Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Overexposuring analog film?
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Sandman
May 28, 2012, 3:59:10 AM5/28/12
to
The lab that developed my film gave me a tip on analog shooting. He
said that I should overexpose my shots by setting the camera ISO
setting to a step lower than than actual film. So my T-Max 400 film
should be set to ISO 200, and my Portra 160 should be set to ISO 80.
Looking at my pics, some are underexposed (which in most cases
actually makes them look quite interesting).
Do you guys have any comments on this?
--
Sandman[.net]
said that I should overexpose my shots by setting the camera ISO
setting to a step lower than than actual film. So my T-Max 400 film
should be set to ISO 200, and my Portra 160 should be set to ISO 80.
Looking at my pics, some are underexposed (which in most cases
actually makes them look quite interesting).
Do you guys have any comments on this?
--
Sandman[.net]
Martin Brown
May 28, 2012, 5:00:12 AM5/28/12
to
On 28/05/2012 08:59, Sandman wrote:
> The lab that developed my film gave me a tip on analog shooting. He
> said that I should overexpose my shots by setting the camera ISO
> setting to a step lower than than actual film. So my T-Max 400 film
> should be set to ISO 200, and my Portra 160 should be set to ISO 80.
>
> Looking at my pics, some are underexposed (which in most cases
> actually makes them look quite interesting).
Worth trying out bracketing exposures on a couple of ladnsacpes with
> The lab that developed my film gave me a tip on analog shooting. He
> said that I should overexpose my shots by setting the camera ISO
> setting to a step lower than than actual film. So my T-Max 400 film
> should be set to ISO 200, and my Portra 160 should be set to ISO 80.
>
> Looking at my pics, some are underexposed (which in most cases
> actually makes them look quite interesting).
clouds in to get a feel for how things behave on film. Easier and
cheaper to do digitally of course but slightly different behaviour.
>
> Do you guys have any comments on this?
I'd be inclined to over expose most analogue films by a half a stop as
> Do you guys have any comments on this?
their nominal rated ASA always seemed to be a tadge optimistic.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Sandman
May 28, 2012, 5:23:46 AM5/28/12
to
In article <B8Hwr.1517$dr4....@newsfe04.iad>,
Ok, half-stop vs one stop. Thanks for the suggestion, I'll try both :)
--
Sandman[.net]
--
Sandman[.net]
Rob
May 28, 2012, 6:09:34 AM5/28/12
to
Rob
May 28, 2012, 6:19:56 AM5/28/12
to
Most labs use a replenishment system to "top up" there chemicals to the
correct concentration which keeps them "fresh". Usually labs just go
merrily along and seldom check the developer with a test strip during
the normal days production. Its only the startup period when its checked
and the film density measured. So if your film is developed in the
afternoon the strength could be under which will under develop the film.
Just as a check compare the edge strip of the film which has been
correctly exposed for a reference as to the correct development.
Sandman
May 28, 2012, 6:30:00 AM5/28/12
to
In article <jpvjgh$84k$1...@dont-email.me>, Rob <mesa...@google.com>
wrote:
Ah, good info. Thanks
--
Sandman[.net]
wrote:
--
Sandman[.net]
Jeff
May 28, 2012, 12:01:21 PM5/28/12
to
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote in news:mr-B2EDBA.12300028052012
@News.Individual.NET:
Misinformation.
A processor is _not_ run all day and then "topped up" at the end. There is
a metered flow of replenishment chemicals during the time film is moving
through the machine. A test strip run during production will not be
significantly different from one run at the beginning of the day (which
would represent chemical conditions at the end of the previous day).
Comparing the unexposed edge strip will not reveal anything unless it was
discolored by severe overdevelopment. The base color is built in at
manufacture and can naturally vary between film types and batches of the
same type.
@News.Individual.NET:
A processor is _not_ run all day and then "topped up" at the end. There is
a metered flow of replenishment chemicals during the time film is moving
through the machine. A test strip run during production will not be
significantly different from one run at the beginning of the day (which
would represent chemical conditions at the end of the previous day).
Comparing the unexposed edge strip will not reveal anything unless it was
discolored by severe overdevelopment. The base color is built in at
manufacture and can naturally vary between film types and batches of the
same type.
nospam
May 28, 2012, 12:22:24 PM5/28/12
to
In article <mr-89349B.09...@News.Individual.NET>, Sandman
when i shot film, i'd usually set the iso to half of what it said on
the box for print film. don't do that for slide film.
the box for print film. don't do that for slide film.
Darrell Larose
May 28, 2012, 1:49:20 PM5/28/12
to
of working in photo labs I've had automatic replenishment the processing
machine records the area of the film that passes through it and squirts
the correct amount of fresh chemicals to keep the machine in tolerance.
In a hand process, or sink-line the lab tech records how much film
he/she has processed and adds replenisher based on the manual volume. If
the lab was closed on the weekend, then water may be added to compensate
for evapouration, which would make the chemistry stronger, control
strips are run normally each morning at the start of production. Better
labs also measure the pH levels, but most just run the control strips.
Some labs don't plot their curves, as those send the strips off to head
office, I avoid those type of labs, as they can be out of control
several days before somebody gets to the branch to correct it.
--
Darrell Larose
_____________________________________________
web: http://DarrellLarose.ca
blog: http://DarrellLarose.wordpress.com
_____________________________________________
Darrell Larose
May 28, 2012, 1:56:54 PM5/28/12
to
on standards, which may not agree with your personal technique. Most of
the wedding guys shot their Kodak VPSIII film (marked ISO=160) at 80~100
which gave them negatives they liked. The Real World is not a standards
laboratory!!! From a lab tech's point of view 1/2-1/3 over is never
going to be an issue, well within the film's latitude. I have printed
some colour negatives, that we would refer to as "Atomic Bomb
goggles..." so dense you could barely see light pass through them, and
have been surprised that the machine coped with them.
George Kerby
May 28, 2012, 2:50:13 PM5/28/12
to
On 5/28/12 12:56 PM, in article
jq0e8r$eka$1...@darrelllarose.eternal-september.org, "Darrell Larose"
<Darrell...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Martin Brown wrote:
>> On 28/05/2012 08:59, Sandman wrote:
>>> The lab that developed my film gave me a tip on analog shooting. He
>>> said that I should overexpose my shots by setting the camera ISO
>>> setting to a step lower than than actual film. So my T-Max 400 film
>>> should be set to ISO 200, and my Portra 160 should be set to ISO 80.
>>>
>>> Looking at my pics, some are underexposed (which in most cases
>>> actually makes them look quite interesting).
>>
>> Worth trying out bracketing exposures on a couple of ladnsacpes with
>> clouds in to get a feel for how things behave on film. Easier and
>> cheaper to do digitally of course but slightly different behaviour.
>>>
>>> Do you guys have any comments on this?
>>
>> I'd be inclined to over expose most analogue films by a half a stop as
>> their nominal rated ASA always seemed to be a tadge optimistic.
>>
> I always over-exposed my film, based on testing. The marked ISO is based
> on standards, which may not agree with your personal technique. Most of
> the wedding guys shot their Kodak VPSIII film (marked ISO=160) at 80~100
> which gave them negatives they liked. The Real World is not a standards
> laboratory!!! From a lab tech's point of view 1/2-1/3 over is never
> going to be an issue, well within the film's latitude. I have printed
> some colour negatives, that we would refer to as "Atomic Bomb
> goggles..." so dense you could barely see light pass through them, and
> have been surprised that the machine coped with them.
>
True. Negative film is sorta like RAW in that sense.
> Martin Brown wrote:
>> On 28/05/2012 08:59, Sandman wrote:
>>> The lab that developed my film gave me a tip on analog shooting. He
>>> said that I should overexpose my shots by setting the camera ISO
>>> setting to a step lower than than actual film. So my T-Max 400 film
>>> should be set to ISO 200, and my Portra 160 should be set to ISO 80.
>>>
>>> Looking at my pics, some are underexposed (which in most cases
>>> actually makes them look quite interesting).
>>
>> Worth trying out bracketing exposures on a couple of ladnsacpes with
>> clouds in to get a feel for how things behave on film. Easier and
>> cheaper to do digitally of course but slightly different behaviour.
>>>
>>> Do you guys have any comments on this?
>>
>> I'd be inclined to over expose most analogue films by a half a stop as
>> their nominal rated ASA always seemed to be a tadge optimistic.
>>
> I always over-exposed my film, based on testing. The marked ISO is based
> on standards, which may not agree with your personal technique. Most of
> the wedding guys shot their Kodak VPSIII film (marked ISO=160) at 80~100
> which gave them negatives they liked. The Real World is not a standards
> laboratory!!! From a lab tech's point of view 1/2-1/3 over is never
> going to be an issue, well within the film's latitude. I have printed
> some colour negatives, that we would refer to as "Atomic Bomb
> goggles..." so dense you could barely see light pass through them, and
> have been surprised that the machine coped with them.
>
Rob
May 28, 2012, 10:20:10 PM5/28/12
to
There is
> a metered flow of replenishment chemicals during the time film is moving
> through the machine. A test strip run during production will not be
> significantly different from one run at the beginning of the day (which
> would represent chemical conditions at the end of the previous day).
>
> Comparing the unexposed edge strip will not reveal anything unless it was
> discolored by severe overdevelopment. The base color is built in at
> manufacture and can naturally vary between film types and batches of the
> same type.
>
Rob
May 28, 2012, 10:23:19 PM5/28/12
to
> In a hand process, or sink-line the lab tech records how much film
> he/she has processed and adds replenisher based on the manual volume. If
> the lab was closed on the weekend, then water may be added to compensate
> for evapouration, which would make the chemistry stronger,
control
> strips are run normally each morning at the start of production.
Better
> labs also measure the pH levels, but most just run the control strips.
> Some labs don't plot their curves, as those send the strips off to head
> office, I avoid those type of labs, as they can be out of control
> several days before somebody gets to the branch to correct it.
>
Rob
May 28, 2012, 10:25:15 PM5/28/12
to
Slide film you should bracket it its critical.
Rob
May 28, 2012, 10:26:45 PM5/28/12
to
On 29/05/2012 3:56 AM, Darrell Larose wrote:
> Martin Brown wrote:
>> On 28/05/2012 08:59, Sandman wrote:
>>> The lab that developed my film gave me a tip on analog shooting. He
>>> said that I should overexpose my shots by setting the camera ISO
>>> setting to a step lower than than actual film. So my T-Max 400 film
>>> should be set to ISO 200, and my Portra 160 should be set to ISO 80.
>>>
>>> Looking at my pics, some are underexposed (which in most cases
>>> actually makes them look quite interesting).
>>
>> Worth trying out bracketing exposures on a couple of ladnsacpes with
>> clouds in to get a feel for how things behave on film. Easier and
>> cheaper to do digitally of course but slightly different behaviour.
>>>
>>> Do you guys have any comments on this?
>>
>> I'd be inclined to over expose most analogue films by a half a stop as
>> their nominal rated ASA always seemed to be a tadge optimistic.
>>
> I always over-exposed my film, based on testing. The marked ISO is based
> on standards, which may not agree with your personal technique. Most of
> the wedding guys shot their Kodak VPSIII film (marked ISO=160) at 80~100
> which gave them negatives they liked. The Real World is not a standards
> laboratory!!! From a lab tech's point of view 1/2-1/3 over is never
> going to be an issue, well within the film's latitude. I have printed
> some colour negatives, that we would refer to as "Atomic Bomb
> goggles..." so dense you could barely see light pass through them, and
> have been surprised that the machine coped with them.
>
>
>
>
VPS comes with a spec sheet which states the actual ISO which may differ
> Martin Brown wrote:
>> On 28/05/2012 08:59, Sandman wrote:
>>> The lab that developed my film gave me a tip on analog shooting. He
>>> said that I should overexpose my shots by setting the camera ISO
>>> setting to a step lower than than actual film. So my T-Max 400 film
>>> should be set to ISO 200, and my Portra 160 should be set to ISO 80.
>>>
>>> Looking at my pics, some are underexposed (which in most cases
>>> actually makes them look quite interesting).
>>
>> Worth trying out bracketing exposures on a couple of ladnsacpes with
>> clouds in to get a feel for how things behave on film. Easier and
>> cheaper to do digitally of course but slightly different behaviour.
>>>
>>> Do you guys have any comments on this?
>>
>> I'd be inclined to over expose most analogue films by a half a stop as
>> their nominal rated ASA always seemed to be a tadge optimistic.
>>
> I always over-exposed my film, based on testing. The marked ISO is based
> on standards, which may not agree with your personal technique. Most of
> the wedding guys shot their Kodak VPSIII film (marked ISO=160) at 80~100
> which gave them negatives they liked. The Real World is not a standards
> laboratory!!! From a lab tech's point of view 1/2-1/3 over is never
> going to be an issue, well within the film's latitude. I have printed
> some colour negatives, that we would refer to as "Atomic Bomb
> goggles..." so dense you could barely see light pass through them, and
> have been surprised that the machine coped with them.
>
>
>
>
from whats stated on the box.
Darrell Larose
May 28, 2012, 11:03:12 PM5/28/12
to
Rob wrote:
> On 29/05/2012 3:49 AM, Darrell Larose wrote:
>
>>>
>> Good information Jeff, all processing equipment I've used in 30+ years
>> of working in photo labs I've had automatic replenishment the processing
>> machine records the area of the film that passes through it and squirts
>> the correct amount of fresh chemicals to keep the machine in tolerance.
>
> have a reread of what I said!
> On 29/05/2012 3:49 AM, Darrell Larose wrote:
>
>>>
>> Good information Jeff, all processing equipment I've used in 30+ years
>> of working in photo labs I've had automatic replenishment the processing
>> machine records the area of the film that passes through it and squirts
>> the correct amount of fresh chemicals to keep the machine in tolerance.
>
>
>
>> In a hand process, or sink-line the lab tech records how much film
>> he/she has processed and adds replenisher based on the manual volume. If
>> the lab was closed on the weekend, then water may be added to compensate
>> for evapouration, which would make the chemistry stronger,
>
> how does adding water make the solution stronger?
>
It reads; If the lab was closed on the weekend, then water may be added
>
>> In a hand process, or sink-line the lab tech records how much film
>> he/she has processed and adds replenisher based on the manual volume. If
>> the lab was closed on the weekend, then water may be added to compensate
>> for evapouration, which would make the chemistry stronger,
>
> how does adding water make the solution stronger?
>
to compensate for evapouration, which would make the chemistry stronger,
Water evapourates out making the chemistry stronger, water dilutes it
back to the correct concentration.
Jeff
May 28, 2012, 11:12:09 PM5/28/12
to
Rob <mesa...@google.com> wrote in news:jq1boq$hio$1...@dont-email.me:
Was this your point? Quote: "So if your film is developed in the afternoon
the strength could be under which will under develop the film.". If so,
this is unlikely because of the continuous replenishment and it could just
as easily slightly overdevelop if the metering adds too much replenisher.
If not, please clarify.
the strength could be under which will under develop the film.". If so,
this is unlikely because of the continuous replenishment and it could just
as easily slightly overdevelop if the metering adds too much replenisher.
If not, please clarify.
Sandman
May 29, 2012, 2:16:54 AM5/29/12
to
In article <280520120922242154%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
Yeah, that's what he said as well. I'll try it out. Thanks :)
--
Sandman[.net]
--
Sandman[.net]
PeterN
May 29, 2012, 9:29:12 AM5/29/12
to
But, I agree with you on bracketing.
For digital I try to push the histogram as far to the right as I can,
without blowing the highlights.
--
Peter
Sandman
May 29, 2012, 9:58:22 AM5/29/12
to
In article <4fc4cf31$0$30379$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>,
Do you take reference photos or use live view for histogram tweaking
while shooting? And do you tweak it with shutter/aperture or
over/under-exposure (+/-)?
I would love for an in-viewfinder histogram, actually. That is
actively measuring the current scene. It could be supersmall in the
corner - and maybe just when I press the Fn-button or somesuch. But it
would be pretty great.
--
Sandman[.net]
while shooting? And do you tweak it with shutter/aperture or
over/under-exposure (+/-)?
I would love for an in-viewfinder histogram, actually. That is
actively measuring the current scene. It could be supersmall in the
corner - and maybe just when I press the Fn-button or somesuch. But it
would be pretty great.
--
Sandman[.net]
Alan Browne
May 29, 2012, 5:17:07 PM5/29/12
to
On 2012-05-28 03:59 , Sandman wrote:
> The lab that developed my film gave me a tip on analog shooting. He
> said that I should overexpose my shots by setting the camera ISO
> setting to a step lower than than actual film. So my T-Max 400 film
> should be set to ISO 200, and my Portra 160 should be set to ISO 80.
Negative films have more latitude to the top. So it's not overexposing
> The lab that developed my film gave me a tip on analog shooting. He
> said that I should overexpose my shots by setting the camera ISO
> setting to a step lower than than actual film. So my T-Max 400 film
> should be set to ISO 200, and my Portra 160 should be set to ISO 80.
the film but correctly exposing it. The sole downside of this is less
shadow detail or higher grain/noise in the shadows.
And film is not "analog" it is _film_. It makes an image on the film so
there is "analog" of it - it is.
--
"Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities."
-Samuel Clemens.
PeterN
May 29, 2012, 8:05:06 PM5/29/12
to
adjustment.
For high speed sync I shoot in manual and adjust the shutter speed. For
active wildlife bracketing is not feasible.
--
Peter
Sandman
May 30, 2012, 2:22:46 AM5/30/12
to
In article <7OydnZT_6-tOoVjS...@giganews.com>,
that ISO 400 film should be shot as ISO 200 film - resulting in
over-exposing the film. If the manufacturer labels the film as ISO 400
and I shoot at ISO 200, am I not overexposing it by definition?
> And film is not "analog" it is _film_. It makes an image on the film so
> there is "analog" of it - it is.
analog
adjective
relating to or using signals or information represented by a
continuously variable physical quantity such as spatial position
or voltage. Often contrasted with digital
I'd say a photographic film most certainly is using variable
positioning of something physical to create an image.
--
Sandman[.net]
Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2012-05-28 03:59 , Sandman wrote:
> > The lab that developed my film gave me a tip on analog shooting. He
> > said that I should overexpose my shots by setting the camera ISO
> > setting to a step lower than than actual film. So my T-Max 400 film
> > should be set to ISO 200, and my Portra 160 should be set to ISO 80.
>
> Negative films have more latitude to the top. So it's not overexposing
> the film but correctly exposing it. The sole downside of this is less
> shadow detail or higher grain/noise in the shadows.
Right, but this film is labeled as ISO 400. The lab hints at saying
> On 2012-05-28 03:59 , Sandman wrote:
> > The lab that developed my film gave me a tip on analog shooting. He
> > said that I should overexpose my shots by setting the camera ISO
> > setting to a step lower than than actual film. So my T-Max 400 film
> > should be set to ISO 200, and my Portra 160 should be set to ISO 80.
>
> Negative films have more latitude to the top. So it's not overexposing
> the film but correctly exposing it. The sole downside of this is less
> shadow detail or higher grain/noise in the shadows.
that ISO 400 film should be shot as ISO 200 film - resulting in
over-exposing the film. If the manufacturer labels the film as ISO 400
and I shoot at ISO 200, am I not overexposing it by definition?
> And film is not "analog" it is _film_. It makes an image on the film so
> there is "analog" of it - it is.
adjective
relating to or using signals or information represented by a
continuously variable physical quantity such as spatial position
or voltage. Often contrasted with digital
I'd say a photographic film most certainly is using variable
positioning of something physical to create an image.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
May 30, 2012, 2:26:23 AM5/30/12
to
In article <4fc5643e$0$18523$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>,
another picture, look at histogram and decide whether that setting is
desirable, or do it again? It's cumbersome, but it works I suppose.
> For high speed sync I shoot in manual and adjust the shutter speed. For
> active wildlife bracketing is not feasible.
Indeed
--
Sandman[.net]
PeterN <pete...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
> >> For digital I try to push the histogram as far to the right as I can,
> >> without blowing the highlights.
> >
> > Do you take reference photos or use live view for histogram tweaking
> > while shooting? And do you tweak it with shutter/aperture or
> > over/under-exposure (+/-)?
> >
> > I would love for an in-viewfinder histogram, actually. That is
> > actively measuring the current scene. It could be supersmall in the
> > corner - and maybe just when I press the Fn-button or somesuch. But it
> > would be pretty great.
>
> I take reference photos. Most of the time I adjust using the +/-
> adjustment.
Right, so you take picture 1, look at histogram, adjust +/-, take
> >> For digital I try to push the histogram as far to the right as I can,
> >> without blowing the highlights.
> >
> > Do you take reference photos or use live view for histogram tweaking
> > while shooting? And do you tweak it with shutter/aperture or
> > over/under-exposure (+/-)?
> >
> > I would love for an in-viewfinder histogram, actually. That is
> > actively measuring the current scene. It could be supersmall in the
> > corner - and maybe just when I press the Fn-button or somesuch. But it
> > would be pretty great.
>
> I take reference photos. Most of the time I adjust using the +/-
> adjustment.
another picture, look at histogram and decide whether that setting is
desirable, or do it again? It's cumbersome, but it works I suppose.
> For high speed sync I shoot in manual and adjust the shutter speed. For
> active wildlife bracketing is not feasible.
--
Sandman[.net]
Floyd L. Davidson
May 30, 2012, 2:56:41 AM5/30/12
to
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>> On 2012-05-28 03:59 , Sandman wrote:
>> > The lab that developed my film gave me a tip on analog shooting. He
>> > said that I should overexpose my shots by setting the camera ISO
>> > setting to a step lower than than actual film. So my T-Max 400 film
>> > should be set to ISO 200, and my Portra 160 should be set to ISO 80.
>>
>> Negative films have more latitude to the top. So it's not overexposing
>> the film but correctly exposing it. The sole downside of this is less
>> shadow detail or higher grain/noise in the shadows.
>
>Right, but this film is labeled as ISO 400. The lab hints at saying
>that ISO 400 film should be shot as ISO 200 film - resulting in
>over-exposing the film. If the manufacturer labels the film as ISO 400
>and I shoot at ISO 200, am I not overexposing it by definition?
Not necessarily! While the manufacture may well label
> Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>> On 2012-05-28 03:59 , Sandman wrote:
>> > The lab that developed my film gave me a tip on analog shooting. He
>> > said that I should overexpose my shots by setting the camera ISO
>> > setting to a step lower than than actual film. So my T-Max 400 film
>> > should be set to ISO 200, and my Portra 160 should be set to ISO 80.
>>
>> Negative films have more latitude to the top. So it's not overexposing
>> the film but correctly exposing it. The sole downside of this is less
>> shadow detail or higher grain/noise in the shadows.
>
>Right, but this film is labeled as ISO 400. The lab hints at saying
>that ISO 400 film should be shot as ISO 200 film - resulting in
>over-exposing the film. If the manufacturer labels the film as ISO 400
>and I shoot at ISO 200, am I not overexposing it by definition?
it as ISO 400, the also specify a development process
for which ISO 400 is appropriate, and too boot they
specify the specific density curve that will result.
Any variation from that will mean differing results.
Hence if your processing lab says it is ISO 200 *for*
*their* *processing*, then it is!
Another lab may tell you a different ISO is preferable
for their processing, and they too will be correct (but
only for their processing).
>> And film is not "analog" it is _film_. It makes an image on the film so
>> there is "analog" of it - it is.
>
>analog
> adjective
> relating to or using signals or information represented by a
> continuously variable physical quantity such as spatial position
> or voltage. Often contrasted with digital
>
>I'd say a photographic film most certainly is using variable
>positioning of something physical to create an image.
understanding of the terms. Note that there are legions
of people on Usenet who have some of the most absurd
concepts of what analog and/or digital are supposed to
mean! Ignore them.
Film is an analog medium. Note that the sensors in
DSLR's are also analog! Never mind that they sample in
the spatial domain. The output is an analog signal.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
Floyd L. Davidson
May 30, 2012, 3:01:27 AM5/30/12
to
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>
>Right, so you take picture 1, look at histogram, adjust +/-, take
>another picture, look at histogram and decide whether that setting is
>desirable, or do it again? It's cumbersome, but it works I suppose.
How is that cumbersome in relation to any other way? It is
>
>Right, so you take picture 1, look at histogram, adjust +/-, take
>another picture, look at histogram and decide whether that setting is
>desirable, or do it again? It's cumbersome, but it works I suppose.
in fact very quick, and can be just about as accurate as the
user desires to make it (by using a configuration that results
in an accurate historgram). That's very hard to beat...
In fact it is more or less the same as a binary search,
and for an ordered data set leads very quickly to the
correct result.
Martin Brown
May 30, 2012, 5:42:56 AM5/30/12
to
On 30/05/2012 08:01, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> Sandman<m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>>
>> Right, so you take picture 1, look at histogram, adjust +/-, take
>> another picture, look at histogram and decide whether that setting is
>> desirable, or do it again? It's cumbersome, but it works I suppose.
You can usually tell when the metering system might be confused by the
> Sandman<m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>>
>> Right, so you take picture 1, look at histogram, adjust +/-, take
>> another picture, look at histogram and decide whether that setting is
>> desirable, or do it again? It's cumbersome, but it works I suppose.
lighting configuration and adjust accordingly first time around.
>
> How is that cumbersome in relation to any other way? It is
> in fact very quick, and can be just about as accurate as the
> user desires to make it (by using a configuration that results
> in an accurate historgram). That's very hard to beat...
>
> In fact it is more or less the same as a binary search,
> and for an ordered data set leads very quickly to the
> correct result.
Provided that your first shot is a modest underexposure the second one
> How is that cumbersome in relation to any other way? It is
> in fact very quick, and can be just about as accurate as the
> user desires to make it (by using a configuration that results
> in an accurate historgram). That's very hard to beat...
>
> In fact it is more or less the same as a binary search,
> and for an ordered data set leads very quickly to the
> correct result.
guided by the histogram can be pretty much spot on if you can do simple
mental arithmetic. The closest call is always weddings where the bride
is in not-quite-white and the groom in black velvet - the dynamic range
under those circumstances means that one or other has to give. Burning
out the highlights on the brides dress is usually more objectionable.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Sandman
May 30, 2012, 7:50:35 AM5/30/12
to
In article <874nqy4...@apaflo.com>,
so I was just curious. But my preceeding comment was about the value
of having a live histogram inside the viewfinder, which I suppose
would be a less cumbersome way to do this, yet unavailable as far as I
know.
I just checked, my D3s doesn't even offer a live histogram in live
view, which otherwise might have been a bit less cumbersome.
> It is in fact very quick, and can be just about as accurate as the
> user desires to make it (by using a configuration that results in
> an accurate historgram). That's very hard to beat...
>
> In fact it is more or less the same as a binary search,
> and for an ordered data set leads very quickly to the
> correct result.
You're talking about using histograms generally? I suppose. I guess
I've never been sure about what the histogram tells me that I can't
tell by myself when looking at the picture. Maybe I need a good
Histogram for Dummies walkthrough here...
--
Sandman[.net]
fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
> >Right, so you take picture 1, look at histogram, adjust +/-, take
> >another picture, look at histogram and decide whether that setting is
> >desirable, or do it again? It's cumbersome, but it works I suppose.
>
> How is that cumbersome in relation to any other way?
None that I know of! I really don't use the histogram myself at all,
> >Right, so you take picture 1, look at histogram, adjust +/-, take
> >another picture, look at histogram and decide whether that setting is
> >desirable, or do it again? It's cumbersome, but it works I suppose.
>
> How is that cumbersome in relation to any other way?
so I was just curious. But my preceeding comment was about the value
of having a live histogram inside the viewfinder, which I suppose
would be a less cumbersome way to do this, yet unavailable as far as I
know.
I just checked, my D3s doesn't even offer a live histogram in live
view, which otherwise might have been a bit less cumbersome.
> It is in fact very quick, and can be just about as accurate as the
> user desires to make it (by using a configuration that results in
> an accurate historgram). That's very hard to beat...
>
> In fact it is more or less the same as a binary search,
> and for an ordered data set leads very quickly to the
> correct result.
I've never been sure about what the histogram tells me that I can't
tell by myself when looking at the picture. Maybe I need a good
Histogram for Dummies walkthrough here...
--
Sandman[.net]
Floyd L. Davidson
May 30, 2012, 8:30:51 AM5/30/12
to
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>You're talking about using histograms generally? I suppose. I guess
>I've never been sure about what the histogram tells me that I can't
>tell by myself when looking at the picture. Maybe I need a good
>Histogram for Dummies walkthrough here...
Histograms are almost certainly the *most* useful tool
>You're talking about using histograms generally? I suppose. I guess
>I've never been sure about what the histogram tells me that I can't
>tell by myself when looking at the picture. Maybe I need a good
>Histogram for Dummies walkthrough here...
brought to the camera by digital technology! It is
*vastly* better than any judgment you can make about
exposure by looking at the image displayed on the
camera's LCD display (rest assured you cannot get even
close!).
The horizontal axis of an histogram represents
brightness values in the JPEG image. The left side is
pure black and the right side is pure white. The center
line is at "middle grey". But note that the scale is not
linear, so the half that is on the left side represents
perhaps 6 fstops while the half on the right is 2-1/2 or
3 fstops.
The vertical axis represents how many pixels are at a
given level. (Relatively, as the graph is probably
"normalized" so that the highest point on the graph will
be full scale regardless of the absolute value.)
Hence if you shoot an image that is all white, there
will be just one vertical line, located at the extreme
right end of the horizontal scale. If half of the
pixels in an image are middle grey and half of them are
one stop brighter than that, there will be two vertical
lines, of about the same height, one at the center and
one a short way to the right of it.
For a "typical" image there will be some pixels at
almost every level, so at any location along the
horizontal axis the graph will have some vertical
height. Of course not all images are "typical", so some
are different. It is important to realize that the
shape depends very much on the subject, and there is no
"correct" shape as such.
But the right edge of the graph should extend all the
way to the right edge *if and only if* there are pure
white areas in the image. And it should extend all the
way to the left if there are black pixels.
And that means you can tell if an image is over or under
exposed, and with some care it can be determined within
about 1/10 of an fstop.
If you make an exposure and the right edge of the graph
is about at the middle line along the horizontal axis
you know that the exposure could be increased by
approximately 2-1/2 stop before highlights would be
clipped. And if the graph shows a vertical line on the
far left edge, it is very clear that highlights are
clipping and exposure must be reduced if clipping is to
be avoided.
Do a web search on it, and you can spend hours reading
and learning!
PeterN
May 30, 2012, 1:04:33 PM5/30/12
to
On 5/30/2012 2:26 AM, Sandman wrote:
> In article<4fc5643e$0$18523$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>,
> PeterN<pete...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>>> For digital I try to push the histogram as far to the right as I can,
>>>> without blowing the highlights.
>>>
>>> Do you take reference photos or use live view for histogram tweaking
>>> while shooting? And do you tweak it with shutter/aperture or
>>> over/under-exposure (+/-)?
>>>
>>> I would love for an in-viewfinder histogram, actually. That is
>>> actively measuring the current scene. It could be supersmall in the
>>> corner - and maybe just when I press the Fn-button or somesuch. But it
>>> would be pretty great.
>>
>> I take reference photos. Most of the time I adjust using the +/-
>> adjustment.
>
> Right, so you take picture 1, look at histogram, adjust +/-, take
> another picture, look at histogram and decide whether that setting is
> desirable, or do it again? It's cumbersome, but it works I suppose.
It sounds more cumbersome than it is. It works for me, especially for
> In article<4fc5643e$0$18523$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>,
> PeterN<pete...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>>> For digital I try to push the histogram as far to the right as I can,
>>>> without blowing the highlights.
>>>
>>> Do you take reference photos or use live view for histogram tweaking
>>> while shooting? And do you tweak it with shutter/aperture or
>>> over/under-exposure (+/-)?
>>>
>>> I would love for an in-viewfinder histogram, actually. That is
>>> actively measuring the current scene. It could be supersmall in the
>>> corner - and maybe just when I press the Fn-button or somesuch. But it
>>> would be pretty great.
>>
>> I take reference photos. Most of the time I adjust using the +/-
>> adjustment.
>
> Right, so you take picture 1, look at histogram, adjust +/-, take
> another picture, look at histogram and decide whether that setting is
> desirable, or do it again? It's cumbersome, but it works I suppose.
landscapes and some flower portraits, it slows me down.
For an example of high speed sync flash see:
<http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/143651945> and
<http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/143651937> Notice that the
background is black.
>
>> For high speed sync I shoot in manual and adjust the shutter speed. For
>> active wildlife bracketing is not feasible.
>
> Indeed
>
>
--
PeterN
May 30, 2012, 1:12:31 PM5/30/12
to
If anything is outside the borders, it represents clipping. Try to
expose so that the image is as close to the right as possible, without
actually touching the right, or top border. A D3s has the capacity to
display a separate histogram for each color channel, as well as for the
entire image.
--
Peter
Sandman
May 30, 2012, 1:47:42 PM5/30/12
to
In article <87zk8p3...@apaflo.com>,
> The horizontal axis of an histogram represents
> brightness values in the JPEG image. The left side is
> pure black and the right side is pure white. The center
> line is at "middle grey". But note that the scale is not
> linear, so the half that is on the left side represents
> perhaps 6 fstops while the half on the right is 2-1/2 or
> 3 fstops.
Oh
> The vertical axis represents how many pixels are at a
> given level. (Relatively, as the graph is probably
> "normalized" so that the highest point on the graph will
> be full scale regardless of the absolute value.)
>
> Hence if you shoot an image that is all white, there
> will be just one vertical line, located at the extreme
> right end of the horizontal scale. If half of the
> pixels in an image are middle grey and half of them are
> one stop brighter than that, there will be two vertical
> lines, of about the same height, one at the center and
> one a short way to the right of it.
Yes, I've figured that part out
> For a "typical" image there will be some pixels at
> almost every level, so at any location along the
> horizontal axis the graph will have some vertical
> height. Of course not all images are "typical", so some
> are different. It is important to realize that the
> shape depends very much on the subject, and there is no
> "correct" shape as such.
That I understand
> But the right edge of the graph should extend all the
> way to the right edge *if and only if* there are pure
> white areas in the image. And it should extend all the
> way to the left if there are black pixels.
>
> And that means you can tell if an image is over or under
> exposed, and with some care it can be determined within
> about 1/10 of an fstop.
And you're saying that an image that is over/under-exposed by the
histogram could possibly not be obvious by just looking at the
picture? I'm guessing that it's for finding hot and cold spots in the
image rather than a more general "this image is slightly overexposed"
kind of declaration? Say that the hump in the histogram is 40% to the
right, and you retake it to move it to only 30% to the right -
wouldn't such a difference be discernable by just looking at the
picture and conclude that it's slightly under/over-exposed?
To determine whether you have cold/hot-spots, I could totally
understand the use of a histogram, but I just can't remember seeing an
image in post product and it having a problematic amount of cold/hot.
Sure, it has happened, but not to the degree where I have thought that
I should have had a way to determine and adjust it when I shoot it.
Plus, doesn't a lot of DSLR's offer cold/hotspot flashing for images?
I'm sure I've seen that.
> If you make an exposure and the right edge of the graph
> is about at the middle line along the horizontal axis
> you know that the exposure could be increased by
> approximately 2-1/2 stop before highlights would be
> clipped. And if the graph shows a vertical line on the
> far left edge, it is very clear that highlights are
> clipping and exposure must be reduced if clipping is to
> be avoided.
SO, basically, you'd use it to see, at a glance, what your limits are
for the current subject? How much of this could easily be dine in post
production?
I.e. if the image looks ok in the LCD after I shot it, and I have
hot/cold flashing to determine whether something is several
under/overexposed - sure I could tweak the image within the limits in
post production? I.e. what do I gain by reshooting it with a new
timing in-camera at that point?
Be sure to realize that I'm not actually *questioning* your usage of
the histogram, I'm not using it myself, so I can't make any other
comments than my guesses above :)
> Do a web search on it, and you can spend hours reading
> and learning!
I just might do that :)
--
Sandman[.net]
> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> >You're talking about using histograms generally? I suppose. I guess
> >I've never been sure about what the histogram tells me that I can't
> >tell by myself when looking at the picture. Maybe I need a good
> >Histogram for Dummies walkthrough here...
>
> Histograms are almost certainly the *most* useful tool
> brought to the camera by digital technology! It is
> *vastly* better than any judgment you can make about
> exposure by looking at the image displayed on the
> camera's LCD display (rest assured you cannot get even
> close!).
I'll take your word for it! :)
> >You're talking about using histograms generally? I suppose. I guess
> >I've never been sure about what the histogram tells me that I can't
> >tell by myself when looking at the picture. Maybe I need a good
> >Histogram for Dummies walkthrough here...
>
> Histograms are almost certainly the *most* useful tool
> brought to the camera by digital technology! It is
> *vastly* better than any judgment you can make about
> exposure by looking at the image displayed on the
> camera's LCD display (rest assured you cannot get even
> close!).
> The horizontal axis of an histogram represents
> brightness values in the JPEG image. The left side is
> pure black and the right side is pure white. The center
> line is at "middle grey". But note that the scale is not
> linear, so the half that is on the left side represents
> perhaps 6 fstops while the half on the right is 2-1/2 or
> 3 fstops.
> The vertical axis represents how many pixels are at a
> given level. (Relatively, as the graph is probably
> "normalized" so that the highest point on the graph will
> be full scale regardless of the absolute value.)
>
> Hence if you shoot an image that is all white, there
> will be just one vertical line, located at the extreme
> right end of the horizontal scale. If half of the
> pixels in an image are middle grey and half of them are
> one stop brighter than that, there will be two vertical
> lines, of about the same height, one at the center and
> one a short way to the right of it.
> For a "typical" image there will be some pixels at
> almost every level, so at any location along the
> horizontal axis the graph will have some vertical
> height. Of course not all images are "typical", so some
> are different. It is important to realize that the
> shape depends very much on the subject, and there is no
> "correct" shape as such.
> But the right edge of the graph should extend all the
> way to the right edge *if and only if* there are pure
> white areas in the image. And it should extend all the
> way to the left if there are black pixels.
>
> And that means you can tell if an image is over or under
> exposed, and with some care it can be determined within
> about 1/10 of an fstop.
histogram could possibly not be obvious by just looking at the
picture? I'm guessing that it's for finding hot and cold spots in the
image rather than a more general "this image is slightly overexposed"
kind of declaration? Say that the hump in the histogram is 40% to the
right, and you retake it to move it to only 30% to the right -
wouldn't such a difference be discernable by just looking at the
picture and conclude that it's slightly under/over-exposed?
To determine whether you have cold/hot-spots, I could totally
understand the use of a histogram, but I just can't remember seeing an
image in post product and it having a problematic amount of cold/hot.
Sure, it has happened, but not to the degree where I have thought that
I should have had a way to determine and adjust it when I shoot it.
Plus, doesn't a lot of DSLR's offer cold/hotspot flashing for images?
I'm sure I've seen that.
> If you make an exposure and the right edge of the graph
> is about at the middle line along the horizontal axis
> you know that the exposure could be increased by
> approximately 2-1/2 stop before highlights would be
> clipped. And if the graph shows a vertical line on the
> far left edge, it is very clear that highlights are
> clipping and exposure must be reduced if clipping is to
> be avoided.
for the current subject? How much of this could easily be dine in post
production?
I.e. if the image looks ok in the LCD after I shot it, and I have
hot/cold flashing to determine whether something is several
under/overexposed - sure I could tweak the image within the limits in
post production? I.e. what do I gain by reshooting it with a new
timing in-camera at that point?
Be sure to realize that I'm not actually *questioning* your usage of
the histogram, I'm not using it myself, so I can't make any other
comments than my guesses above :)
> Do a web search on it, and you can spend hours reading
> and learning!
--
Sandman[.net]
Alan Browne
May 30, 2012, 5:13:28 PM5/30/12
to
On 2012-05-30 02:22 , Sandman wrote:
> In article <7OydnZT_6-tOoVjS...@giganews.com>,
> Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 2012-05-28 03:59 , Sandman wrote:
>>> The lab that developed my film gave me a tip on analog shooting. He
>>> said that I should overexpose my shots by setting the camera ISO
>>> setting to a step lower than than actual film. So my T-Max 400 film
>>> should be set to ISO 200, and my Portra 160 should be set to ISO 80.
100 is more typical for Portra 160.
> In article <7OydnZT_6-tOoVjS...@giganews.com>,
> Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 2012-05-28 03:59 , Sandman wrote:
>>> The lab that developed my film gave me a tip on analog shooting. He
>>> said that I should overexpose my shots by setting the camera ISO
>>> setting to a step lower than than actual film. So my T-Max 400 film
>>> should be set to ISO 200, and my Portra 160 should be set to ISO 80.
>>
>> Negative films have more latitude to the top. So it's not overexposing
>> the film but correctly exposing it. The sole downside of this is less
>> shadow detail or higher grain/noise in the shadows.
will lift them.
>
> Right, but this film is labeled as ISO 400. The lab hints at saying
> that ISO 400 film should be shot as ISO 200 film - resulting in
> over-exposing the film. If the manufacturer labels the film as ISO 400
> and I shoot at ISO 200, am I not overexposing it by definition?
explain here) that result in many films (esp. color negative) being
rated faster than desirable to a lot of photography.
You can still shoot rated and get less shadow detail and unused
highlight range.
It's useful to note that motion picture film "ISO rating" is very
nominal because the DP will expose the film several stops either way as
he desires and then adjust in developing - this is akin to push/pull
processing in still photography except that it is the norm in cinema and
the exception in still.
(In push you would underexpose the film by some amount, sat 2 stops and
then in development "push" by 1.7, 2 or 2.3 (whatever you think you
need) to get a desired effect).
>> And film is not "analog" it is _film_. It makes an image on the film so
>> there is "analog" of it - it is.
>
> analog
> adjective
> relating to or using signals or information represented by a
> continuously variable physical quantity such as spatial position
> or voltage. Often contrasted with digital
ORIGIN early 19th cent.: from French, from Greek analogon,
neuter of analogos ‘proportionate.’
> I'd say a photographic film most certainly is using variable
> positioning of something physical to create an image.
needle gauge in your car is driven by a voltage that is proportional to
the float position in the tank. You don't say, "My gosh! We're down to
1.2V of gas!"
An image on film is an image, period. Thus it's preferred (by me and
too few others) to say "digital" camera or "film" camera.
It's also more exclusive, because in contrast to digital, "analog" can
also mean another electronic imaging device such as a tube.
And of course a digital camera is really analog at the sensor level.
(This can all go into a long debate which I won't be drawn into. The
crux is that people believe if it isn't digital it must be analog. But
that's false. It's more true to fact to say that film is film and
analog means a tube based (or similar) image capture device.
At its base, "digital" cameras are in fact required to be analog (they
convert a photon count into a charge count which is bucket brigade
transferred off the sensor as a voltage.)
Enter the physics weenies who will now say that recording photons in a
quantum sense and charges is the pure essence of digital ... but that's
just stretching the point - esp. as the actual conversion to "digital"
takes place as a voltage (ADC) conversion when bucketing the information
off of the device).
Floyd L. Davidson
May 30, 2012, 6:09:42 PM5/30/12
to
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>> Histograms are almost certainly the *most* useful tool
>> brought to the camera by digital technology! It is
>> *vastly* better than any judgment you can make about
>> exposure by looking at the image displayed on the
>> camera's LCD display (rest assured you cannot get even
>> close!).
>
>I'll take your word for it! :)
Don't take my word for it, do some research. An LCD
> fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>> Histograms are almost certainly the *most* useful tool
>> brought to the camera by digital technology! It is
>> *vastly* better than any judgment you can make about
>> exposure by looking at the image displayed on the
>> camera's LCD display (rest assured you cannot get even
>> close!).
>
>I'll take your word for it! :)
display will appear different in different ambient
light. And even in the same light the human eye cannot
distinguish absolute brightness levels with any degree
of accuracy. Your eyes will probably be able to tell
you that an image is massively over exposed, or
horrendously lacking in contrast... but you cannot
determine that half a stop more light will produce a
better image, never mind 1/3 of a stop.
With a light meter half a stop is a relatively large
distinction. If your light meter uses an histogram
it is possible to determine exposure within 1/10 of
a stop, though 1/3 is a reasonable level of accuracy
and 1/2 is good enough for most people.
[snipped a lot]
>> But the right edge of the graph should extend all the
>> way to the right edge *if and only if* there are pure
>> white areas in the image. And it should extend all the
>> way to the left if there are black pixels.
>>
>> And that means you can tell if an image is over or under
>> exposed, and with some care it can be determined within
>> about 1/10 of an fstop.
>
>And you're saying that an image that is over/under-exposed by the
>histogram could possibly not be obvious by just looking at the
>picture?
>I'm guessing that it's for finding hot and cold spots in the
>image rather than a more general "this image is slightly overexposed"
>kind of declaration?
help to find hot and cold spots.
On the other hand, a "highlight display", which is
actually just a different kind of histogram, works
extremely well for that purpose. The area that is
clipping will blink white, and the area that is blocking
to black will blink black.
>Say that the hump in the histogram is 40% to the
>right, and you retake it to move it to only 30% to the right -
>wouldn't such a difference be discernable by just looking at the
>picture and conclude that it's slightly under/over-exposed?
be able to see that one is relatively brighter than the
other. If you look at either of them separately 5
minutes later, you probably won't be able to see the
difference, and certainly will not be able to determine
that if it is 30% from the right side of the histogram
then it is probably about 1-2/3 to 2 fstops under
exposed.
>To determine whether you have cold/hot-spots, I could totally
>understand the use of a histogram, but I just can't remember seeing an
>image in post product and it having a problematic amount of cold/hot.
>Sure, it has happened, but not to the degree where I have thought that
>I should have had a way to determine and adjust it when I shoot it.
on a cloudy day, with the sky as the background. There
is little reason to worry about whether the sky is
clipping or not, as there is no detail there anyway.
But you wouldn't want the white parts of the person's
clothing to clip, nor earrings, nor teeth, nor
reflections off the forehead or cheeks.
By using the blinking highlight display that can easily
be differentiated. Or, if one wants to avoid even the
cloudy sky being into clipping, the regular historam graph
would show that very clearly.
Judging that by eye while looking at the image on a very
small LCD screen while shooting will get results scattered
over at least 2 and maybe 3 or 4 fstops.
>Plus, doesn't a lot of DSLR's offer cold/hotspot flashing for images?
>I'm sure I've seen that.
>> If you make an exposure and the right edge of the graph
>> is about at the middle line along the horizontal axis
>> you know that the exposure could be increased by
>> approximately 2-1/2 stop before highlights would be
>> clipped. And if the graph shows a vertical line on the
>> far left edge, it is very clear that highlights are
>> clipping and exposure must be reduced if clipping is to
>> be avoided.
>
>SO, basically, you'd use it to see, at a glance, what your limits are
>for the current subject? How much of this could easily be dine in post
>production?
shutter is released.
But it is also absolutely true that histograms are an
essential tool while processing/editing! Adjustments to
brightness and contrast, to saturation, and for
sharpening, should all be done with a very careful eye
on the histogram.
>I.e. if the image looks ok in the LCD after I shot it, and I have
>hot/cold flashing to determine whether something is several
>under/overexposed - sure I could tweak the image within the limits in
>post production? I.e. what do I gain by reshooting it with a new
>timing in-camera at that point?
under/overexposure", it will probably make very little
difference what you try while post processing. Clipping
means the data is *gone*.
>Be sure to realize that I'm not actually *questioning* your usage of
>the histogram, I'm not using it myself, so I can't make any other
>comments than my guesses above :)
concept as a mental exercise, and haven't actually
worked with it! That is of course a good thing to do.
As I an many others who have a lot of experience with
this kind of technical aspect will tell you... you *do*
want to take it a step farther and physically work with
it for at least a while. You very likely will find using
histograms to be very very useful... but it is also
perfectly acceptable to decide they aren't for you. Different
people approach the art of photography in different ways, and
I would like to inspire you to do what comes natural for you,
rather than inhibit you to what works for me! You need to
explore it well enough to understand exactly what it is and what
it is not, and then make a choice that fits you.
Just don't pass it off as unuseful because you aren't
doing it now and don't understand where it would help.
Learn it well, then decide.
>> Do a web search on it, and you can spend hours reading
>> and learning!
>
>I just might do that :)
Sandman
May 31, 2012, 1:35:22 AM5/31/12
to
In article <SomdndZmX77kEFvS...@giganews.com>,
hundreds of years old words in your very sentence above, yet they are
as valid today as when they were first introduced.
> > I'd say a photographic film most certainly is using variable
> > positioning of something physical to create an image.
>
> The term analog derives as above (analogos (analogous)). Thus the gas
> needle gauge in your car is driven by a voltage that is proportional to
> the float position in the tank. You don't say, "My gosh! We're down to
> 1.2V of gas!"
You're not making any sense whatsoever here.
> An image on film is an image, period.
And film is a analog medium. Period.
> Thus it's preferred (by me and too few others) to say "digital"
> camera or "film" camera.
You can call it whatever you wish. A rose by any other name...
> It's also more exclusive, because in contrast to digital, "analog" can
> also mean another electronic imaging device such as a tube.
A word can be used to encompass more than one thing, imagine that :)
> And of course a digital camera is really analog at the sensor level.
Which would be relevant if we were in reference to the sensor, I
suppose.
> (This can all go into a long debate which I won't be drawn into.
Funny, since I'm not trying to "draw" anyone into anything. I'm not
the one that started to talk about definitions of words, remember? :)
> The crux is that people believe if it isn't digital it must be
> analog.
Yeah, those pesky dictionaries, putting ideas into peoples heads about
the meaning of words :-D
> But that's false. It's more true to fact to say that film is film
> and analog means a tube based (or similar) image capture device.
Haha :)
> At its base, "digital" cameras are in fact required to be analog (they
> convert a photon count into a charge count which is bucket brigade
> transferred off the sensor as a voltage.)
Which, of course, has nothing to do with the image being stored
digitally, which is why it's called a digital camera.
> Enter the physics weenies who will now say that recording photons in a
> quantum sense and charges is the pure essence of digital ... but that's
> just stretching the point - esp. as the actual conversion to "digital"
> takes place as a voltage (ADC) conversion when bucketing the information
> off of the device).
You're entitled to your own interpretation of the English language,
and I wouldn't want to "draw" you into anything, so we'll just leave
it at that :-D
It's not like I have a need to discuss this. I already know what
analog means and that I used it appropriately, I have no need to
convince you of that.
Have a nice day!
--
Sandman[.net]
Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> >> And film is not "analog" it is _film_. It makes an image on the film so
> >> there is "analog" of it - it is.
> >
> > analog
> > adjective
> > relating to or using signals or information represented by a
> > continuously variable physical quantity such as spatial position
> > or voltage. Often contrasted with digital
>
> In the same place where you found that, it probably also said:
>
> ORIGIN early 19th cent.: from French, from Greek analogon,
> neuter of analogos ‘proportionate.’
The origin of a word doesn't make it less apt. Indeed, you used some
> >> And film is not "analog" it is _film_. It makes an image on the film so
> >> there is "analog" of it - it is.
> >
> > analog
> > adjective
> > relating to or using signals or information represented by a
> > continuously variable physical quantity such as spatial position
> > or voltage. Often contrasted with digital
>
> In the same place where you found that, it probably also said:
>
> ORIGIN early 19th cent.: from French, from Greek analogon,
> neuter of analogos ‘proportionate.’
hundreds of years old words in your very sentence above, yet they are
as valid today as when they were first introduced.
> > I'd say a photographic film most certainly is using variable
> > positioning of something physical to create an image.
>
> The term analog derives as above (analogos (analogous)). Thus the gas
> needle gauge in your car is driven by a voltage that is proportional to
> the float position in the tank. You don't say, "My gosh! We're down to
> 1.2V of gas!"
> An image on film is an image, period.
> Thus it's preferred (by me and too few others) to say "digital"
> camera or "film" camera.
> It's also more exclusive, because in contrast to digital, "analog" can
> also mean another electronic imaging device such as a tube.
> And of course a digital camera is really analog at the sensor level.
suppose.
> (This can all go into a long debate which I won't be drawn into.
the one that started to talk about definitions of words, remember? :)
> The crux is that people believe if it isn't digital it must be
> analog.
the meaning of words :-D
> But that's false. It's more true to fact to say that film is film
> and analog means a tube based (or similar) image capture device.
> At its base, "digital" cameras are in fact required to be analog (they
> convert a photon count into a charge count which is bucket brigade
> transferred off the sensor as a voltage.)
digitally, which is why it's called a digital camera.
> Enter the physics weenies who will now say that recording photons in a
> quantum sense and charges is the pure essence of digital ... but that's
> just stretching the point - esp. as the actual conversion to "digital"
> takes place as a voltage (ADC) conversion when bucketing the information
> off of the device).
and I wouldn't want to "draw" you into anything, so we'll just leave
it at that :-D
It's not like I have a need to discuss this. I already know what
analog means and that I used it appropriately, I have no need to
convince you of that.
Have a nice day!
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
May 31, 2012, 2:59:03 AM5/31/12
to
In article <87vcjd2...@apaflo.com>,
look at the image on the LCD display and determine whether it is
within the range of post processing usually. I.e. it may be a bit
incorrectly exposed, but I've never been in a situation that I can
think of where I've shot an image, looked at it and when loading it
into Aperture it is grossly under/overexposed and beyond saving.
Again, don't take anything of this as me questioning your methods or
the use of a histogram :)
> >Plus, doesn't a lot of DSLR's offer cold/hotspot flashing for images?
> >I'm sure I've seen that.
>
> That is another form of histogram.
Sure, and that type of histogram I use all the time. This way I can
see what parts of an image is beyond saving. If none are, and the
image looks "ok", then I feel certain that any slight exposure
adjustments can be done in post.
> >> If you make an exposure and the right edge of the graph
> >> is about at the middle line along the horizontal axis
> >> you know that the exposure could be increased by
> >> approximately 2-1/2 stop before highlights would be
> >> clipped. And if the graph shows a vertical line on the
> >> far left edge, it is very clear that highlights are
> >> clipping and exposure must be reduced if clipping is to
> >> be avoided.
> >
> >SO, basically, you'd use it to see, at a glance, what your limits are
> >for the current subject? How much of this could easily be dine in post
> >production?
>
> Exposure should normally be nailed at the time the
> shutter is released.
Ok, but why, really? We're talking about images where the human eye
(according to you) cannot tell by looking at the LCD whether it is
slightly under/overexposed, yet it seems like you're suggesting that
fixing that slight error in post is undesirable - but I'm wondering if
it's some kind of "purist" (not meant as a derogatory term) mindset,
or if there is some form of actual in-camera physics that I'm unaware
of that makes 100% accurate exposure (as opposed to what, 90%?) is
that important.
Or is it perhaps just a desire to do ass little post as possible? That
I could understand as well. Although - the procedure we've established
here for using the histogram seems to be as time consuming as using
the histogram in post :)
> But it is also absolutely true that histograms are an
> essential tool while processing/editing! Adjustments to
> brightness and contrast, to saturation, and for
> sharpening, should all be done with a very careful eye
> on the histogram.
Right, and here I use it *all the time*. Aperture has a very nice
histogram display that reflects live when tweaking the image. I
usually use it to narrow the histogram (i.e. take away the empty space
in far left/right to enhance the clarity of the image .
> >I.e. if the image looks ok in the LCD after I shot it, and I have
> >hot/cold flashing to determine whether something is several
> >under/overexposed - sure I could tweak the image within the limits in
> >post production? I.e. what do I gain by reshooting it with a new
> >timing in-camera at that point?
>
> If it is flashing to indicate clipping by "several
> under/overexposure", it will probably make very little
> difference what you try while post processing. Clipping
> means the data is *gone*.
Exactly my point. Maybe you misread. If - instead of using the
histogram - I rely on my visual judgement and the hot/cold clipping
in-camera to determine whether the image is "within bounds"? I am
trying to figure out what the histogram adds to this scenario.
> >Be sure to realize that I'm not actually *questioning* your usage of
> >the histogram, I'm not using it myself, so I can't make any other
> >comments than my guesses above :)
>
> Yes, it is quite clear that you are entertaining the
> concept as a mental exercise, and haven't actually
> worked with it! That is of course a good thing to do.
Just wanted to be clear that I'm not trying to argue anything over the
other :)
> As I an many others who have a lot of experience with
> this kind of technical aspect will tell you... you *do*
> want to take it a step farther and physically work with
> it for at least a while. You very likely will find using
> histograms to be very very useful...
Starting from now, I will have the histogram as my standard preview
mode in the camera. It's a shame that my D3s doesn't support showing
the histogram and hot/cold flashing at the same time...
> but it is also perfectly acceptable to decide they aren't for you.
> Different people approach the art of photography in different ways,
> and I would like to inspire you to do what comes natural for you,
> rather than inhibit you to what works for me! You need to explore
> it well enough to understand exactly what it is and what it is not,
> and then make a choice that fits you.
Sounds about right :-D
> Just don't pass it off as unuseful because you aren't
> doing it now and don't understand where it would help.
> Learn it well, then decide.
Oh, I am most certainly *not* passing it off as unuseful
> >> Do a web search on it, and you can spend hours reading
> >> and learning!
> >
> >I just might do that :)
>
> Keep you busy for the rest of your life...
--
Sandman[.net]
fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
> >To determine whether you have cold/hot-spots, I could totally
> >understand the use of a histogram, but I just can't remember seeing an
> >image in post product and it having a problematic amount of cold/hot.
> >Sure, it has happened, but not to the degree where I have thought that
> >I should have had a way to determine and adjust it when I shoot it.
>
> An example would be taking a picture of a person's face
> on a cloudy day, with the sky as the background. There
> is little reason to worry about whether the sky is
> clipping or not, as there is no detail there anyway.
> But you wouldn't want the white parts of the person's
> clothing to clip, nor earrings, nor teeth, nor
> reflections off the forehead or cheeks.
>
> By using the blinking highlight display that can easily
> be differentiated. Or, if one wants to avoid even the
> cloudy sky being into clipping, the regular historam graph
> would show that very clearly.
>
> Judging that by eye while looking at the image on a very
> small LCD screen while shooting will get results scattered
> over at least 2 and maybe 3 or 4 fstops.
It's not like I don't trust you or anything. Usually when I shoot I
> >To determine whether you have cold/hot-spots, I could totally
> >understand the use of a histogram, but I just can't remember seeing an
> >image in post product and it having a problematic amount of cold/hot.
> >Sure, it has happened, but not to the degree where I have thought that
> >I should have had a way to determine and adjust it when I shoot it.
>
> An example would be taking a picture of a person's face
> on a cloudy day, with the sky as the background. There
> is little reason to worry about whether the sky is
> clipping or not, as there is no detail there anyway.
> But you wouldn't want the white parts of the person's
> clothing to clip, nor earrings, nor teeth, nor
> reflections off the forehead or cheeks.
>
> By using the blinking highlight display that can easily
> be differentiated. Or, if one wants to avoid even the
> cloudy sky being into clipping, the regular historam graph
> would show that very clearly.
>
> Judging that by eye while looking at the image on a very
> small LCD screen while shooting will get results scattered
> over at least 2 and maybe 3 or 4 fstops.
look at the image on the LCD display and determine whether it is
within the range of post processing usually. I.e. it may be a bit
incorrectly exposed, but I've never been in a situation that I can
think of where I've shot an image, looked at it and when loading it
into Aperture it is grossly under/overexposed and beyond saving.
Again, don't take anything of this as me questioning your methods or
the use of a histogram :)
> >Plus, doesn't a lot of DSLR's offer cold/hotspot flashing for images?
> >I'm sure I've seen that.
>
> That is another form of histogram.
see what parts of an image is beyond saving. If none are, and the
image looks "ok", then I feel certain that any slight exposure
adjustments can be done in post.
> >> If you make an exposure and the right edge of the graph
> >> is about at the middle line along the horizontal axis
> >> you know that the exposure could be increased by
> >> approximately 2-1/2 stop before highlights would be
> >> clipped. And if the graph shows a vertical line on the
> >> far left edge, it is very clear that highlights are
> >> clipping and exposure must be reduced if clipping is to
> >> be avoided.
> >
> >SO, basically, you'd use it to see, at a glance, what your limits are
> >for the current subject? How much of this could easily be dine in post
> >production?
>
> Exposure should normally be nailed at the time the
> shutter is released.
(according to you) cannot tell by looking at the LCD whether it is
slightly under/overexposed, yet it seems like you're suggesting that
fixing that slight error in post is undesirable - but I'm wondering if
it's some kind of "purist" (not meant as a derogatory term) mindset,
or if there is some form of actual in-camera physics that I'm unaware
of that makes 100% accurate exposure (as opposed to what, 90%?) is
that important.
Or is it perhaps just a desire to do ass little post as possible? That
I could understand as well. Although - the procedure we've established
here for using the histogram seems to be as time consuming as using
the histogram in post :)
> But it is also absolutely true that histograms are an
> essential tool while processing/editing! Adjustments to
> brightness and contrast, to saturation, and for
> sharpening, should all be done with a very careful eye
> on the histogram.
histogram display that reflects live when tweaking the image. I
usually use it to narrow the histogram (i.e. take away the empty space
in far left/right to enhance the clarity of the image .
> >I.e. if the image looks ok in the LCD after I shot it, and I have
> >hot/cold flashing to determine whether something is several
> >under/overexposed - sure I could tweak the image within the limits in
> >post production? I.e. what do I gain by reshooting it with a new
> >timing in-camera at that point?
>
> If it is flashing to indicate clipping by "several
> under/overexposure", it will probably make very little
> difference what you try while post processing. Clipping
> means the data is *gone*.
histogram - I rely on my visual judgement and the hot/cold clipping
in-camera to determine whether the image is "within bounds"? I am
trying to figure out what the histogram adds to this scenario.
> >Be sure to realize that I'm not actually *questioning* your usage of
> >the histogram, I'm not using it myself, so I can't make any other
> >comments than my guesses above :)
>
> Yes, it is quite clear that you are entertaining the
> concept as a mental exercise, and haven't actually
> worked with it! That is of course a good thing to do.
other :)
> As I an many others who have a lot of experience with
> this kind of technical aspect will tell you... you *do*
> want to take it a step farther and physically work with
> it for at least a while. You very likely will find using
> histograms to be very very useful...
mode in the camera. It's a shame that my D3s doesn't support showing
the histogram and hot/cold flashing at the same time...
> but it is also perfectly acceptable to decide they aren't for you.
> Different people approach the art of photography in different ways,
> and I would like to inspire you to do what comes natural for you,
> rather than inhibit you to what works for me! You need to explore
> it well enough to understand exactly what it is and what it is not,
> and then make a choice that fits you.
> Just don't pass it off as unuseful because you aren't
> doing it now and don't understand where it would help.
> Learn it well, then decide.
> >> Do a web search on it, and you can spend hours reading
> >> and learning!
> >
> >I just might do that :)
>
> Keep you busy for the rest of your life...
--
Martin Brown
May 31, 2012, 4:25:46 AM5/31/12
to
think you should realise that for colour film there was *no* post
processing beyond altering the final printing exposure. In a digital era
you can digitise and rescue some quite hopeless cases.
Slide film in particular was very unforgiving on exposure latitude so
there was a real obsession with getting the exposure exactly right
before pressing the shutter release. And pros would always bracket their
most important shots to ensure one good one. Amateurs tended to feel the
cost of materials more and were less inclined to do this.
In a digital world provided that the image is no more than one stop
under exposed you will lose some signal to noise and shadow detail but
you can recover something pretty decent with a wave of a mouse.
In the old days there was something similar in the chemistry for silver
halide films where uranium intensifiers could be used to improve the raw
image on seriously under exposed negative film.
http://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/Johnsons_of_Hendon/Johnson_Chemicals/Uranium_Intensifier.html
It largely worked by changing the colour of the silver image from black
to a denser red safelight colour for printing.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Floyd L. Davidson
May 31, 2012, 4:44:18 AM5/31/12
to
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>Starting from now, I will have the histogram as my standard preview
>mode in the camera. It's a shame that my D3s doesn't support showing
>the histogram and hot/cold flashing at the same time...
Mine does... so yours probably does too! :-)
>Starting from now, I will have the histogram as my standard preview
>mode in the camera. It's a shame that my D3s doesn't support showing
>the histogram and hot/cold flashing at the same time...
Wolfgang Weisselberg
May 31, 2012, 6:43:45 PM5/31/12
to
Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> Enter the physics weenies who will now say that recording photons in a
> quantum sense and charges is the pure essence of digital ... but that's
> just stretching the point - esp. as the actual conversion to "digital"
> takes place as a voltage (ADC) conversion when bucketing the information
> off of the device).
\begin{weenie}
> Enter the physics weenies who will now say that recording photons in a
> quantum sense and charges is the pure essence of digital ... but that's
> just stretching the point - esp. as the actual conversion to "digital"
> takes place as a voltage (ADC) conversion when bucketing the information
> off of the device).
You're confusing the technical solution chosen to count electrons
with the fact that electrons do have a fixed charge and count ---
and that we are already counting single electrons.
\end{weenie}
-Wolfgang
Wolfgang Weisselberg
May 31, 2012, 6:53:41 PM5/31/12
to
PeterN <pete...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
> Short and sweet, in photographers language:
> If anything is outside the borders, it represents clipping. Try to
> expose so that the image is as close to the right as possible,
... if you are prepared to change the exposure in postprocessing as
> Short and sweet, in photographers language:
> If anything is outside the borders, it represents clipping. Try to
> expose so that the image is as close to the right as possible,
needed (you probably don't want the black cat in the coal cellar
to show up as light grey in the final JPEG) and are therefore
shooting RAW ...
> without
> actually touching the right,
> or top border.
Top border is OK, it just means very many of that
brightness/colour. If you're shooting the moon with a wide
angle lens, expect to hit the top for the large amount of dark
of the sky.
> A D3s has the capacity to
> display a separate histogram for each color channel, as well as for the
> entire image.
Note however that the histogram is of the image (usually JPEG) that
is converted from the RAW --- not of the RAW itself. Unless you
purposefully detune your JPEG generation with custom curves you'll
get overexposure warnings where the RAW isn't overexposed yet
... so you need to interpret the histogram with your experience
of the headroom or missing headroom.
-Wolfgang
David Dyer-Bennet
Jun 1, 2012, 1:35:18 AM6/1/12
to
Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> writes:
> Since the title of this thread is overexposuring (sic) analog film I
> think you should realise that for colour film there was *no* post
> processing beyond altering the final printing exposure. In a digital
> era you can digitise and rescue some quite hopeless cases.
And selecting paper contrast (yes, there was some variability in color
> Since the title of this thread is overexposuring (sic) analog film I
> think you should realise that for colour film there was *no* post
> processing beyond altering the final printing exposure. In a digital
> era you can digitise and rescue some quite hopeless cases.
paper contrast; though not as much as for B&W, and not as widely used).
You can also use contrast masking to tame some of the extreme
differentials. Again, that wasn't widely used, certainly not by
duffers; but it was part of the toolbox of any first-rate printer (not
me; was never a first-rate darkroom printer).
> Slide film in particular was very unforgiving on exposure latitude so
> there was a real obsession with getting the exposure exactly right
> before pressing the shutter release. And pros would always bracket
> their most important shots to ensure one good one. Amateurs tended to
> feel the cost of materials more and were less inclined to do this.
stock.
> In a digital world provided that the image is no more than one stop
> under exposed you will lose some signal to noise and shadow detail but
> you can recover something pretty decent with a wave of a mouse.
keypad on the video analyzer.). Or two stops, even.
> In the old days there was something similar in the chemistry for
> silver halide films where uranium intensifiers could be used to
> improve the raw image on seriously under exposed negative film.
>
> http://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/Johnsons_of_Hendon/Johnson_Chemicals/Uranium_Intensifier.html
>
> It largely worked by changing the colour of the silver image from
> black to a denser red safelight colour for printing.
"Uranium Intensifier".
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
David Dyer-Bennet
Jun 1, 2012, 1:35:40 AM6/1/12
to
fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) writes:
> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>>Starting from now, I will have the histogram as my standard preview
>>mode in the camera. It's a shame that my D3s doesn't support showing
>>the histogram and hot/cold flashing at the same time...
>
> Mine does... so yours probably does too! :-)
My D700 does as well, so the odds really look good there.
> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>>Starting from now, I will have the histogram as my standard preview
>>mode in the camera. It's a shame that my D3s doesn't support showing
>>the histogram and hot/cold flashing at the same time...
>
> Mine does... so yours probably does too! :-)
Sandman
Jun 1, 2012, 4:58:47 AM6/1/12
to
In article <fWFxr.15856$rd5....@newsfe02.iad>,
of digital cameras, though. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > Or is it perhaps just a desire to do ass little post as possible? That
> > I could understand as well. Although - the procedure we've established
> > here for using the histogram seems to be as time consuming as using
> > the histogram in post :)
>
> Since the title of this thread is overexposuring (sic) analog film I
> think you should realise that for colour film there was *no* post
> processing beyond altering the final printing exposure.
Indeed. This subthread was about using the histogram view on the LCD
> > Or is it perhaps just a desire to do ass little post as possible? That
> > I could understand as well. Although - the procedure we've established
> > here for using the histogram seems to be as time consuming as using
> > the histogram in post :)
>
> Since the title of this thread is overexposuring (sic) analog film I
> think you should realise that for colour film there was *no* post
> processing beyond altering the final printing exposure.
of digital cameras, though. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Jun 1, 2012, 5:04:20 AM6/1/12
to
In article <87ehq03...@apaflo.com>,
In Menu -> Play -> Display mode I have all modes turned on.
"Highlights" is one of them (which just flashes overexposure, really),
how do I get hot/cold in the histogram view?
--
Sandman[.net]
> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> >Starting from now, I will have the histogram as my standard preview
> >mode in the camera. It's a shame that my D3s doesn't support showing
> >the histogram and hot/cold flashing at the same time...
>
> Mine does... so yours probably does too! :-)
That must be a setting I haven't found yet.
> >Starting from now, I will have the histogram as my standard preview
> >mode in the camera. It's a shame that my D3s doesn't support showing
> >the histogram and hot/cold flashing at the same time...
>
> Mine does... so yours probably does too! :-)
In Menu -> Play -> Display mode I have all modes turned on.
"Highlights" is one of them (which just flashes overexposure, really),
how do I get hot/cold in the histogram view?
--
Sandman[.net]
Savageduck
Jun 1, 2012, 6:17:51 AM6/1/12
to
Nikon convention seems to be common across the pro/prosumer range when
it comes to display. To the best of my knowledge Nikon DSLRs do not
support showing flashing highlights and the histogram at the same time.
It is simple enough to scroll between the two display modes with the
front command/control wheel. as far as "hot/cold" goes, this must be
Floyd's or your term which Nikon certainly doesn't use. Nikon only has
Highlight flashing in separate displays selectable by that front
command/control wheel.
Unless of course you have chosen to reverse the front and rear wheels.
Again, Floyd might have some additional knowledge which he might care
to pass on to us less aware Nikon users. Unless this is just a
misunderstanding & communications problem.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Sandman
Jun 1, 2012, 6:55:41 AM6/1/12
to
In article <2012060103175116807-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
Also, I don't switch between the display modes with neither the front
or rear scroll wheel, I use the up/down d-pad to switch between them.
And - I see now that I can get the RGB-histogram and hot-flashing at
the same time! Not a regular histogram and hotflashing, but the
RGB-seperated histograms (i.e. four) and then the image preview will
hotflash.
It's a pity, because I get a number of other useful info points in the
regular histogram view that I don't get in the RGB histogram view
--
Sandman[.net]
or rear scroll wheel, I use the up/down d-pad to switch between them.
And - I see now that I can get the RGB-histogram and hot-flashing at
the same time! Not a regular histogram and hotflashing, but the
RGB-seperated histograms (i.e. four) and then the image preview will
hotflash.
It's a pity, because I get a number of other useful info points in the
regular histogram view that I don't get in the RGB histogram view
--
Sandman[.net]
Savageduck
Jun 1, 2012, 7:26:51 AM6/1/12
to
The RGB histogram + Highlights must be selected together in the display
menu. However, the highlight flashing does not work together with the
standard histogram. Now I can scroll between all modes with the scroll
wheel, including GPS data when the GP-1 has been used.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Floyd L. Davidson
Jun 1, 2012, 7:31:10 AM6/1/12
to
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>In article <2012060103175116807-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
Ignore Savageduck, he wants to hear himself talk, but has no
>In article <2012060103175116807-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
knowledge pertaining to the discussion.
>And - I see now that I can get the RGB-histogram and hot-flashing at
>the same time! Not a regular histogram and hotflashing, but the
>RGB-seperated histograms (i.e. four) and then the image preview will
>hotflash.
it's the four RGB plus luminance display that is useful.
>It's a pity, because I get a number of other useful info points in the
>regular histogram view that I don't get in the RGB histogram view
as the larger one, so if it is used as more than just an
indication that something is clipping (if you want to
know exactly what is clipping) then the full screen
display is more useful.
Savageduck
Jun 1, 2012, 7:31:30 AM6/1/12
to
front scroll wheel. Different strokes for different folks.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Savageduck
Jun 1, 2012, 7:51:29 AM6/1/12
to
On 2012-06-01 04:31:10 -0700, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) said:
> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>> In article <2012060103175116807-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
> Ignore Savageduck, he wants to hear himself talk, but has no
> knowledge pertaining to the discussion.
Gee! Thanks!
> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>> In article <2012060103175116807-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
> Ignore Savageduck, he wants to hear himself talk, but has no
> knowledge pertaining to the discussion.
While I appreciate the depth of your technical knowledge, particularly
with regard to Nikon equipment, your arrogant pomposity leaves much to
be desired.
Regarding my knowledge on the subject of Nikon DSLRs, I have used them
exclusively since moving from film to DSLR. While I might be on the
lower slopes of that learning curve, or near your lofty seat at the
apex of that curve, I have after some 50+ years of photography
experience, both film and digital, learned to recognize those who I can
learn something from. Admittedly none of that was as a "Pro". You are
certainly among those I have gained from, but that has been from
reading some of what you have had to say, rather than through
interaction, or dialog with you.
That said, from time to time I make an attempt to contribute to the
discussion as an active participant in these photo-groups. Folks can
choose to do with my contribution what they will.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Sandman
Jun 1, 2012, 10:47:35 AM6/1/12
to
In article <2012060104313050073-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
What I meant was that I *can't* use either scroll wheel, I can imagine
the thumb wheel to be quite handy for such a thing. Another setting
mayhaps.
--
Sandman[.net]
the thumb wheel to be quite handy for such a thing. Another setting
mayhaps.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Jun 1, 2012, 10:50:47 AM6/1/12
to
In article <87ehpz1...@apaflo.com>,
> >It's a pity, because I get a number of other useful info points in the
> >regular histogram view that I don't get in the RGB histogram view
>
> The smaller blinking highlight display is not as useful
> as the larger one, so if it is used as more than just an
> indication that something is clipping (if you want to
> know exactly what is clipping) then the full screen
> display is more useful.
Good point. I think I usually use highlights to see whether or not
it's clipping, not particularly in detail what parts. The smaller
image clearly shows how much of the sky that is clipping, but sure,
more detail is better. DSLR's need ten inch screens soon so we can
cram all the info we want into the display :)
--
Sandman[.net]
> >And - I see now that I can get the RGB-histogram and hot-flashing at
> >the same time! Not a regular histogram and hotflashing, but the
> >RGB-seperated histograms (i.e. four) and then the image preview will
> >hotflash.
>
> The "regular histogram" is not actually of much value,
> it's the four RGB plus luminance display that is useful.
Oh, I always assumed the combined was what we talked about. Sorry :)
> >the same time! Not a regular histogram and hotflashing, but the
> >RGB-seperated histograms (i.e. four) and then the image preview will
> >hotflash.
>
> The "regular histogram" is not actually of much value,
> it's the four RGB plus luminance display that is useful.
> >It's a pity, because I get a number of other useful info points in the
> >regular histogram view that I don't get in the RGB histogram view
>
> The smaller blinking highlight display is not as useful
> as the larger one, so if it is used as more than just an
> indication that something is clipping (if you want to
> know exactly what is clipping) then the full screen
> display is more useful.
it's clipping, not particularly in detail what parts. The smaller
image clearly shows how much of the sky that is clipping, but sure,
more detail is better. DSLR's need ten inch screens soon so we can
cram all the info we want into the display :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Jun 1, 2012, 10:52:41 AM6/1/12
to
In article <2012060104512943658-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
thread. Your post made me look deeper and find out that I can indeed
see highlighting and histograms at the same time. So, very helpful :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> On 2012-06-01 04:31:10 -0700, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) said:
>
> > Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> >> In article <2012060103175116807-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
> >> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> >
> > Ignore Savageduck, he wants to hear himself talk, but has no
> > knowledge pertaining to the discussion.
>
> Gee! Thanks!
> While I appreciate the depth of your technical knowledge, particularly
> with regard to Nikon equipment, your arrogant pomposity leaves much to
> be desired.
>
> Regarding my knowledge on the subject of Nikon DSLRs, I have used them
> exclusively since moving from film to DSLR. While I might be on the
> lower slopes of that learning curve, or near your lofty seat at the
> apex of that curve, I have after some 50+ years of photography
> experience, both film and digital, learned to recognize those who I can
> learn something from. Admittedly none of that was as a "Pro". You are
> certainly among those I have gained from, but that has been from
> reading some of what you have had to say, rather than through
> interaction, or dialog with you.
>
> That said, from time to time I make an attempt to contribute to the
> discussion as an active participant in these photo-groups. Folks can
> choose to do with my contribution what they will.
For what its worth, I appreciated your contribution to this particular
> On 2012-06-01 04:31:10 -0700, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) said:
>
> > Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> >> In article <2012060103175116807-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
> >> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> >
> > Ignore Savageduck, he wants to hear himself talk, but has no
> > knowledge pertaining to the discussion.
>
> Gee! Thanks!
> While I appreciate the depth of your technical knowledge, particularly
> with regard to Nikon equipment, your arrogant pomposity leaves much to
> be desired.
>
> Regarding my knowledge on the subject of Nikon DSLRs, I have used them
> exclusively since moving from film to DSLR. While I might be on the
> lower slopes of that learning curve, or near your lofty seat at the
> apex of that curve, I have after some 50+ years of photography
> experience, both film and digital, learned to recognize those who I can
> learn something from. Admittedly none of that was as a "Pro". You are
> certainly among those I have gained from, but that has been from
> reading some of what you have had to say, rather than through
> interaction, or dialog with you.
>
> That said, from time to time I make an attempt to contribute to the
> discussion as an active participant in these photo-groups. Folks can
> choose to do with my contribution what they will.
thread. Your post made me look deeper and find out that I can indeed
see highlighting and histograms at the same time. So, very helpful :)
--
Sandman[.net]
David Dyer-Bennet
Jun 1, 2012, 3:16:48 PM6/1/12
to
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:
> On 2012-06-01 02:04:20 -0700, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> said:
>
>> In article <87ehq03...@apaflo.com>,
>> fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>>
>>> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>>>> Starting from now, I will have the histogram as my standard preview
>>>> mode in the camera. It's a shame that my D3s doesn't support showing
>>>> the histogram and hot/cold flashing at the same time...
>>>
>>> Mine does... so yours probably does too! :-)
>>
>> That must be a setting I haven't found yet.
>>
>> In Menu -> Play -> Display mode I have all modes turned on.
>> "Highlights" is one of them (which just flashes overexposure, really),
>> how do I get hot/cold in the histogram view?
>
> That is my experience.
Note he's also asking for flashing cold; I haven't seen my Nikon cameras
> On 2012-06-01 02:04:20 -0700, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> said:
>
>> In article <87ehq03...@apaflo.com>,
>> fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>>
>>> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>>>> Starting from now, I will have the histogram as my standard preview
>>>> mode in the camera. It's a shame that my D3s doesn't support showing
>>>> the histogram and hot/cold flashing at the same time...
>>>
>>> Mine does... so yours probably does too! :-)
>>
>> That must be a setting I haven't found yet.
>>
>> In Menu -> Play -> Display mode I have all modes turned on.
>> "Highlights" is one of them (which just flashes overexposure, really),
>> how do I get hot/cold in the histogram view?
>
> That is my experience.
(or any others) do that.
> Nikon convention seems to be common across the pro/prosumer range when
> it comes to display. To the best of my knowledge Nikon DSLRs do not
> support showing flashing highlights and the histogram at the same
> time.
histograms at once (R, G, B, and l).
But I think there was maybe a menu setting needed.
Savageduck
Jun 1, 2012, 3:55:19 PM6/1/12
to
On 2012-06-01 12:16:48 -0700, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> said:
> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:
>
>> On 2012-06-01 02:04:20 -0700, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> said:
>>
>>> In article <87ehq03...@apaflo.com>,
>>> fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>>>>> Starting from now, I will have the histogram as my standard preview
>>>>> mode in the camera. It's a shame that my D3s doesn't support showing
>>>>> the histogram and hot/cold flashing at the same time...
>>>>
>>>> Mine does... so yours probably does too! :-)
>>>
>>> That must be a setting I haven't found yet.
>>>
>>> In Menu -> Play -> Display mode I have all modes turned on.
>>> "Highlights" is one of them (which just flashes overexposure, really),
>>> how do I get hot/cold in the histogram view?
>>
>> That is my experience.
>
> Note he's also asking for flashing cold; I haven't seen my Nikon cameras
> (or any others) do that.
Yup! There might be a camera which does that, but it is not to be found
> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:
>
>> On 2012-06-01 02:04:20 -0700, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> said:
>>
>>> In article <87ehq03...@apaflo.com>,
>>> fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>>>>> Starting from now, I will have the histogram as my standard preview
>>>>> mode in the camera. It's a shame that my D3s doesn't support showing
>>>>> the histogram and hot/cold flashing at the same time...
>>>>
>>>> Mine does... so yours probably does too! :-)
>>>
>>> That must be a setting I haven't found yet.
>>>
>>> In Menu -> Play -> Display mode I have all modes turned on.
>>> "Highlights" is one of them (which just flashes overexposure, really),
>>> how do I get hot/cold in the histogram view?
>>
>> That is my experience.
>
> Note he's also asking for flashing cold; I haven't seen my Nikon cameras
> (or any others) do that.
among any Nikons I know of.
>
>> Nikon convention seems to be common across the pro/prosumer range when
>> it comes to display. To the best of my knowledge Nikon DSLRs do not
>> support showing flashing highlights and the histogram at the same
>> time.
>
> My D700 does; even in the mode where it does a small preview and four
> histograms at once (R, G, B, and l).
>
> But I think there was maybe a menu setting needed.
the "Display" menu settings, but we stumbled on to the solution.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
0 new messages