wrote


On Jan 29, 2012, at 12:16 AM, steve harley wrote:


on 2012-01-28 21:57 Paul Stenquist wrote

That's basically what today's best meters do. But they still can't gauge 
reflectivity and color as well as the human eye can. The meter makes a call and 
a good photographer makes the necessary adjustment. Most of the time the meter 
will come close enough for all practical purposes. for those times when it 
can't the photographer has to lend a hand. It wouldn't be much fun if machines 
did all the work.


i submit that most of us don't have "today's best meters"


The K-5 comes somewhat close, but no it's not at the top of the heap. But it's 
more than good enough when photographers use their brain as well as their 
meters.


that may be, but i suspect that 1) most of us don't have K-5s, and 2) even much 
worse metering systems are "good enough" — we can learn to compensate for 
anything; some of us whose professions are to designs ways to exploit 
technology, however, will instinctively imagine extending tools as far as is 
possible and efficient


so as i gravitate toward a more manual process, i imagine the kind of tool i 
want to work with; the histogram (preferably representing RAW exposure, and 
live) simply offers a more direct means to an end; a camera's meter just gives 
one data point; we have to guess how it has evaluated the scene to get the what 
histogram gives us directly (or spot meter several points); i think the 
histogram is a better tool for using our brain in conjunction with our meters, 
and is better suited to intelligent but spontaneous photography


i could even appreciate an interface that applies a little more calculus to 
image data to indicate where in the image, and at what levels, the angle of the 
histogram's curve is steepest and shallowest, which is part of what i sort out 
(less effectively) with my brain now


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Paul Stenquist  wrote:
> I would find the trend toward more technology disturbing if there were no 
> options. But since I can focus manually at will, or I can choose to use a 
> single autofocus point -- with the plus of being able to choose the location 
> of that pint -- the presence of other options doesn't bother me in the least. 
> Camera makers, for the most part, aren't brain dead. They're not going to 
> take away the options that many of us require. More technology is fine, since 
> it doesn't get in my way.

So far, I have not yet found a single modern, convenience laden DSLR
with which I focus and set exposure manually as easily, fluidly,
swiftly and surely as I could with my Nikon FM2n.
-- 
Godfrey
  godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[Paul Stenquist]

On Jan 29, 2012, at 11:26 AM, George Sinos wrote:

> In general, I appreciate the developments and improvements that the
> camera designers have come up with the give us better tools and extend
> our creative reach.
> 
> At some point, it becomes problematic when they try to remove human
> judgement from the equation.
> 
> For instance, the developments in auto-focus.
> 
> At one point the human would pick the point in the image on which to
> focus, line up some little focusing aid in the viewfinder, the camera
> would then adjust the lens to focus on the point.
> 
> Making that happen faster and more accurately were welcome developments.
> 
> At some point, picking that point in the image was deemed too hard to
> teach and too much for the typical photographer to know.
> 
> So, we came up with some algorithms to have  the camera pick that
> focus point.  Some worked better than others, but none of them worked
> (or work) all that well because every photographer is not trying to do
> the same thing in every image.
> 
> So, we came up with custom functions that let the smarter and more
> persistent guys pick between super-duper-autofocus, spot focus,
> pick-your sensor focus and any number of names the marketing guys came
> up with.
> 
> Now, instead of learning the simple act of aiming and focusing, we
> have to learn all of that stuff.
> 
> After that, some genius figured that most of the time, if there is a
> face in the picture, that will be the place to focus the image.
> 
> Cameras got smarter and learned how to detect and focus on faces.
> 
> Of course, we got one more mode to pick from.  And besides, it didn't
> always actually detect the face, and sometimes we took photos without
> faces in them.  Even worse, sometimes there was more than one face in
> the photo and they were at different distances from the camera!
> 
> Engineers, being smart, said we can fix that.  Now we have face
> detection that detects every face in the photo, picks one of the faces
> for focus, highlights it in a different color so that we have the
> option of picking one of the other faces, if only we can remember what
> combination of buttons is used to pick a different face.
> 
> All of that automation and stuff to learn just so that we don't have
> to learn how to focus.  Wow.
> 
> Take this example and apply it to histograms and jpg and raw as you
> wish.  I'll step down from my soapbox now.
> 
> GS
> 
> George Sinos



I would find the trend toward more technology disturbing if there were no 
options. But since I can focus manually at will, or I can choose to use a 
single autofocus point -- with the plus of being able to choose the location of 
that pint -- the presence of other options doesn't bother me in the least. 
Camera makers, for the most part, aren't brain dead. They're not going to take 
away the options that many of us require. More technology is fine, since it 
doesn't get in my way.

Paul


> 
> gsi...@gmail.com
> www.georgesphotos.net
> plus.georgesinos.com
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 6:29 AM, Paul Stenquist  
> wrote:
>> 
>> On Jan 29, 2012, at 12:16 AM, steve harley wrote:
>> 
>>> on 2012-01-28 21:57 Paul Stenquist wrote
 That's basically what today's best meters do. But they still can't gauge 
 reflectivity and color as well as the human eye can. The meter makes a 
 call and a good photographer makes the necessary adjustment. Most of the 
 time the meter will come close enough for all practical purposes. for 
 those times when it can't the photographer has to lend a hand. It wouldn't 
 be much fun if machines did all the work.
>>> 
>>> i submit that most of us don't have "today's best meters"
>> 
>> The K-5 comes somewhat close, but no it's not at the top of the heap. But 
>> it's more than good enough when photographers use their brain as well as 
>> their meters.
>> Paul
>>> 
>>> --
>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>> PDML@pdml.net
>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
>>> follow the directions.
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
>> follow the directions.
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[George Sinos]

In general, I appreciate the developments and improvements that the
camera designers have come up with the give us better tools and extend
our creative reach.

At some point, it becomes problematic when they try to remove human
judgement from the equation.

For instance, the developments in auto-focus.

At one point the human would pick the point in the image on which to
focus, line up some little focusing aid in the viewfinder, the camera
would then adjust the lens to focus on the point.

Making that happen faster and more accurately were welcome developments.

At some point, picking that point in the image was deemed too hard to
teach and too much for the typical photographer to know.

So, we came up with some algorithms to have  the camera pick that
focus point.  Some worked better than others, but none of them worked
(or work) all that well because every photographer is not trying to do
the same thing in every image.

So, we came up with custom functions that let the smarter and more
persistent guys pick between super-duper-autofocus, spot focus,
pick-your sensor focus and any number of names the marketing guys came
up with.

Now, instead of learning the simple act of aiming and focusing, we
have to learn all of that stuff.

After that, some genius figured that most of the time, if there is a
face in the picture, that will be the place to focus the image.

Cameras got smarter and learned how to detect and focus on faces.

Of course, we got one more mode to pick from.  And besides, it didn't
always actually detect the face, and sometimes we took photos without
faces in them.  Even worse, sometimes there was more than one face in
the photo and they were at different distances from the camera!

Engineers, being smart, said we can fix that.  Now we have face
detection that detects every face in the photo, picks one of the faces
for focus, highlights it in a different color so that we have the
option of picking one of the other faces, if only we can remember what
combination of buttons is used to pick a different face.

All of that automation and stuff to learn just so that we don't have
to learn how to focus.  Wow.

Take this example and apply it to histograms and jpg and raw as you
wish.  I'll step down from my soapbox now.

GS

George Sinos

gsi...@gmail.com
www.georgesphotos.net
plus.georgesinos.com



On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 6:29 AM, Paul Stenquist  wrote:
>
> On Jan 29, 2012, at 12:16 AM, steve harley wrote:
>
>> on 2012-01-28 21:57 Paul Stenquist wrote
>>> That's basically what today's best meters do. But they still can't gauge 
>>> reflectivity and color as well as the human eye can. The meter makes a call 
>>> and a good photographer makes the necessary adjustment. Most of the time 
>>> the meter will come close enough for all practical purposes. for those 
>>> times when it can't the photographer has to lend a hand. It wouldn't be 
>>> much fun if machines did all the work.
>>
>> i submit that most of us don't have "today's best meters"
>
> The K-5 comes somewhat close, but no it's not at the top of the heap. But 
> it's more than good enough when photographers use their brain as well as 
> their meters.
> Paul
>>
>> --
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
>> follow the directions.
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[Paul Stenquist]

On Jan 29, 2012, at 12:16 AM, steve harley wrote:

> on 2012-01-28 21:57 Paul Stenquist wrote
>> That's basically what today's best meters do. But they still can't gauge 
>> reflectivity and color as well as the human eye can. The meter makes a call 
>> and a good photographer makes the necessary adjustment. Most of the time the 
>> meter will come close enough for all practical purposes. for those times 
>> when it can't the photographer has to lend a hand. It wouldn't be much fun 
>> if machines did all the work.
> 
> i submit that most of us don't have "today's best meters"

The K-5 comes somewhat close, but no it's not at the top of the heap. But it's 
more than good enough when photographers use their brain as well as their 
meters.
Paul
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[Bob W]

> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
> John Francis
[...]
> But relying on auto exposure metering under tricky lighting conditions
> is a pretty poor strategy.  That's why your camera has a spot metering
> mode, and an exposure compensation setting - so you can take control of
> the situation yourself. Or you can go the whole hog, and use an
> incident
> light meter.

Well said! Every photographer should have a whole hog in his arsenal.

B


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[John Francis]

On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 08:36:37PM -0800, Larry Colen wrote:
> 
> >> Interesting. Then why is it that if you photograph something like a white 
> >> table, or snow, using normal metering, it comes out grey rather than white?
> > 
> > Because the meter is dumb.
> 
> That is exactly my point.  There's no need for a meter to be dumb when our 
> cameras have more processing power than supercomputers of not that many years 
> ago.

It's not processing power - it's learned behaviour.

In fact, when you are in a dance club, your brain is doing almost exactly
what you are calling "dumb" - subtracting out what appears to be a colour
bias from the strange lighting, and adjusting the iris aperture so that
the amount of light falling on the sensor falls within a desired range.


But if you didn't know, a priori, what colour the walls of the club were,
you wouldn't be able to tell if they were white, 18% grey, somewhere in
between, or even light blue, primrose, or light green.

What do you expect the metering to do?  It doesn't know whether the table
top should be in Zone I, Zone IV, or Zone VII. It can measure the brightest
and darkest points of the metering area, and set the exposure so that most
of the pixels fall within the sensitivity range of the sensor.  That's what
all modern metering systems do.  In fact they go beyond that - they'll also
recognise common patterns such as a dark central area surrounded by bright
background, and bias the exposure to assume you're shooting a backlit
subject, so you need to dial in a little more exposure.

But relying on auto exposure metering under tricky lighting conditions
is a pretty poor strategy.  That's why your camera has a spot metering
mode, and an exposure compensation setting - so you can take control of
the situation yourself. Or you can go the whole hog, and use an incident
light meter.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[David Savage]

On 29 January 2012 13:00, Larry Colen  wrote:
>
> On Jan 28, 2012, at 8:36 PM, David Savage wrote:
>
>> On 29 January 2012 11:02, Larry Colen  wrote:


>>>
>>>
>>> I find a lot of my creativity in pushing the performance envelope of my
>>> gear. I find it a lot of fun to look for photos in situations where not long
>>> ago it would have been pretty much impossible to get any photos.
>>> To do this, I really need to know where the edges of that envelope are.
>>
>> If all you ever do is test the performance limits of your equipment,
>> you end up with nothing but test shots.
>
> This is true.  I don't think that all I ever do is push the envelope.  It has 
> been scarce more than a month since I went out on a photo walk, during the 
> afternoon, in lighting that allowed me to shoot a low ISO, in the f/8-16 
> range, and comfortably hand hold the photos without need of a tripod or even 
> a monopod.
>
> I also spend a fair amount of time pushing the envelope just for the 
> technical practice. For example when friends are playing at dive bars, so 
> that when I go specifically to take photos, I'm not pushing into uncharted 
> territory.  I know what the camera will do, how to make it do it, and I don't 
> have to interrupt my creativity by trying to devise solutions to new 
> technical problems.  Thursday night, I knew when I could use a flash, and 
> when it was better to use the meager available light so as not to disturb 
> people, and that I could push the camera to 12,800 at 1/10 Second and still 
> get something decent.  It was my practice pushing the envelope that allowed 
> me to just relax and be creative, even in challenging light.
>
> Then there's the case that some of my best photos come from just noodling 
> around when I'm experimenting with what the equipment will do. What happens 
> if I bounce the flash off the mirror?  What happens if I use a slow shutter 
> speed with the flash, and zoom the lens? What happens if rather than using 
> the 77/1.8 I photograph the musicians with the 200/2.8? What happens if I use 
> hi-lighter pens to draw on my model before photographing her in black light

That I can respect & appreciate.

>> I recommend focusing less on what the gear is capable of & more time
>> on creating interesting images.
>
> Interesting, because I find your night photos with the D700, where you were 
> pushing the abilities of the camera to be so inspirational, as a way of 
> creating interesting images.

But those night shots aren't a test of the equipments limitations.
They're a test of my ability to take a fun, & somewhat cliched genre
of photography, & try & put my spin on it (no pun intended)

I can tell you exactly how many test shots I took to test the D700's
night photography capabilities. One. As soon as I got a cable release
for it I set it up in the back yard pointed it at the sky and took a
23 minuet bulb exposure (I couldn't wait the extra 7 minuets)

Once I'd reviewed that test shot, I knew the camera would do what I
needed it to do. Every shot after that was just a confirmation.

>>> It's kind of like instrumentation in a car. Most people just need a
>>> speedometer, an odometer and a big red "motor meltdown light".  Oil
>>> pressure, temperature, tachometer etc. are completely superfluous.  When I'm
>>> racing, I use all of those, and often to more accuracy than
>>> "good/indifferent/bad".
>>
>> Using race car driving is a flawed analogy. Driving competitively is a
>> very technical skill. A lot of photography is an art.
>
> I suspect that anybody on this list who has driven competitively would agree 
> with me that, like photography, while it can be very technical, there is also 
> a great deal of art involved.  I find my mental state can be very similar 
> when doing a shoot as when driving on the track.  It's hard to explain how 
> for me, they can both fully occupy the intellectual, emotional and intuitive 
> centers of my brain.  Granted, the worry over blowing an exposure isn't 
> usually quite as visceral as the feeling that you may have just made a 
> mistake on the racetrack.
>
>>
>> You can learn the basics of how to drive a camera quite easily, I
>> know, I help teach people new to photography. After 6 hours most
>> people can shoot in Av, & some on full manual, after having always
>> shot on program mode.
>
> I've also taught dozens of, maybe a hundred or so, people the basics of 
> performance driving in a similar span of time.
>
>>
>> The hardest part is being creative. Focusing on the technical wont get
>> you that.
>
> I agree, but understanding the technical frees you to be creative without 
> having to use up most of your brain budget on figuring out how to get the 
> photo that you want to take.
>
> I'm certainly not claiming that what works for me works for everyone.  Hell, 
> for all I know, it may not work for me. I might be producing nothing but 
> boring, blurry, cliche' test photos in ridiculous lighting situations, but 
> I'm having fu

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[steve harley]

on 2012-01-28 22:00 Larry Colen wrote

  It was my practice pushing the envelope that allowed me to just relax and be 
creative, even in challenging light.


i often feel the same way; one of my common challenges is shooting plants under 
shifting cloud cover; even without direct sun there's a lot of dynamic range, 
and my camera (k200d) takes images whose shadows don't like to be burned in; 
i'm doing this handheld and waiting for the light to brighten for a few 
seconds; the wind is jiggling the leaves and depth of field is fighting against 
shutter speed; having practiced a lot helps me enjoy such shooting and stretch 
my creative possibilities; my technical practice is an essential element for me 
to enjoy photography


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[steve harley]

on 2012-01-28 21:36 David Savage wrote

If all you ever do is test the performance limits of your equipment,
you end up with nothing but test shots.


who does that? Larry certainly doesn't if you look at his photos ...

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[steve harley]

on 2012-01-28 21:57 Paul Stenquist wrote

That's basically what today's best meters do. But they still can't gauge 
reflectivity and color as well as the human eye can. The meter makes a call and 
a good photographer makes the necessary adjustment. Most of the time the meter 
will come close enough for all practical purposes. for those times when it 
can't the photographer has to lend a hand. It wouldn't be much fun if machines 
did all the work.


i submit that most of us don't have "today's best meters"

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[Paul Stenquist]

On Jan 28, 2012, at 11:36 PM, Larry Colen wrote:

> 
> On Jan 28, 2012, at 7:59 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Jan 28, 2012, at 10:31 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 1/28/2012 7:07 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
 
 On Jan 28, 2012, at 9:49 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
 
> 
> 
> On 1/28/2012 6:29 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>> You can "expose to the right" or anywhere you choose by using exposure 
>> comp in any metering mode. The metering isn't based on jpeg or RAW. It's 
>> based on the light and what's in front of the lens. No meter is smarter 
>> than a photographer who understands how meters work.
> 
> I'm certain that if I'm wrong someone will correct me.  The metering mode 
> in our cameras picks a spot to meter on, and sets the exposure for that 
> point at midpoint. This means that if you look at the histogram, you 
> usually get a bell curve right around the middle of the graph, expose to 
> the middle.  This means that if you go direct from RAW to JPEG without 
> any compensation in post processing, most of the pixels in the photo will 
> be right around the midpoint of exposure.
 
 No. In multi mode, the meter uses a program to analyze the scene and tries 
 to achieve a balance of highs and lows. If you don't like the histogram 
 that results, you can move it right or left with exposure comp. You only 
 get a bell curve in the middle when you have an average scene without 
 extreme highs or lwows.
>>> 
>>> Interesting. Then why is it that if you photograph something like a white 
>>> table, or snow, using normal metering, it comes out grey rather than white?
>> 
>> Because the meter is dumb.
> 
> That is exactly my point.  There's no need for a meter to be dumb when our 
> cameras have more processing power than supercomputers of not that many years 
> ago.
> 
>> It figures that if there's just one color, then it's midrange. However, 
>> modern meters do a better job than the older ones. The K5 only misses by 
>> about a stop. The older center weighted meters or averaging meters missed by 
>> close to two stops. If I shoot a snow scene with the K-5, I usually give it 
>> about plus one stop of exposure comp.
> 
> 
> 
>>> 
>>> So, what you are telling me is that the metering in our cameras is 
>>> optimized to give the best performance when shooting in raw mode, rather 
>>> than in jpeg?
>> 
>> No, it's not optimized for either mode in particular. It's just a dumb 
>> meter. It measures light and tries to guess what the scene looks like based 
>> on its firmware.
>>> 
>>> Or, that unlike in film where you'd meter differently for negatives and 
>>> slides, there is no difference in metering for getting the best exposure 
>>> out of jpegs and out of raw?
>> 
>> You only meter a bit differently for negatives and slides because of the 
>> processing. A slightly overexposed negative can still be printed rather 
>> nicely with more exposure in the enlarger, but an overexposed slide is junk. 
>> When my processing was set up right, I usually exposed about the same for BW 
>> film and transparencies -- or slides if you wish. 
>>> 
>>> 
 
> 
> What it does not do is look at the pixels out at the tail end of that 
> graph.  If a bunch of them are off to the right, and you expose for the 
> middle, then you end up clipping on a lot of your readings, in other 
> words, you'll lose highlight detail.
 
 Then you bring that back in by dialing in negative exposure comp.
> 
> Alternatively, if most of the readings are to the left of the point that 
> is metered for, then exposing for the middle will leave you with either a 
> lot of pixels that are clipped black, or a lot of your shadow detail lost 
> in the noise.
 
 Then you dial in positive exposure comp. Simple.
>>> 
>>> Why not have a mode in the camera that does it automatically?  Give me the 
>>> source code for the K-5 and I could probably implement it in a week.
>> 
>> You'd have to invent a meter that could tell the difference between gray and 
>> white. Today's meters just read light levels then compare them to firmware 
>> that tries to predict shat part of the scene is sky, what's grass, what's a 
>> face, etc. They don't really know what color things might be or how much 
>> light they are capable of reflecting.  But the human brain and the human eye 
>> can make that call with precision. So determining how much exposure comp you 
>> need based on your own intelligence is the best way, and it will probably 
>> remain the best method for many years to come.
> 
> Or, you could have the meter read all of the metering points, take a look at 
> the brightest, and dimmest, as well as the focusing point, apply a few 
> thousand cpu cycles and come out with something a lot better than what we've 
> got.
> 
That's basically what today's best meters do. But they still can't gauge 
reflectivity and 

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[Larry Colen]

On Jan 28, 2012, at 8:36 PM, David Savage wrote:

> On 29 January 2012 11:02, Larry Colen  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I find a lot of my creativity in pushing the performance envelope of my
>> gear. I find it a lot of fun to look for photos in situations where not long
>> ago it would have been pretty much impossible to get any photos.
>> To do this, I really need to know where the edges of that envelope are.
> 
> If all you ever do is test the performance limits of your equipment,
> you end up with nothing but test shots.

This is true.  I don't think that all I ever do is push the envelope.  It has 
been scarce more than a month since I went out on a photo walk, during the 
afternoon, in lighting that allowed me to shoot a low ISO, in the f/8-16 range, 
and comfortably hand hold the photos without need of a tripod or even a monopod.

I also spend a fair amount of time pushing the envelope just for the technical 
practice. For example when friends are playing at dive bars, so that when I go 
specifically to take photos, I'm not pushing into uncharted territory.  I know 
what the camera will do, how to make it do it, and I don't have to interrupt my 
creativity by trying to devise solutions to new technical problems.  Thursday 
night, I knew when I could use a flash, and when it was better to use the 
meager available light so as not to disturb people, and that I could push the 
camera to 12,800 at 1/10 Second and still get something decent.  It was my 
practice pushing the envelope that allowed me to just relax and be creative, 
even in challenging light.

Then there's the case that some of my best photos come from just noodling 
around when I'm experimenting with what the equipment will do. What happens if 
I bounce the flash off the mirror?  What happens if I use a slow shutter speed 
with the flash, and zoom the lens? What happens if rather than using the 77/1.8 
I photograph the musicians with the 200/2.8? What happens if I use hi-lighter 
pens to draw on my model before photographing her in black light

> I recommend focusing less on what the gear is capable of & more time
> on creating interesting images.

Interesting, because I find your night photos with the D700, where you were 
pushing the abilities of the camera to be so inspirational, as a way of 
creating interesting images.

>> It's kind of like instrumentation in a car. Most people just need a
>> speedometer, an odometer and a big red "motor meltdown light".  Oil
>> pressure, temperature, tachometer etc. are completely superfluous.  When I'm
>> racing, I use all of those, and often to more accuracy than
>> "good/indifferent/bad".
> 
> Using race car driving is a flawed analogy. Driving competitively is a
> very technical skill. A lot of photography is an art.

I suspect that anybody on this list who has driven competitively would agree 
with me that, like photography, while it can be very technical, there is also a 
great deal of art involved.  I find my mental state can be very similar when 
doing a shoot as when driving on the track.  It's hard to explain how for me, 
they can both fully occupy the intellectual, emotional and intuitive centers of 
my brain.  Granted, the worry over blowing an exposure isn't usually quite as 
visceral as the feeling that you may have just made a mistake on the racetrack.

> 
> You can learn the basics of how to drive a camera quite easily, I
> know, I help teach people new to photography. After 6 hours most
> people can shoot in Av, & some on full manual, after having always
> shot on program mode.

I've also taught dozens of, maybe a hundred or so, people the basics of 
performance driving in a similar span of time.

> 
> The hardest part is being creative. Focusing on the technical wont get
> you that.

I agree, but understanding the technical frees you to be creative without 
having to use up most of your brain budget on figuring out how to get the photo 
that you want to take.

I'm certainly not claiming that what works for me works for everyone.  Hell, 
for all I know, it may not work for me. I might be producing nothing but 
boring, blurry, cliche' test photos in ridiculous lighting situations, but I'm 
having fun doing it.

--
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[David Savage]

On 29 January 2012 12:36, Larry Colen  wrote:
>
> On Jan 28, 2012, at 7:59 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jan 28, 2012, at 10:31 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/28/2012 7:07 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:

 On Jan 28, 2012, at 9:49 PM, Larry Colen wrote:

>
>
> On 1/28/2012 6:29 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>> You can "expose to the right" or anywhere you choose by using exposure 
>> comp in any metering mode. The metering isn't based on jpeg or RAW. It's 
>> based on the light and what's in front of the lens. No meter is smarter 
>> than a photographer who understands how meters work.
>
> I'm certain that if I'm wrong someone will correct me.  The metering mode 
> in our cameras picks a spot to meter on, and sets the exposure for that 
> point at midpoint. This means that if you look at the histogram, you 
> usually get a bell curve right around the middle of the graph, expose to 
> the middle.  This means that if you go direct from RAW to JPEG without 
> any compensation in post processing, most of the pixels in the photo will 
> be right around the midpoint of exposure.

 No. In multi mode, the meter uses a program to analyze the scene and tries 
 to achieve a balance of highs and lows. If you don't like the histogram 
 that results, you can move it right or left with exposure comp. You only 
 get a bell curve in the middle when you have an average scene without 
 extreme highs or lwows.
>>>
>>> Interesting. Then why is it that if you photograph something like a white 
>>> table, or snow, using normal metering, it comes out grey rather than white?
>>
>> Because the meter is dumb.
>
> That is exactly my point.  There's no need for a meter to be dumb when our 
> cameras have more processing power than supercomputers of not that many years 
> ago.
>
>> It figures that if there's just one color, then it's midrange. However, 
>> modern meters do a better job than the older ones. The K5 only misses by 
>> about a stop. The older center weighted meters or averaging meters missed by 
>> close to two stops. If I shoot a snow scene with the K-5, I usually give it 
>> about plus one stop of exposure comp.
>
>
>
>>>
>>> So, what you are telling me is that the metering in our cameras is 
>>> optimized to give the best performance when shooting in raw mode, rather 
>>> than in jpeg?
>>
>> No, it's not optimized for either mode in particular. It's just a dumb 
>> meter. It measures light and tries to guess what the scene looks like based 
>> on its firmware.
>>>
>>> Or, that unlike in film where you'd meter differently for negatives and 
>>> slides, there is no difference in metering for getting the best exposure 
>>> out of jpegs and out of raw?
>>
>> You only meter a bit differently for negatives and slides because of the 
>> processing. A slightly overexposed negative can still be printed rather 
>> nicely with more exposure in the enlarger, but an overexposed slide is junk. 
>> When my processing was set up right, I usually exposed about the same for BW 
>> film and transparencies -- or slides if you wish.
>>>
>>>

>
> What it does not do is look at the pixels out at the tail end of that 
> graph.  If a bunch of them are off to the right, and you expose for the 
> middle, then you end up clipping on a lot of your readings, in other 
> words, you'll lose highlight detail.

 Then you bring that back in by dialing in negative exposure comp.
>
> Alternatively, if most of the readings are to the left of the point that 
> is metered for, then exposing for the middle will leave you with either a 
> lot of pixels that are clipped black, or a lot of your shadow detail lost 
> in the noise.

 Then you dial in positive exposure comp. Simple.
>>>
>>> Why not have a mode in the camera that does it automatically?  Give me the 
>>> source code for the K-5 and I could probably implement it in a week.
>>
>> You'd have to invent a meter that could tell the difference between gray and 
>> white. Today's meters just read light levels then compare them to firmware 
>> that tries to predict shat part of the scene is sky, what's grass, what's a 
>> face, etc. They don't really know what color things might be or how much 
>> light they are capable of reflecting.  But the human brain and the human eye 
>> can make that call with precision. So determining how much exposure comp you 
>> need based on your own intelligence is the best way, and it will probably 
>> remain the best method for many years to come.
>
> Or, you could have the meter read all of the metering points, take a look at 
> the brightest, and dimmest, as well as the focusing point, apply a few 
> thousand cpu cycles and come out with something a lot better than what we've 
> got.
>
> Or, you could have a special mode that uses the sensor as a light meter, when 
> you'd rather let the camera spend a couple of se

Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?

[Larry Colen]

On Jan 28, 2012, at 7:59 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:

> 
> On Jan 28, 2012, at 10:31 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 1/28/2012 7:07 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Jan 28, 2012, at 9:49 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
>>> 
 
 
 On 1/28/2012 6:29 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
> You can "expose to the right" or anywhere you choose by using exposure 
> comp in any metering mode. The metering isn't based on jpeg or RAW. It's 
> based on the light and what's in front of the lens. No meter is smarter 
> than a photographer who understands how meters work.
 
 I'm certain that if I'm wrong someone will correct me.  The metering mode 
 in our cameras picks a spot to meter on, and sets the exposure for that 
 point at midpoint. This means that if you look at the histogram, you 
 usually get a bell curve right around the middle of the graph, expose to 
 the middle.  This means that if you go direct from RAW to JPEG without any 
 compensation in post processing, most of the pixels in the photo will be 
 right around the midpoint of exposure.
>>> 
>>> No. In multi mode, the meter uses a program to analyze the scene and tries 
>>> to achieve a balance of highs and lows. If you don't like the histogram 
>>> that results, you can move it right or left with exposure comp. You only 
>>> get a bell curve in the middle when you have an average scene without 
>>> extreme highs or lwows.
>> 
>> Interesting. Then why is it that if you photograph something like a white 
>> table, or snow, using normal metering, it comes out grey rather than white?
> 
> Because the meter is dumb.

That is exactly my point.  There's no need for a meter to be dumb when our 
cameras have more processing power than supercomputers of not that many years 
ago.

> It figures that if there's just one color, then it's midrange. However, 
> modern meters do a better job than the older ones. The K5 only misses by 
> about a stop. The older center weighted meters or averaging meters missed by 
> close to two stops. If I shoot a snow scene with the K-5, I usually give it 
> about plus one stop of exposure comp.



>> 
>> So, what you are telling me is that the metering in our cameras is optimized 
>> to give the best performance when shooting in raw mode, rather than in jpeg?
> 
> No, it's not optimized for either mode in particular. It's just a dumb meter. 
> It measures light and tries to guess what the scene looks like based on its 
> firmware.
>> 
>> Or, that unlike in film where you'd meter differently for negatives and 
>> slides, there is no difference in metering for getting the best exposure out 
>> of jpegs and out of raw?
> 
> You only meter a bit differently for negatives and slides because of the 
> processing. A slightly overexposed negative can still be printed rather 
> nicely with more exposure in the enlarger, but an overexposed slide is junk. 
> When my processing was set up right, I usually exposed about the same for BW 
> film and transparencies -- or slides if you wish. 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
 
 What it does not do is look at the pixels out at the tail end of that 
 graph.  If a bunch of them are off to the right, and you expose for the 
 middle, then you end up clipping on a lot of your readings, in other 
 words, you'll lose highlight detail.
>>> 
>>> Then you bring that back in by dialing in negative exposure comp.
 
 Alternatively, if most of the readings are to the left of the point that 
 is metered for, then exposing for the middle will leave you with either a 
 lot of pixels that are clipped black, or a lot of your shadow detail lost 
 in the noise.
>>> 
>>> Then you dial in positive exposure comp. Simple.
>> 
>> Why not have a mode in the camera that does it automatically?  Give me the 
>> source code for the K-5 and I could probably implement it in a week.
> 
> You'd have to invent a meter that could tell the difference between gray and 
> white. Today's meters just read light levels then compare them to firmware 
> that tries to predict shat part of the scene is sky, what's grass, what's a 
> face, etc. They don't really know what color things might be or how much 
> light they are capable of reflecting.  But the human brain and the human eye 
> can make that call with precision. So determining how much exposure comp you 
> need based on your own intelligence is the best way, and it will probably 
> remain the best method for many years to come.

Or, you could have the meter read all of the metering points, take a look at 
the brightest, and dimmest, as well as the focusing point, apply a few thousand 
cpu cycles and come out with something a lot better than what we've got.

Or, you could have a special mode that uses the sensor as a light meter, when 
you'd rather let the camera spend a couple of seconds making the corrections, 
rather than going through a few test shots yourself.

Or, at the very least, as Pentax, you could describe the