|
Jimlad posted:Edit: Oh, so you mean everyone shoots jpeg? Is THAT why?? That's not why but I'm almost always in JPEG-Fine. I'm fully aware that it's throwing out a bunch of data, but I generally only shoot raw when I know or suspect I'm going to have to do some serious fuckery in post. Of course people should snype whatever they want, but yeah it's not just grannies who shoot JPEG.
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 03:52 |
|
|
I just read the D7000 manual and it saysquote:Camera histograms are intended as a guide only and may differ from those displayed in Not the sony but I think that's kind of what all the cameras do. With the a7 I don't know why you're so worried about having it exactly perfect in camera, there's supposed to be like infinite detail in the sensor. The auto modes on the camera should leave you, worst case, within a stop or two of the correct exposure. Just look at the in camera histogram to make sure nothing went horribly wrong then use the RAW file to tweak things to taste in post. Have you tried putting the images you consider underexposed into lightroom or something and fixing the exposure there? Did the detail in the shadows look like poo poo or something?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
I thought this was too dumb to even mention, but are you using the right metering mode? I mean assuming for a second you're photographing a giant black dildo in a lightbox that's pure white, yes the matrix meter is going to poo poo its pants and you won't get any vein detail on the dildo and it will be underexposed in the background. Of course, shooting in spot-metering mode, you'd get a correct exposure for whatever you're pointing your camera at (the black dildo, not the white backdrop) and the meter won't give two shits if the entire background is blown out. Or center-weighted, if you find that's a better compromise.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:I thought this was too dumb to even mention, but are you using the right metering mode? I mean assuming for a second you're photographing a giant black dildo in a lightbox that's pure white, yes the matrix meter is going to poo poo its pants and you won't get any vein detail on the dildo and it will be underexposed in the background. Of course, shooting in spot-metering mode, you'd get a correct exposure for whatever you're pointing your camera at and the meter won't give two shits if the entire background is blown out. Or center-weighted, if you find that's a better compromise. Look at this scrub that ain't side lighting the veins like a true pro dicktographer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:Look at this scrub that ain't side lighting the veins like a true pro dicktographer. My god, how could I have been so foolish, thinking there might already be light from the side in a light box. I think we have to have a rap battle now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:My god, how could I have been so foolish, thinking there might already be light from the side in a light box. Every fool knows you gotta light that dick from the top and use either side lights for definition or a black reflector. Just think of the dick like a wine glass, shouldn't be too hard.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:Just think of the dick like a wine glass Believe me brother, I already do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm generally talking about matrix/evaluative metering, but it seems like the problem is just that I'm trying to ETTR and apparently that's pretty weird! Here's me thinking "of course, that's how everyone sets their exposures. What other way is there?" So uhm... scrub dicktographer question time: how does everyone set their exposures? Jam it at whatever exposure comp feels right and fix anything bad in post?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
Jimlad posted:Yeah, I'm generally talking about matrix/evaluative metering, but it seems like the problem is just that I'm trying to ETTR and apparently that's pretty weird! Here's me thinking "of course, that's how everyone sets their exposures. What other way is there?" I usually let the matrix meter do its thing unless I know it's going to gently caress it up, and call it a day when I'm within half a stop of what I want. This is shooting in aperture-priority. Full manual if I'm using flashes and/or if I'm shooting something where the light never changes, and then usually it's "look at what the matrix meter thought was a good idea, switch to manual, use those numbers plus or minus a bit."
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
Obviously what you have to do is set up a tripod, then take 2 shots for each exposure value +-3 stops, then merge them in photoshop
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:Obviously what you have to do is set up a tripod, then take 2 shots for each exposure value +-3 stops, then merge them in photoshop I thought the proper procedure was to take 20-30 exposures, in 1/3 stop intervals, and spending a week meticulously cutting out each little bit to combine them into one perfect photo, entering a complete trance as you push Photoshop to its limits.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
The proper procedure is: don't take a photo, kill yourself, and then sell your camera. I mean that's how I do it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
Rotten Cookies posted:I thought the proper procedure was to take 20-30 exposures, in 1/3 stop intervals, and spending a week meticulously cutting out each little bit to combine them into one perfect photo, entering a complete trance as you push Photoshop to its limits. you forgot the shots with the polarizing filter, what a scrub
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:The proper procedure is: don't take a photo, kill yourself, and then sell your camera. I mean that's how I do it. Liar, you don't even follow your own advice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
Jimlad posted:Yeah, I'm generally talking about matrix/evaluative metering, but it seems like the problem is just that I'm trying to ETTR and apparently that's pretty weird! Here's me thinking "of course, that's how everyone sets their exposures. What other way is there?" For walk-around in aperture priority, I use center-weighted average metering with no exposure compensation. I use to use the exposure compensation between -1/3 to -1 stop, but as you've mentioned it isn't really a one size fits all solution. I found that more often than not, what was throwing things off from what I thought would look good was a bit of bright sky or dark shadow in the corners. I ended up finding that center-weighted average was the best compromise, as it generally did a good job of exposing the subject without having shadows or brightness on the edges pull things one way of the other. For everything else I'm in full manual and use the meter as a suggestion or ignore it completely because art is subjective and all that. Beowulfs_Ghost fucked around with this message at 02:33 on Aug 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
I shoot jpg, spot metered, -1/3 ev. Only time I need raw is when I'm shooting your mom. But really, I tend to spot meter and cheat because my viewfinder is wysiwyg. So I just spot my scene until get what I like  LE button deployed. Reframe and push art button. In aperture priority.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
Lets say I'm a dumbass and walked into trying to take pictures a week ago (I am). What is the purpose of a histogram and how do you use what it shows you to get some sort of result? It's pretty prominently positioned in LR so I want to know what it's for. Googling it just tells me it's a form of chart used in statistics, which I can understand but isn't exactly useful. On a semi-related note: is the 'guide mode' on my camera any use at all? Are the suggestions therein bunk or are they an easy way to get a decent result?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
I need to learn more about my camera's histogram, too. So assume I don't actually know and am just parroting what I've found on-line, plus a little background knowledge. A histogram, broadly speaking, is a way to visualize data by categorizing it and showing how much of that data fits into each category. In the case of a brightness histogram, the camera is chopping the continuous range of brightness it "sees" in the image into 256 categories. Any pixel that's totally black goes into the first category, brightness = zero. Likewise, any pixel that's completely white goes into the last category, brightness = 255. Everything in between gets an in-between value. For black-and-white, that's all you need. For colour, you get more histograms, usually laid onto each other so the parts that overlap are just grey. Each dot of height on each column in the histogram represents one pixel that's that particular brightness. Or something more than a single pixel, given the millions of pixels coming off of a modern DSLR's sensor. Imagine a simple image, consisting of, say, a concrete bridge over water, during mid-day. The top of the bridge is very light grey, so those pixels fill up the categories at the top of the range, like 200-250. That part of the histogram - way over on the right, but not the very right-most edge - is all tall columns. The bottom of the bridge is in shadow, and takes up more of the image than the top because you shot this picture from the riverbank. Anyway, those shadowy under-bridge pixels fall into the low end categories, down around 50-100. So there's another hump on the histogram there. The dark water falls in the middle, around 100-175, so the middle of the histogram is a set of smaller bars. Finally, the sunlight is reflecting off the water and making pretty, pretty starbursts, which are completely blown (but pretty!) and sit at 255. So there's a thin line at the far right. This stream-of-consciousness explanation brought to you by the crapload of black pepper I dumped into my pasta.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:That's not why but I'm almost always in JPEG-Fine. I'm fully aware that it's throwing out a bunch of data, but I generally only shoot raw when I know or suspect I'm going to have to do some serious fuckery in post. Of course people should snype whatever they want, but yeah it's not just grannies who shoot JPEG. On my Pentax there's a button you can press while reviewing the most recent shot that will also save the raw; don't know if other cameras do that because I don't know poo poo. I've used it a few times when the preview looked really lovely, in the hopes that I could save it later. For example, pretty much every time I hand the camera to a random person to get a picture with my wife.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:On my Pentax there's a button you can press while reviewing the most recent shot that will also save the raw; don't know if other cameras do that because I don't know poo poo. I've used it a few times when the preview looked really lovely, in the hopes that I could save it later. For example, pretty much every time I hand the camera to a random person to get a picture with my wife. Yeah I can assign the Fn button to this, but I usually assign it to spot metering.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 08:22
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:On my Pentax there's a button you can press while reviewing the most recent shot that will also save the raw; don't know if other cameras do that because I don't know poo poo. I've used it a few times when the preview looked really lovely, in the hopes that I could save it later. For example, pretty much every time I hand the camera to a random person to get a picture with my wife. That's a really clever idea and it makes me sad that Pentax isn't a leader anymore, as they have some great ideas.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 08:47
|
|
|
spog posted:That's a really clever idea and it makes me sad that Pentax isn't a leader anymore, as they have some great ideas. They also had a full-frame K-mount DSLR (that they prototyped then never made because they hate money and market share). It was shown off at Photokina some year, much in the style of the Kodak DCS F100 conversions. You were so close, Pentax. So close.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 08:57
|
|
|
Jimlad posted:That doesn't help me much though, because I'm not shooting to make it look good out of the camera, I'm shooting for it to look ideal in post. Jimlad posted:So uhm... scrub dicktographer question time: how does everyone set their exposures? Jam it at whatever exposure comp feels right and fix anything bad in post? evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 13:16 on Aug 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 13:02
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Stop spergin' about ETTR. I guarantee you other aspects of your photography are holding you back a whole lot more than whatever shadow detail you think you're missing, especially if you shoot street stuff. Well yeah that's true, but I don't understand what's the downside to ETTR other than the lack of tools to do it properly - why would you not do it anyway? Just because it's only one small factor amongst many in getting a good photo, does that mean it's not worth doing?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 13:14
|
|
|
There's no point anymore. Modern sensors really don't have the troubles capturing shadows anymore, unless you critically underexpose huge chunks of the image you can just brighten it in post without running into major noise or loss of information. It's just an annoyance that would honestly keep you from being able to just take a picture and see about how it'll end up once you're done. Go out, set your a7 to Aperture priority and pretend you have a film camera for a day. Just take pictures at the normal settings and don't even look at the previews.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 13:19
|
|
|
Jimlad posted:Well yeah that's true, but I don't understand what's the downside to ETTR other than the lack of tools to do it properly - why would you not do it anyway? Just because it's only one small factor amongst many in getting a good photo, does that mean it's not worth doing? Composition means a ton more than ettr. Work on that instead, autist next your gonna bitch that you can't quite crapture the right light details without a full frame sensor. But really, gently caress ettr until you understand composing an exposure values. Your focused on the wrong part of art. No one gives a gently caress that you used ettr when you show them a picture
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 14:33
|
|
|
Jimlad posted:Well yeah that's true, but I don't understand what's the downside to ETTR other than the lack of tools to do it properly - why would you not do it anyway? Just because it's only one small factor amongst many in getting a good photo, does that mean it's not worth doing? take more photographs
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
Jimlad posted:ETTR ETTR ETTR ETTR take more photographs
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
I expose myself to the right... and to the left
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
Elliotw2 posted:There's no point anymore. Modern sensors really don't have the troubles capturing shadows anymore, unless you critically underexpose huge chunks of the image you can just brighten it in post without running into major noise or loss of information. It's just an annoyance that would honestly keep you from being able to just take a picture and see about how it'll end up once you're done. Go out, set your a7 to Aperture priority and pretend you have a film camera for a day. Just take pictures at the normal settings and don't even look at the previews. That's the thing, most of the worries about ETTR are by photo forum pro-posters bitching that LR can't pull shadow detail out of shots under exposed by 6 stops. Remember 'expose for shadow, print for highlights,' learn the basics of dodge and burn, and you should be fine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
Jimlad posted:If I used EV+0 in camera, then the images look ok on the back of the LCD screen I guess, but that's in no way what I actually want. If I didn't consistently push my exposure as far as possible in-camera, then I'd be losing a lot of data, probably one or two bits in some scenes, which in my head I liken to a jump or more between sensor sizes. Oh no, one-bit data loss! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
Jimlad posted:Well yeah that's true, but I don't understand what's the downside to ETTR other than the lack of tools to do it properly - why would you not do it anyway? Just because it's only one small factor amongst many in getting a good photo, does that mean it's not worth doing? Like I said before, ETTR was something cameras sort of automatically did to make up for the fact that old sensor technology was bad at keeping noise out of the shadows. Other than that, the tools for doing "exposure to the right" are to either set the exposure comp or use manual mode and expose it how ever you want. If you are doing that but don't like the results, then that is the downside to doing it. And I'll put in another vote for going out to take pictures without looking at the LCD.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:They also had a full-frame K-mount DSLR (that they prototyped then never made because they hate money and market share). It was shown off at Photokina some year, much in the style of the Kodak DCS F100 conversions. Your words hurt.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Yeah I can assign the Fn button to this, but I usually assign it to spot metering. That's a really good idea, I'd been wondering what I should assign the programmable button to and I think spot metering is the way to go.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
Calm down, people. I already know that nobody cares about the technical aspects of photography when you show them a picture. I don't know at what point I've said "I don't care about or understand composition", or "This is how it should theoretically work but I never actually take photos," but honestly that's completely not the case - I go out and shoot most days and I strongly believe that the basic artistic elements of photography are far more important than whether you're using an iPhone or Hasselblad. Would anyone imagine that it's possible to simultaneously care about taking a pretty picture and care about how to technically get the most of my camera while doing it? The first sign of anyone trying to figure out what's actually going on in their camera and suddenly there are cries of "Sperg! Sperg!"  Thanks to the guys who've actually offered constructive advice though.My initial point was that I'm shocked about how Sony hasn't got any features to allow proper ETTR, but the response from this thread has made it obvious why. I'm not going to completely stop shooting that way because that's what I've always done, and despite everyone saying that's a waste of time, nobody's yet suggested any disadvantages other than it not being cool with them. That's fine, but I'll keep doing everything practical that I can to maximise image quality in whatever I shoot. That's just my MO. That's not to say I'm stubborn enough not to give random exposure shooting a try, I'll probably try that this weekend just to see what happens. Still on the exposure topic, what's the best way to optimise image quality in terms of ISO? Usually I keep it at base unless I have no choice but to increase it to avoid underexposure, in which case I'll keep it as low as possible while doing ETTR, but I'm wondering whether that's the right approach. Is it better to keep it at base and push process for a given aperture/shutter speed? Bubbacub posted:Oh no, one-bit data loss! Erm, you realise that reducing your dynamic range by one bit is equivalent to half your total data, or one full stop, right? Jimlad fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Aug 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
ISO on my NEX-F3 is basically that anything under 3200 is very nice and clean and 3200 can be cleaned up if I got focus perfectly. The a7 has the newer full frame sensor so just wing it until it looks awful.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
Jimlad posted:Calm down, people. I already know that nobody cares about the technical aspects of photography when you show them a picture. I don't know at what point I've said "I don't care about or understand composition", or "This is how it should theoretically work but I never actually take photos," but honestly that's completely not the case - I go out and shoot most days and I strongly believe that the basic artistic elements of photography are far more important than whether you're using an iPhone or Hasselblad. Would anyone imagine that it's possible to simultaneously care about taking a pretty picture and care about how to technically get the most of my camera while doing it? The first sign of anyone trying to figure out what's actually going on in their camera and suddenly there are cries of "Sperg! Sperg!" This is a lot of  for someone telling us to calm down. Maybe you should go take more photographs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:This is a lot of I took 5 selfies with a tripod and remote shutter release under studio lighting while I was rage-typing my post, does that count?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
Jimlad posted:I took 5 selfies with a tripod and remote shutter release under studio lighting while I was rage-typing my post, does that count? Only if you post them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 03:52 |
|
|
ok, give me a few days I have to do all the post processing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 19:46
|
|