wedding photography , random shots ?
Scrukdog
wedding reception or probaly just shoot in program mode to be safe ?
the light availabilty or lack of it would be changing as he moves about the
room to get random shots and also his distance between his subject would also
be changing constantly .
would he use a light meter in church before the wedding or just keep checking
his histogram (chimping) to make sure he got a correct exposure .
do any of you guys and gals use light meters or just check your historgram ?.
i check my historgram (canon 10d ) but at times im not so sure until i view it
on my laptop ,sometimes it looks good on the historgram and when i zoom in on
it also but dosen't look as good on the monitor or vice versa .
thank you
scrukdog
Bruce Murphy
> would a pro shooting digital use a light meter for random shots say at a
> wedding reception or probaly just shoot in program mode to be safe ?
*boggle* I doubt it. Aperture maybe, but I often prefer to not give
small lighting difference the opportunity to complete screw up the
photos I'm taking.
> the light availabilty or lack of it would be changing as he moves about the
> room to get random shots and also his distance between his subject would also
> be changing constantly .
What does distance to subject have to do with exposure? I think you'd
find that light availability changes much less than you might think.
> would he use a light meter in church before the wedding or just keep checking
> his histogram (chimping) to make sure he got a correct exposure .
I can't think of a better way to ensure you missed every shot you
wanted to get. *bad* workflow, no biscuit.
> do any of you guys and gals use light meters or just check your historgram ?.
>
> i check my historgram (canon 10d ) but at times im not so sure until i view it
> on my laptop ,sometimes it looks good on the historgram and when i zoom in on
> it also but dosen't look as good on the monitor or vice versa .
*sigh*
B>
Joseph Meehan
I have not shoot a wedding since long before digital came on the scene.
I doubt if any wedding photographer is going to go to all that work. They
will relay on their equipment and most of all their experience. I think you
will find many different methods used. Checking a histogram?? I would
think the only time that is likely to happen is when doing formals.
Certainly not any candid shots.
--
Joseph E. Meehan
26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
Randall Ainsworth
<scru...@aol.com> wrote:
> i check my historgram (canon 10d ) but at times im not so sure until i view it
> on my laptop ,sometimes it looks good on the historgram and when i zoom in on
> it also but dosen't look as good on the monitor or vice versa .
Screw histograms. I've yet to see how they serve a useful purpose.
Bruce Murphy
They're not without their uses for ensuring your tonal range is sane
for a completley static subject (ie still-lifes) but utterly useless
if you're moving around (for example in this case)
Of course, there's no such thing as a 'good histogram'. YOu need a
pretty good idea of what the scene's brightness distribution /should/
be before they provide much useful information.
B>
zeitgeist
with RAW files you have negative film stock depth to your exposure gamma
curve, if you are shooting jpg or tiff files then you need to be right on.
histograms can jibberish if you can't place or identify the values. Get a
gray card, go to the art store, or hardware store and buy some white and
black masking tape, tape one third of the gray card with each. now fill the
frame of your camera viewfinder with the card, and look at the histogram,
you should see
____
--------______
a handheld meter tells you the light levels falling ON the subject, not what
might be reflecting off
in camera meters can be fooled by what the sensor is looking at, meters
always assume a medium gray. if the sensor 'sees' a lot of black tux it
will over expose. since digital is sensitive to overexposure amatuers might
want to make sure the sensor is aimed at whites like the wedding dress. by
using a hand held incident meter (which reads the light that is
'incidentally' falling on the subject area) you get a suggestion for an
exposure that will allow each value fall on their normal range from the
middle, or as Dean Collins would say, the diffusive value.
this reply is echoed to the z-prophoto mailing list at yahoogroups.com
Clyde
I am an all digital wedding photographer. First, I never shoot random
shots. I do shoot photojournalistic style shots of non-posed action that
is happening. It is never random. I have spent a few decades learning
and watching to be able to judge what is about to happen that will help
tell the story. I'm certainly not always right, but more often than not,
I get it. I get it because of years of experience. There is nothing
random about it. Or "casual" either - another bad word for the process.
[Mark Twain - "The difference between the right word and almost the
right word is the difference between "lightning" and "lighting bug".]
To successfully shoot weddings, you first have be absolutely in tune
with your equipment. You have to know what it will do in every situation
that you are going to encounter. The reason is that you HAVE to get
everything and usually it will happen VERY fast. You can't wait to
adjust, configure, or fiddle with your gear - in any way.
Therefore, I shoot almost everything thing in the wedding in "P" mode. I
just don't have time to even think about adjustments. I can't worry if
my "A" mode will be going out of range or not. Also, every moment that
you are looking at your camera, you aren't watching what is happening or
about to happen.
The only time I don't shoot in "P" is under studio lights. I usually
bring and often setup a couple of strobes with umbrellas. Then I use my
flash meter and set the camera full "M". Then I put everyone in the same
place and shoot like crazy.
I also shoot almost everything with a flash on a bracket. Yes, flash
isn't the most "artistic" lighting. However, the number one rule in
wedding photography is that "you have to get it!". I shoot the ceremony
itself with no flash. On a tripod, if I can. Often handheld from odd
places. Frankly, I don't get very many of those. I get enough to matter,
but photographically it would be nice to have flash. Everything else
gets flash - even all outside shots.
If I have an artistic location AND if I have a bride who is willing to
do it AND if I have time, I will shoot some artistic shots. If I have
time and a place to use a studio strobe, I will. I have shot artistic
shots handheld and in less than ideal lighting. They certainly don't
always work. Frankly, all these "ifs" don't come together as often as we
photographer dreamers would like. Usually you'll be lucky to get enough
time and cooperation to get all the group shots she is demanding.
BTW, I rarely have time to look at my camera, let alone histograms. You
have to know and trust your equipment. Wedding photographer is a high
stress, very fast, form of photographer that is never about the
photographer or what he is trying to do. You have to do the very best
with the least and still be as unnoticeable as you can be. Really, they
don't give a damn about you or what you are trying to do. They just want
perfect pictures with the least amount of trouble to get them. That's
your job. If you do it, you'll have a happy bride who will love your
work forever and never remember your name.
Clyde
J...@no.komm
Randall Ainsworth <r...@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
That's because you're an old film dog, who can't learn new digital
tricks.
A histogram lets you know when you can reshoot to avoid clipping, or to
boost the exposure to get better use of the sensor's dynamic range (and
the levels output by the A2D converter). Of course, many of the cameras
have half-assed histograms that show the content of the JPEG, and not of
the RAW data.
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <J...@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
J...@no.komm
Bruce Murphy <pack...@rattus.net> wrote:
>Of course, there's no such thing as a 'good histogram'. YOu need a
>pretty good idea of what the scene's brightness distribution /should/
>be before they provide much useful information.
No; you're thinking film, where the middle zones have the most contrast.
A digital image should always be exposed just short of clipping one RAW
color channel, for maximum quality, assuming that no DOF or
action-stopping shutter time is sacrificed, if needed (you can go to a
higher ISO for this, too; on a DSLR, an ISO400 image exposed at +2 can
actually be better quality than ISO 100 with no compensation, if the
subject does not clip).
Randall Ainsworth
wrote:
> That's because you're an old film dog, who can't learn new digital
> tricks.
Got a point there. But as an experienced former professional, I know
before pressing the button what the image will look like and have an
idea of an corrections that might have to be made later. I don't need
to look at a graph to know that.
J...@no.komm
Randall Ainsworth <r...@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
A digital camera's sensor (which itself is not digital at all) and film
have nothing in common, except that they lie in a focal plane and
capture images. The rules of exposure are different.
Bruce Murphy
> In message <m2sm8eh...@greybat.rattus.net>,
> Bruce Murphy <pack...@rattus.net> wrote:
>
> >Of course, there's no such thing as a 'good histogram'. YOu need a
> >pretty good idea of what the scene's brightness distribution /should/
> >be before they provide much useful information.
>
> No; you're thinking film, where the middle zones have the most contrast.
No, I'm not. I'm talking about rendering scenes which will almost
always exceed the available dynamic range of the sensor. A histogram
can, if you understand what you expect to be there and where, permit
you to make changes to exposure to ensure the captured range overlaps
the correct parts of the image.
> A digital image should always be exposed just short of clipping one RAW
> color channel, for maximum quality, assuming that no DOF or
> action-stopping shutter time is sacrificed,
Actually, you'll almost always have to clip /something/, so this isn't
helpful. Seeing where in the range the clipping happens is where the
histogram is useful.
> if needed (you can go to a
> higher ISO for this, too; on a DSLR, an ISO400 image exposed at +2 can
> actually be better quality than ISO 100 with no compensation, if the
> subject does not clip).
Better quality might be misleading here. The (sensor) noise will be of
the same relative size (to the image) in both cases, you might get
bitten slightly on the readout noise, but the 'quality' is assigning
more bits of potential dynamic range to the image data.
Too many variables to call, given how much readout noise seems to be
able to vary between cameras.
B>
Randall Ainsworth
wrote:
> A digital camera's sensor (which itself is not digital at all) and film
> have nothing in common, except that they lie in a focal plane and
> capture images. The rules of exposure are different.
I disagree, but once one is comfortable shooting digital and has an
understanding of basic light and shadow to begin with, there is still
no need to look at graphs.
J...@no.komm
Bruce Murphy <pack...@rattus.net> wrote:
>J...@no.komm writes:
>> In message <m2sm8eh...@greybat.rattus.net>,
>> Bruce Murphy <pack...@rattus.net> wrote:
>> >Of course, there's no such thing as a 'good histogram'. YOu need a
>> >pretty good idea of what the scene's brightness distribution /should/
>> >be before they provide much useful information.
>> No; you're thinking film, where the middle zones have the most contrast.
>No, I'm not. I'm talking about rendering scenes which will almost
>always exceed the available dynamic range of the sensor. A histogram
>can, if you understand what you expect to be there and where, permit
>you to make changes to exposure to ensure the captured range overlaps
>the correct parts of the image.
OK; I thought you were talking about things like shooting a dark grey
object against a black background, and keeping the exposure towards the
left of the histogram.
>> A digital image should always be exposed just short of clipping one RAW
>> color channel, for maximum quality, assuming that no DOF or
>> action-stopping shutter time is sacrificed,
>
>Actually, you'll almost always have to clip /something/, so this isn't
>helpful. Seeing where in the range the clipping happens is where the
>histogram is useful.
If there are no specular highlights in a scene, you don't have to clip
anything, but of course, you are free to sacrifice some of your
highlights for the sake of the rest of the image.
>> if needed (you can go to a
>> higher ISO for this, too; on a DSLR, an ISO400 image exposed at +2 can
>> actually be better quality than ISO 100 with no compensation, if the
>> subject does not clip).
>
>Better quality might be misleading here. The (sensor) noise will be of
>the same relative size (to the image) in both cases, you might get
>bitten slightly on the readout noise, but the 'quality' is assigning
>more bits of potential dynamic range to the image data.
>
>Too many variables to call, given how much readout noise seems to be
>able to vary between cameras.
Most DSLRs are pretty good at ISO 400. The readout noise should be
insignificant compared to the quantization noise of a D2A conversion
with two less bits (relative to analog sensor exposure). We're talking
about 4x the step size for ISO 100 compared to ISO 400 @ +2. It's not
until 800 and above on most DSLRs that things get a little hairy. At
the lower ISOs, quantization of the shadows is the real enemy. The
lowest range of linear 12-bit RAW data (after blackpoint subtraction) of
an uncompensated exposure has less resolution than the 8-bit
gamma-corrected display data can convey. The reason you see so much
noise in the shadows of an ISO 100 image boosted by 4 stops is not just
the noise level itself; it is the quantization of the noise and signal.
J...@no.komm
Randall Ainsworth <r...@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
The bottom line is, if you carry over you film-think to digital, you may
be robbing yourself of the best possible captures.
If the cameras had a true RAW histogram on the back, you would clearly
see when you could have increased the exposure. Even without the true
histogram, on the 10D, if nothing is flashing black in the image next to
the histogram, and there is no cramming at the top, then you can still
expose by a stop more if you're shooting RAW, and get less noise, and
finer quantization.
Mr Jessop
<J...@no.komm> wrote in message
news:l2t4n05e93r1d9l8t...@4ax.com...
I look for the flashing black parts. I am slowly gaining in experience as
to when the meter gets it right. My 300d metering isn't the best in the
world. The best thing about raw is the exposure latitude. The detail is
there to be brought out if needed. I do beleive in getting as much as
possible dealt with in camera though.
Ken Tough
>[Mark Twain - "The difference between the right word and almost the
>right word is the difference between "lightning" and "lighting bug".]
Is he suggesting a lighting bug in firmware, or hardware? ;-]
--
Ken Tough
Clyde
The bug is certainly hardware, but the light of the bug is firmware.
Now, lightning is software with a very complex program. It's fast though.
Clyde
bob
news:161020040925093680%r...@nospam.techline.com:
> Screw histograms. I've yet to see how they serve a useful purpose.
>
I live by histograms. Histograms show you where the exposure lies. Rather
like using a densiometer on a negative.
If the histogram shows you are not using the full range of the sensor, then
you can adjust the exposure so that you are, which will give better tonal
separation (regardless of final print density).
The histogram function on my Nikon also flashes the parts of the image that
are overexposed (clipped), which lets you judge if those areas are areas
which require detail or not.
Histograms are even more important when editing images on the computer
prior to printing, but that's another issue altogether.
Bob
--
Delete the inverse SPAM to reply
bob
> I disagree, but once one is comfortable shooting digital and has an
> understanding of basic light and shadow to begin with, there is still
> no need to look at graphs.
>
That's only true if you fully test your equipment in advance and use a spot
meter. As much as I dig my spot meter, the histogram meters the whole scene
at once and displays it in an easy to understand picture.
Given all the various settings on my camera, it would take weeks to test
them under all the different lighting situations I'm likely to encounter.
Because I'm likely to own more than one digital camera in my life, learning
to use the tools it comes with makes sense to me.
Joseph Meehan
In wedding photography there is no time for such stuff.
bob
news:Yv5dd.323415$787.2...@fe2.columbus.rr.com:
The poster (Randall) did not qualify his statement to limit it to wedding
photography; rather, he includes *all* digital photography and states
that a basic understanding of light and shadow will enable one to obtain
the most from his equipment.
I disagree with your statment in part as well. Maybe in some wedding
receptions there is no time, but in many there are. With my camera
checking the histogram takes about 3 seconds. If there are 100 guests,
that adds up to 5 minutes. In the days of film, a photographer probably
spent that much time changing it.
Ken Tough
>I disagree with your statment in part as well. Maybe in some wedding
>receptions there is no time, but in many there are. With my camera
>checking the histogram takes about 3 seconds. If there are 100 guests,
>that adds up to 5 minutes. In the days of film, a photographer probably
>spent that much time changing it.
Surely the wise thing is just to check it once or twice in the
various different conditions, to see the programmed modes are
working as expected. (e.g., inside a marquee, light will be
reasonably uniform, etc) ?
--
Ken Tough
Randall Ainsworth
<usene...@2fiddles.com> wrote:
> The poster (Randall) did not qualify his statement to limit it to wedding
> photography; rather, he includes *all* digital photography and states
> that a basic understanding of light and shadow will enable one to obtain
> the most from his equipment.
I did weddings in pre-digital days. I knew exactly what my lights were
doing and had a good feel for ambient conditions. I didn't have time to
be dicking around looking at graphs.
> I disagree with your statment in part as well. Maybe in some wedding
> receptions there is no time, but in many there are. With my camera
> checking the histogram takes about 3 seconds. If there are 100 guests,
> that adds up to 5 minutes. In the days of film, a photographer probably
> spent that much time changing it.
I always kept a back loaded and ready to go. But I still don't see the
need to be looking at graphs.
Randall Ainsworth
<k...@objectech.co.uk> wrote:
> Surely the wise thing is just to check it once or twice in the
> various different conditions, to see the programmed modes are
> working as expected. (e.g., inside a marquee, light will be
> reasonably uniform, etc) ?
I've never put my 10D into any of the idiot modes and have no intention
of doing so. And if I were still photographing for a living, that
wouldn't change.
GT40
wrote:
No wedding photographer I know uses histograms or "chimps". They all
use an incident light meter and shoot in RAW mode for later post
processing. The also shoot in manual exposure based on the incident
light meter.
GT40
The wedding photogs I know used a hand held incident meter (which they
use before things get started so they know what the lighting
conditions are) unelss they are shooting strobe, then they know what
to expect. And they all shoot in manual exposure mode
Joseph Meehan
> "Joseph Meehan" <sligojo...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:Yv5dd.323415$787.2...@fe2.columbus.rr.com:
>
>> bob wrote:
...
>
> I disagree with your statment in part as well. Maybe in some wedding
> receptions there is no time, but in many there are. With my camera
> checking the histogram takes about 3 seconds. If there are 100 guests,
> that adds up to 5 minutes. In the days of film, a photographer probably
> spent that much time changing it.
>
> Bob
Having worked a number of weddings in my early years of photography I
can say that with experience, a photographer would better profit from
spending his or her time worrying about the subject and less about
histograms and other tricks to try for perfect technical results. Give me
experience any day over the perfect technician. A photographer with
experience will know what is going to work and does not need a histogram to
tell him that. Professional photography is about what works. Knowing that
is an art influenced by science, not the other way around.
Larry
sligojo...@hotmail.com says...
> Having worked a number of weddings in my early years of photography I
> can say that with experience, a photographer would better profit from
> spending his or her time worrying about the subject and less about
> histograms and other tricks to try for perfect technical results. Give me
> experience any day over the perfect technician. A photographer with
> experience will know what is going to work and does not need a histogram to
> tell him that. Professional photography is about what works. Knowing that
> is an art influenced by science, not the other way around.
>
>
> --
> Joseph E. Meehan
>
> 26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
>
Joseph:
I agree whole heartedly with the above.
Nothing works better for a photographer than familiarity
with his equipment. You need to know how your camera is
going to respond to a given situation BEFORE you take it to
a wedding, or gathering, or a sitting.
When I walk into a horse-show ring I have already had a
good look at the lighting, and the air (sometimes dusty)
and the possibility of reflections, backlighting from
certain angles ect. and I've worked out when and where the
camera will look and when the shutter will click. Sure I
miss a lot of "jeez I wish I caught that" frames, but the
truth is, wishing doesn't get the job done. I'm there to
do a job, and all the playing with the camera is done
MONTHS before I use it on the job.
Thats probably why I'm always at least a year behind the
curve equipment wise. I sometimes take the whole winter to
practice under conditions like I'll have in the spring.
Thats not to say I dont take and sell photos during winter,
but I spend a LOT of time finding out what a given camera
can and cannot do.
Practice is the only way to learn. Histograms are OK if
you haave the time to use them, but in real life it usually
doesn't work that way.
The last thing a photographer needs is to agravate the
subject, and during a wedding reception getting people to
"hold it" while you check your histogram is pretty annoying
(at best). I have shot o couple of weddings myself, and
though its not the kind of work I LIKE to do, I've learned
from it. I even shot a few hundred frames at my sons
wedding and reception (though he had hired a photographer).
Not one single frame was "blown out" by the wedding gown, I
new it would be white, and set up the camera accordingly.
(and shot RAW mode of course).
--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Crownfield
>
>
> The last thing a photographer needs is to agravate the
> subject, and during a wedding reception getting people to
> "hold it" while you check your histogram is pretty annoying
> (at best).
the classic was the film photographer at the wedding, during the vows,
who yelled out 'wait, I have to change film'.
the priest was not amused.
Ken Tough
><k...@objectech.co.uk> wrote:
>> Surely the wise thing is just to check it once or twice in the
>> various different conditions, to see the programmed modes are
>> working as expected. (e.g., inside a marquee, light will be
>> reasonably uniform, etc) ?
>I've never put my 10D into any of the idiot modes and have no intention
>of doing so. And if I were still photographing for a living, that
>wouldn't change.
Yadda yadda. I mean whatever mode you've got it programmed to,
not one of the presets. Whatever you set to, check the histogram
under one set of conditions, then shoot away under those conditions.
At least that seems sensible. That's what I was getting at.
But if you want to study it after every shot, go for it man.
--
Ken Tough
Ken Tough
I understood we were talking about 'action'/atmosphere shots, not the
standard 'chimps in a row' boring posed stuff. Those I can understand
of course doing with a meter. Pics of people doing what they do can't
be done with a light meter. IMO, excellent "photo-journalist" shots
in that style are true wedding photos. But of course, everyone has
different tastes and most want the bog-standard poses.
--
Ken Tough
Skip M
news:hOadd.323457$787....@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
exactly how I feel. Over the years, I've gotten a feel for the range of a
scene, when I have checked a histograms, it didn't tell me anything, only
confirmed what I already thought.
Unlike you, I'm pretty new at the wedding business, but I've not had the
time to check any graphs, just the occasional look at the review on the back
to make sure there are no surprises.
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
GT40
wrote:
>GT40 <m...@mine.us> wrote:
>
>>>bob <usene...@2fiddles.com> wrote:
>>>>I disagree with your statment in part as well. Maybe in some wedding
>>>>receptions there is no time, but in many there are. With my camera
>>>>checking the histogram takes about 3 seconds. If there are 100 guests,
>>>>that adds up to 5 minutes. In the days of film, a photographer probably
>>>>spent that much time changing it.
>>>
>>>Surely the wise thing is just to check it once or twice in the
>>>various different conditions, to see the programmed modes are
>>>working as expected. (e.g., inside a marquee, light will be
>>>reasonably uniform, etc) ?
>
>>No wedding photographer I know uses histograms or "chimps". They all
>>use an incident light meter and shoot in RAW mode for later post
>>processing. The also shoot in manual exposure based on the incident
>>light meter.
>
>I understood we were talking about 'action'/atmosphere shots, not the
>standard 'chimps in a row' boring posed stuff.
We are!!
Skip M
news:417561...@cox.net...
Nor, I would imagine, was the bride...
Larry
k...@objectech.co.uk says...
> I understood we were talking about 'action'/atmosphere shots, not the
> standard 'chimps in a row' boring posed stuff. Those I can understand
> of course doing with a meter. Pics of people doing what they do can't
> be done with a light meter. IMO, excellent "photo-journalist" shots
> in that style are true wedding photos. But of course, everyone has
> different tastes and most want the bog-standard poses.
>
>
When I took pictures art my sons wedding, I left all the
bog-standard stuff for the Photog. that he hired. (I did
shoot a couple of her "posed" set-ups from what I thought
to be a better angle) mostly I just fired away at all the
un-posed, relaxed, happy people at the church and at the
reception. I just usually look, set the camera for what is
in the scene, and fire away..
Always in manual, always raw, and let the devil take the
hindmost. The only "Auto" setting I used was Constant Auto
Focus.
Out of more than 300 shots I think I had 6 frames that were
screwed by subject motion..
Joseph Meehan
I am sure the real hell came from the mother of the bride. They are the
ones you really have to watch out for.
Randall Ainsworth
<m...@mine.us> wrote:
> The wedding photogs I know used a hand held incident meter (which they
> use before things get started so they know what the lighting
> conditions are) unelss they are shooting strobe, then they know what
> to expect. And they all shoot in manual exposure mode
Yup...that's the way I did it and would do it today if I were still
doing commercial work.
bob
news:mck6bKBZ...@objectech.co.uk:
> I understood we were talking about 'action'/atmosphere shots, not the
> standard 'chimps in a row' boring posed stuff. Those I can understand
> of course doing with a meter. Pics of people doing what they do can't
> be done with a light meter. IMO, excellent "photo-journalist" shots
> in that style are true wedding photos. But of course, everyone has
> different tastes and most want the bog-standard poses.
As a former photo-journalist, I think Tri-x paired with a 28mm lens and a
vivitar 238 on a Nikon FM camera is about the best it gets for indoor party
shots.
bob
$bQdB...@objectech.co.uk:
I never suggested otherwise, really.
bob
news:MPG.1bdf0962b...@news.comcast.giganews.com:
> Nothing works better for a photographer than familiarity
> with his equipment. You need to know how your camera is
> going to respond to a given situation BEFORE you take it to
> a wedding, or gathering, or a sitting.
>
How many people shooting wedding with digital gear have 10 years of
experience with it?
Right then. Lacking the kind of experience they have with their Hassys and
PlusX, I would think making use of the tools available to them would be
superior to ignoring them.
But that's just me.
bob
Are you saying that your original all inclusive post was really limited
to only wedding photography?
And what you did when you shot with film doesn't really have anything to
do with how someone should approach digital.
Skip M
news:4Kedd.36$xf...@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
been champs, but then, again, we didn't interrupt the proceeding to change
film (or cards, lenses or flashes, for that matter...)
Jer
> the classic was the film photographer at the wedding, during the vows,
> who yelled out 'wait, I have to change film'.
>
> the priest was not amused.
>
...or drop a lens cap during that 'perfect' moment. Rumour has it that
a lens cap dropped at this instant of time WILL NOT stop bouncing.
--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Colin D
Joseph Meehan wrote:
I think one has to acknowledge the different characteristics of digital vs
film. With film, the shoulder of the response curve still has enough slope to
be able to rescue somewhat overexposed shots, whereas digital has a pretty
sharp cutoff - when the pixel brightness hits 255,255,255 then your highlights
are blown, and you can do nothing about it This is independent of image mode -
raw cannot contain blown highlights any more than jpeg or other modes. Digital
behaves more like transparency film than negative film, and either incident
metering or spot metering on the bride's gown is required. This is where the
histogram shines, it takes but a second's glance to see whether the highlights
have some headroom. Some digital cameras will flash blown areas on the LCD so
you can see where the blown highlights are, and how extensively. You can then
dial in a bit of compensation and keep shooting.
From experience: if the bride's expensive guipure lace gown comes out pure
white sans detail, she will not be pleased.
Colin
Ken Tough
>Skip M wrote:
>> "Crownfield" <Crown...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>> Larry wrote:
>>>> The last thing a photographer needs is to agravate the
>>>> subject, and during a wedding reception getting people to
>>>> "hold it" while you check your histogram is pretty annoying
>>>> (at best).
>>> the classic was the film photographer at the wedding, during the vows,
>>> who yelled out 'wait, I have to change film'.
>>> the priest was not amused.
>> Nor, I would imagine, was the bride...
> I am sure the real hell came from the mother of the bride. They are the
>ones you really have to watch out for.
Ugh, what a horror. Some things are meant to be experienced
completely and utterly in the moment and thereafter in memory,
and not in any way conducted or committed for the 'all seeing eye'.
I am so glad I banned all recording during our ceremony, and I'd
do it again in a flash. (So to speak).
--
Ken Tough
Ken Tough
>We are!!
How on earth would you use a light meter for candid shots? (And
not completely botch the subject.) Why take the risk, and not
use an automatic setting which can be marginally corrected in
the RAW files?
--
Ken Tough
Bruce Murphy
> Ugh, what a horror. Some things are meant to be experienced
> completely and utterly in the moment and thereafter in memory,
> and not in any way conducted or committed for the 'all seeing eye'.
> I am so glad I banned all recording during our ceremony, and I'd
> do it again in a flash. (So to speak).
If you prevent the video-idiots from running around with their little
hotlights (or better yet eliminate them altogether), a good wedding
photographer should be able to get quite nice images without being at
all obtrusive.
B>
Bruce Murphy
Well, I'd use one because I know that I could find out in advance the
levels of lighting present in a venue and then be able to make
intelligent exposure choices in a venue. Much rather than than dealing
with the fallout of stray bright lights falling into the frame.
B>
Ken Tough
>Some digital cameras will flash blown areas on the LCD so
>you can see where the blown highlights are, and how extensively. You can then
>dial in a bit of compensation and keep shooting.
The 20D seems to do this, I gather.
--
Ken Tough
Joseph Meehan
>>
>> I am sure the real hell came from the mother of the bride. They are
>> the ones you really have to watch out for.
>>
>> --
>> Joseph E. Meehan
>>
>> 26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
>>
>>
>>
> Most likely. 'Though the mothers of the brides we've had to work with
> have
> been champs, but then, again, we didn't interrupt the proceeding to change
> film (or cards, lenses or flashes, for that matter...)
That's because you knew how to work with them. :)
bob
news:4175E891...@killspam.127.0.0.1:
> I think one has to acknowledge the different characteristics of
> digital vs film. With film, the shoulder of the response curve still
> has enough slope to be able to rescue somewhat overexposed shots,
> whereas digital has a pretty sharp cutoff - when the pixel brightness
> hits 255,255,255 then your highlights are blown, and you can do
> nothing about it This is independent of image mode - raw cannot
> contain blown highlights any more than jpeg or other modes. Digital
> behaves more like transparency film than negative film, and either
> incident metering or spot metering on the bride's gown is required.
> This is where the histogram shines, it takes but a second's glance to
> see whether the highlights have some headroom. Some digital cameras
> will flash blown areas on the LCD so you can see where the blown
> highlights are, and how extensively. You can then dial in a bit of
> compensation and keep shooting.
>
> From experience: if the bride's expensive guipure lace gown comes out
> pure white sans detail, she will not be pleased.
>
> Colin
In the specific case of the posed shots in a wedding, you can easily
meter them ahead of time, and assuming you know your camera, you won't
*need* to check the histogram, regardless of how easy and informative it
is.
In the case of the reception candids, it's a little more cumbersome to
use the incident meter, and I suspect I would be able to use the
histogram on a decent camera just as quickly, or even more quickly than
the meter, especially on cameras that have live histograms.
Where the histogram is clearly more useful than the incident meter is
when you don't have physical access to the objects in the viewfinder!!
This past weekend I was taking some photos of some people in the woods
who were performing on stage. It would not have been a good thing to walk
up on stage and take readings off their faces. Since the light was
spotty, coming through the trees and shining on parts of them I knew the
proper exposure would be very important. A quick test shot and a glance
at the histogram showed me (through flashing pixels) that one of the
performers necks was a blown out highlight. With an incident meter I
would be out of luck. With a spot meter I could arrive at the correct
exposure, but it would be tedious.
Randall Ainsworth
<pack...@rattus.net> wrote:
> If you prevent the video-idiots from running around with their little
> hotlights (or better yet eliminate them altogether), a good wedding
> photographer should be able to get quite nice images without being at
> all obtrusive.
Don't even get me started on vidiots. Video cameras were just becoming
affordable when I was doing weddings, and I can tell a number of
stories about these morons standing right next to the minister during
the ceremony...running around the church...and getting in my way. I
found that giving them "the look" usually gave them the message to get
the hell out of my way.
Ken Tough
When I say 'recording', I mean video, audio, or photograph. To me
it's not just the process of taking the image that affects the event,
but the existence of it. The memory becomes subsidiary to the 'true
record' of it (now in photos rather than the minds of those who were
there). There's some kind of timelessness in the thought of that
instant not being captured and frozen. Probably a lot of people
think that's crazy, but those who think 'a piece of the soul is
stolen away' don't seem so foolish, in a lot of respects.
--
Ken Tough
Bruce Murphy
> When I say 'recording', I mean video, audio, or photograph. To me
> it's not just the process of taking the image that affects the event,
> but the existence of it. The memory becomes subsidiary to the 'true
> record' of it (now in photos rather than the minds of those who were
> there). There's some kind of timelessness in the thought of that
> instant not being captured and frozen. Probably a lot of people
> think that's crazy, but those who think 'a piece of the soul is
> stolen away' don't seem so foolish, in a lot of respects.
I personally feel that there's a lot of space for well done candid and
informal photography in such an event which catches aspects or
perspectives that aren't just an unflavoured record, but which provide
details that wouldn't have otherwise been seen.
On the othe hand, I associate the feelings you describe with soulless
video work and dogged capture of every possible movement by photogs.
B>
GT40
wrote:
I can see you have never done that kind of photography, or you would
know why. You can quite easily meter the scence before there area
people, and indoors the light isn't going to change a whole lot, so
the subject always has the correct exposure. Why take the risk of a
reflective light meter (which all cameras use) which isn't as
accuracte as an incident reading? Automatic settings change
unexpectadly, you always know your expoure when you shoot in manual
mode.
GT40
>Where the histogram is clearly more useful than the incident meter is
>when you don't have physical access to the objects in the viewfinder!!
>This past weekend I was taking some photos of some people in the woods
>who were performing on stage. It would not have been a good thing to walk
>up on stage and take readings off their faces. Since the light was
>spotty, coming through the trees and shining on parts of them I knew the
>proper exposure would be very important. A quick test shot and a glance
>at the histogram showed me (through flashing pixels) that one of the
>performers necks was a blown out highlight. With an incident meter I
>would be out of luck. With a spot meter I could arrive at the correct
>exposure, but it would be tedious.
If your shooting a wedding and you don't have phsyical access to the
subject your not doing you job.
J...@no.komm
Colin D <Col...@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:
>With film, the shoulder of the response curve still has enough slope to
>be able to rescue somewhat overexposed shots, whereas digital has a pretty
>sharp cutoff - when the pixel brightness hits 255,255,255 then your highlights
>are blown, and you can do nothing about it This is independent of image mode -
>raw cannot contain blown highlights any more than jpeg or other modes.
You are quite confused. Almost every camera that shoots RAW files has
more highlights in the RAW than is present in a JPEG of normal contrast.
Some cameras may squeeze the extra highlights into the last few 8-bit
JPEG values, but they are highly posterized there, as compared to the
RAW data.
I have the Canon 10D, and it has 1.5 stops more highlights in the red
channel, 1 stop more in the green, and 0.9 stops more in the blue
channel than a JPEG set to normal contrast, with daylight white balance.
You could say that the camera is biased towards warm light.
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <J...@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Colin D
Ken Tough wrote:
As does the 10D, 300D, and even the D70 {:-)
And, since I'm here, I contend that a peek at the histo can beat any use of any
hand-held meter on:
1) time (yes, I know that pre-metering removes the time factor, but see 2.); and
2) accuracy. Why accuracy? Because the ISO set on the camera may not be the exact
equivalent ISO as the meter sees it; the meter calibration may or may not be exact;
and the meter cannot take the transmission losses in the lens or mechanical
stop-down inaccuracies into account. Pre-metering cannot take in subsequent
variations in lighting (the sun moves, clouds may reduce or increase ambient
illumination).
Bottom line: the image from the sensor is the ultimate proof of correct exposure,
and that is what you see analysed in a histogram. Any meter is at least 4 steps
plus time lag removed from the image.
Colin
Colin D
J...@no.komm wrote:
> In message <4175E891...@killspam.127.0.0.1>,
> Colin D <Col...@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
> >With film, the shoulder of the response curve still has enough slope to
> >be able to rescue somewhat overexposed shots, whereas digital has a pretty
> >sharp cutoff - when the pixel brightness hits 255,255,255 then your highlights
> >are blown, and you can do nothing about it This is independent of image mode -
> >raw cannot contain blown highlights any more than jpeg or other modes.
>
> You are quite confused. Almost every camera that shoots RAW files has
> more highlights in the RAW than is present in a JPEG of normal contrast.
With respect, I am not confused at all, but you seem to be. Regardless of mode, if
you blow the highlights, they are gone. Whether or not raw mode has a little more
latitude than jpeg is irrelevant. There is no shoulder as in film. I normally
shoot raw with a 300D, and I can tell you it is easy to blow highlights in that
mode if the metering is fooled by the scene. The 300D meter is not all that good
with high-contrast scenes, tending to overexposure. I normally run with -1/3 stop
underexposure dialled in for that reason.
Larry
Col...@killspam.127.0.0.1 says...
> With respect, I am not confused at all, but you seem to be. Regardless of mode, if
> you blow the highlights, they are gone. Whether or not raw mode has a little more
> latitude than jpeg is irrelevant. There is no shoulder as in film. I normally
> shoot raw with a 300D, and I can tell you it is easy to blow highlights in that
> mode if the metering is fooled by the scene. The 300D meter is not all that good
> with high-contrast scenes, tending to overexposure. I normally run with -1/3 stop
> underexposure dialled in for that reason.
>
Thats pretty much how I do it, with or without metering.
If there is a CHANCE of blowout, I dial in a little under-
exposure (in RAW) and salvage it in Photoshop.
I really thought that was how everybody did it.
Having shot film for MANY years, I learned not to trust the
metering (in camera) and having shot mostly action shots, I
learned to judge by eye.
If you are in "the madding crowd" as it were, and the
action is all around you, you need to learn your camers (or
film) and act accordingly.
For me it seems MUCH easier to set a little low (when
called for) then fix it in the dark room (or computer)
If Im shooting "posed" (about 1% of my work) or static
objects (about one tenth of 1%) THEN I use meters,for
reflectance and incidence.
Whether the "madding crowd" is a group of horse-back riders
circleing you, or a group of people milling about at a
party or wedding reception, if you take the time to use a
meter, you probably lose the picture.
Over-all, I find it easier to shoot with too little light,
than with too much light, but niether situation slows me
down.
At least with digital, I dont have to change film when the
lighting changes.
The ability to change film in midstream, and replace the
same roll later to finish shooting, was the ONLY advantage
of the failed 24mm cameras.
Owamanga
I think he's trying to say that for an identical exposure setting, the
latitude of the RAW file is greater than JPEG. Yes, blown highlights
are blown but he seems to be suggesting that they can also be
'cropped' by the JPEG encoding, and in these cases would have been
preserved by the RAW encoding.
Of this claim (which I've seen before) I am not convinced. And if
there is a difference, I bet it's less than 1/2 stop. If anything, the
number of discrete levels differs between a 12bit RAW and an 8 bit
JPEG, but this isn't as bad as it looks. JPEG uses a non-linear
translation between the original 12 bit data and the stored 8 bit
result, meaning you still get detail where it counts.
--
Owamanga!
Owamanga
That is indeed a nice feature which I am constantly changing, but in
some ways a digital shot is now more complex:
Before: Composition, Lighting, Focus, Filtration, Aperture, Shutter
speed.
Now: Composition, Lighting, Focus, Filtration, Aperture, Shutter
speed, White Balance, Film Speed, Quality Setting.
Maybe filtration can be dropped as a lot of this can be done in the
d-dark-room, with the obvious exception of polarizing filters.
>The ability to change film in midstream, and replace the
>same roll later to finish shooting, was the ONLY advantage
>of the failed 24mm cameras.
..and they are *very* small, so that camera lives in my wife's handbag
so is always with her. Only did a mid-roll change once, and I can't
even remember why now. Image & print quality is surprisingly crap, but
some great moments have been rescued with a Nikon Coolscan IV-ED w/
ASP adapter and lots of Photoshop time. In the situations where her
camera is on the scene and mine is at home in a bag, it beats mine
hands-down.
--
Owamanga!
J...@no.komm
Owamanga <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I think he's trying to say that for an identical exposure setting, the
>latitude of the RAW file is greater than JPEG. Yes, blown highlights
>are blown but he seems to be suggesting that they can also be
>'cropped' by the JPEG encoding, and in these cases would have been
>preserved by the RAW encoding.
>
>Of this claim (which I've seen before) I am not convinced.
http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/32751804
You're welcome!
bob
> If your shooting a wedding and you don't have phsyical access to the
> subject your not doing you job.
>
You must have missed both the part where someone else made blanket
statements about the "uselessness" of histograms (not restricting his
comments to wedding photography) and also the parts of my post where I
described wedding photography, IN CONTRAST TO situations where one does not
have physical access to the subject.
GT40
I think I did miss that point. I don't use histograms, rather the
cameras built in spot meter. Not that I think using histograms is bad
or useless. If I were using the histogram, I'd probably make a test
expoure then set the camera, and not use the histogram again in the
same situation. That said, do what you have to in order to get a good
image.
bob
> I think I did miss that point. I don't use histograms, rather the
> cameras built in spot meter. Not that I think using histograms is bad
> or useless. If I were using the histogram, I'd probably make a test
> expoure then set the camera, and not use the histogram again in the
> same situation. That said, do what you have to in order to get a good
> image.
>
Exactly.
Owamanga
>In message <ml7fn0ppv6ruqm06e...@4ax.com>,
>Owamanga <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I think he's trying to say that for an identical exposure setting, the
>>latitude of the RAW file is greater than JPEG. Yes, blown highlights
>>are blown but he seems to be suggesting that they can also be
>>'cropped' by the JPEG encoding, and in these cases would have been
>>preserved by the RAW encoding.
>>
>>Of this claim (which I've seen before) I am not convinced.
>
>http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/32751804
>
>You're welcome!
What do those numbers mean - is it a stop? If so, that's quite a
significant improvement on the RAW. It may not be so significant on
other brands of DSLRs (or it could be worse) based on the JPEG
encoding.
--
Owamanga!
Owamanga
.. further investigation of that site, and I can answer my own
question. Each box is 1/3stop, so for that example the RAW had a
definite 1 stop advantage over the JPEG. This is significant.
--
Owamanga!
Clyde
>
>
>>bob wrote:
>>
>>>Randall Ainsworth <r...@nospam.techline.com> wrote in
>>>news:161020042146490860%r...@nospam.techline.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I disagree, but once one is comfortable shooting digital and has an
>>>>understanding of basic light and shadow to begin with, there is
>>>>still no need to look at graphs.
>>>>
>>>
>>>That's only true if you fully test your equipment in advance and use
>>>a spot
>>>meter. As much as I dig my spot meter, the histogram meters the whole
>>>scene
>>>at once and displays it in an easy to understand picture.
>>>
>>>Given all the various settings on my camera, it would take weeks to
>>>test them under all the different lighting situations I'm likely to
>>>encounter. Because I'm likely to own more than one digital camera in
>>>my life, learning
>>>to use the tools it comes with makes sense to me.
>>>
>>>Bob
>>
>> In wedding photography there is no time for such stuff.
>>
>
>
> The poster (Randall) did not qualify his statement to limit it to wedding
> photography; rather, he includes *all* digital photography and states
> that a basic understanding of light and shadow will enable one to obtain
> the most from his equipment.
>
> I disagree with your statment in part as well. Maybe in some wedding
> receptions there is no time, but in many there are. With my camera
> checking the histogram takes about 3 seconds. If there are 100 guests,
> that adds up to 5 minutes. In the days of film, a photographer probably
> spent that much time changing it.
>
> Bob
>
Well, you can just look at the "Subject" of this thread. Also, reading
the thread you would see that it IS specific to wedding photography.
It sounds like you haven't shot any weddings. Either that or you've
missed a lot of interesting wedding shots because you were looking at
your histograms.
Of the many weddings I've shot, the only time I have time to look at
histograms is during the ceremony when shooting from the back on the
tripod. Even then, it's usually not worth it - I know what my gear will do.
Clyde
Clyde
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 14:22:23 +0200, Ken Tough <k...@objectech.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>>bob <usene...@2fiddles.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I disagree with your statment in part as well. Maybe in some wedding
>>>receptions there is no time, but in many there are. With my camera
>>>checking the histogram takes about 3 seconds. If there are 100 guests,
>>>that adds up to 5 minutes. In the days of film, a photographer probably
>>>spent that much time changing it.
>>
>>various different conditions, to see the programmed modes are
>>working as expected. (e.g., inside a marquee, light will be
>>reasonably uniform, etc) ?
>
>
> No wedding photographer I know uses histograms or "chimps". They all
> use an incident light meter and shoot in RAW mode for later post
> processing. The also shoot in manual exposure based on the incident
> light meter.
Hear, hear.
Well, I do shoot in RAW - for sure. I only use the incident light meter
if I have occasion to setup the studio strobes. Otherwise, the camera
stays on P and the flash on the bracket "on".
If you are still trying to figure out what your equipment will do AT the
wedding, you aren't ready to be shooting a wedding. You HAVE to KNOW
exactly what your gear will do in all situations of the wedding BEFORE
you shoot. If not, you will either miss a lots of shots futzing with
your gear or you will miss a lot of shots because it wasn't set right.
Or both.
Clyde
Clyde
> GT40 <m...@mine.us> wrote:
>
>
>>>bob <usene...@2fiddles.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I disagree with your statment in part as well. Maybe in some wedding
>>>>receptions there is no time, but in many there are. With my camera
>>>>checking the histogram takes about 3 seconds. If there are 100 guests,
>>>>that adds up to 5 minutes. In the days of film, a photographer probably
>>>>spent that much time changing it.
>>>
>>>Surely the wise thing is just to check it once or twice in the
>>>various different conditions, to see the programmed modes are
>>>working as expected. (e.g., inside a marquee, light will be
>>>reasonably uniform, etc) ?
>
>
>>No wedding photographer I know uses histograms or "chimps". They all
>>use an incident light meter and shoot in RAW mode for later post
>>processing. The also shoot in manual exposure based on the incident
>>light meter.
>
>
> of course doing with a meter. Pics of people doing what they do can't
> be done with a light meter. IMO, excellent "photo-journalist" shots
> in that style are true wedding photos. But of course, everyone has
> different tastes and most want the bog-standard poses.
>
Actually, I never work faster or harder during a wedding than during the
"boring posed stuff". The faster and quicker you can get that done the
happier everyone will be. This is the part they all insist on, but hate
the most. Keep it as simple as possible and as short as you can.
Have a few standard group formations that work. Get people in and out of
them as calmly, fast, and politely as you can. A good family member
working with you is the best resource you can have here. Shoot two shots
of everything - hopefully only one will have a blinker. Work as fast as
you can without adding to the stress.
BTW, this group shooting is a major cause of time schedules getting way
off track. They can hate you for that too.
Clyde
Clyde
> Larry <lasting...@comcast.dotnet> wrote in
> news:MPG.1bdf0962b...@news.comcast.giganews.com:
>
>
>>Nothing works better for a photographer than familiarity
>>with his equipment. You need to know how your camera is
>>going to respond to a given situation BEFORE you take it to
>>a wedding, or gathering, or a sitting.
>>
>
>
> How many people shooting wedding with digital gear have 10 years of
> experience with it?
>
> Right then. Lacking the kind of experience they have with their Hassys and
> PlusX, I would think making use of the tools available to them would be
> superior to ignoring them.
>
> But that's just me.
>
> Bob
>
It really isn't any different than film. When I shot weddings on film, I
knew exactly what my gear would do. It's the same with digital. The
advantage that you are talking about comes at the learning-the-gear
phase. The histogram is VERY nice when I'm learning, testing,
calibrating my digital setup.
Clyde
Clyde
>
>
> That is indeed a nice feature which I am constantly changing, but in
> some ways a digital shot is now more complex:
>
> Before: Composition, Lighting, Focus, Filtration, Aperture, Shutter
> speed.
>
> Now: Composition, Lighting, Focus, Filtration, Aperture, Shutter
> speed, White Balance, Film Speed, Quality Setting.
>
> Maybe filtration can be dropped as a lot of this can be done in the
> d-dark-room, with the obvious exception of polarizing filters.
>
>
In my wedding photography, I had been know what my camera gear will do
for WB before. I shoot in RAW so the quality setting if forced the the
best. (Why anything else?) Film speed stays the slowest as I'm almost
always shooting with flash.
Besides, fixing WB in Photoshop is very easy for wedding shots. Almost
every shot has white and black in it.
Clyde
J...@no.komm
Owamanga <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/32751804
>>You're welcome!
The kodak grey scale is in 1/3 stop steps.
Yes, some other cameras will squeeze more of the raw data into the
highlights with higher gamma near 255.
bob
news:7c9ed.230174$wV.143479@attbi_s54:
>
> It really isn't any different than film. When I shot weddings on film,
> I knew exactly what my gear would do. It's the same with digital. The
> advantage that you are talking about comes at the learning-the-gear
> phase. The histogram is VERY nice when I'm learning, testing,
> calibrating my digital setup.
>
> Clyde
It sounds like we are in perfect agreement then. We both feel that the
histogram is not "useless."
bob
news:pW8ed.296868$D%.130491@attbi_s51:
>
> Well, you can just look at the "Subject" of this thread. Also, reading
> the thread you would see that it IS specific to wedding photography.
But if you follow rpd, you know that the subject under discussion is
quite often not the "subject." If you followed the thread up to find the
post I replied to, you would see that it is not about weddings, and that
the poster even clarified that, in his opinion, graphs have no use at all
for any purpose.
> It sounds like you haven't shot any weddings. Either that or you've
> missed a lot of interesting wedding shots because you were looking at
> your histograms.
People ask me to shoot weddings, and I tell them they would be much
better off finding an actual wedding photographer. In several instances,
they have declined getting a real wedding photographer, and I have done
the best I could. That was before I had a digital camera.
> Of the many weddings I've shot, the only time I have time to look at
> histograms is during the ceremony when shooting from the back on the
> tripod. Even then, it's usually not worth it - I know what my gear
> will do.
>
> Clyde
I have an obligation to shoot a wedding in April, and I fully expect I
will take a peek at the histogram now and then. Since I know the order a
wedding usually follows, I know there will be more than one two second
lull. I'd much rather double check things while I have the opportunity to
do something about it.
David Dyer-Bennet
I'm with GT40 here, perhaps because I'd done candid photography for 20
years before I ever owned an automatic camera :-). (Hey, are you
named after an old DEC graphics terminal, or something else?)
Except that reflective meters are more accurate than incident meters,
really; incident is a quick-and-dirty way to get a decent reading, but
close-up or spot metering plus using your head gives you better
control of the result. An incident reading won't tell you if the hot
side of the face is burned out or not, for example. (Okay, you can
essentially find that out with an incident meter using the flat sensor
rather than the dome integrator, essentially reading the contrast
ratio.)
In fact, I have found that metering each shot is a drawback for
consistent quality. If the general lighting is the same, using the
same exposure will give more consistent (of course) and actually
*better* results in my experience. Metering each shot mechanically,
or using automatic mode (same thing) leaves you at the mercy of the
meter making some strange decision because of a sudden flash of light
between people walking in front of a light source, or a slight change
in angle putting a hot spot nearer a sensor than before (in the matrix
case), or all sorts of other sudden changes.
It's also much faster, of course.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd...@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>