Site Sponsors
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 51 to 52 of 52

Thread: Exposure problems

  1. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Dallas/Novosibirsk
    Posts
    632
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Exposure problems

    Quote Originally Posted by TH_Alpa View Post
    It was never meant as a criticism of the method used, nor is it my intention to force into anything, but it is rather an open discussion between photographers in which one tries to give and exchange information, the way this forum works and should be for.

    My apology if you felt so, Sergei.

    Best regards
    Thierry
    (odd, my reply didn't post earlier today.. go figure).

    Not at all, Thierry - i am not taking it as any sort of attack or uber-criticism. I have strong belief that only way to learn is to ask questions (albeit - right ones.. as my school math teacher used to say "right question - half of the answer") and to discuss things. And i like learning , and there is a lot to learn and experiment with in photography, specially now, when digital gives us ability to see results faster (he said, after spending few hours today, twiddling with 4x5 negatives ).

    Despite doing workshops meself, I am constantly attending seminars on photography (ok, not constantly, but whenever i got cash to burn on chance of learning new tidbits), and i wouldn't mind picking lock or two on histograms

  2. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Dallas/Novosibirsk
    Posts
    632
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Exposure problems

    Quote Originally Posted by jlm View Post
    re the histogram. this is really sort of an incident meter that happens to show where the highs and lows fall. Unlike a reflected meter reading, the histo does not relate the readings literally to specific parts of the scene. You can guess, but that is not the same thing. I find it useful in the same way my incident meter is useful
    Actually on modern digital backs allow you to get histograms of particular scene bits. Nearly down to pixel, which is what we were talking about above. But it get some time.. And not available to everyone.

    Oh and as for DxO - i wouldn't trust them too much. They have their own way of doing stuff, and they do readings on jpegs.. and we all know how it all works with jpeg "SOOC"..

    But i can tell you from experience with calibrating ZD back and Leaf back and D700, and Olympus E-3, and E-P2, that they do have different graphs of response for "standard" ISO steps (25-50-100-200-400). I.e they are indeed a bit off , but then so was film in old days. Cheer up, meter/memorize compensations and shoot Technical stuff is too boring anyway

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •