Nikon D90 defective Matrix metering
Focus
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=31436871
I was looking over the reactions as some folks seem to think that it's OK
for Nikon to over expose in MM. But is it really?
Here what they promise in their advertisement about the D90:
"Nikon 3D Color Matrix Metering II with Scene Recognition System: Nikon's
renowned 420-pixel RGB 3D Color Matrix Metering II, teamed with the
exclusive Scene Recognition System, evaluates images, referencing an
on-board database of over 30,000 photographic scenes, for unmatched exposure
accuracy."
A database of 30.000 photos? None of them had a clear, sunny sky in them?
That hardly sounds like a camera that would blow out skies like a P&S
shooter, does it?
So, Nikon: explain yourself.
--
---
Focus
Gemini
"Focus" <do...@mail.me> wrote in message
news:kfqdnVx2AsQNglPU...@novis.pt...
I don't know what you are doing wrong Focus but both my D90s are spot on
with exposure.
Ockham's Razor
"Gemini" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Sounds like he needs a polarizing filter. Nikon sells them also.
--
I contend we are both atheists - I just believe in
one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you reject all other gods,
you will understand why I reject yours as well.
Stephen F. Roberts
Doug Jewell
that people would bring back Nikon cameras (D40, 50, 70, 80,
90) claiming the exposure was faulty because they were
getting white skies.
There were 2 ways to correct it and get exposures that one
would consider normal - use centre-weighted average, and
take a reading with the horizon exactly in the middle of the
frame, or on matrix use minus 1 to minus 2 EC.
The matrix metering put far too much emphasis on the land
part of a landscape, and would blow the sky every time. In
fact I would call the land part over-exposed too - medium
greens became insipid yellow greens etc. As you say, the
database of 30,000 images obviously didn't include a sunny
landscape scene.
To be fair to Nikon, my own Canon 450D & Samsung GX10 also
overexpose landscape scenes when on their equivalents of
matrix metering - although not as severe as the Nikon. The
Canon & Samsung give washed out but still blue skies, and
only need -1/3 to -2/3 EC to get acceptable results.
--
Have you ever noticed that all legal documents need to be
completed in black or blue pen, but we vote in pencil?
Doug Jewell
> In article <49ce8cfc$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
> "Gemini" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> "Focus" <do...@mail.me> wrote in message
>> news:kfqdnVx2AsQNglPU...@novis.pt...
>>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=31436871
>>>
>>> I was looking over the reactions as some folks seem to think that it's OK
>>> for Nikon to over expose in MM. But is it really?
>>>
>>> Here what they promise in their advertisement about the D90:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Nikon 3D Color Matrix Metering II with Scene Recognition System: Nikon's
>>> renowned 420-pixel RGB 3D Color Matrix Metering II, teamed with the
>>> exclusive Scene Recognition System, evaluates images, referencing an
>>> on-board database of over 30,000 photographic scenes, for unmatched
>>> exposure accuracy."
>>>
>>> A database of 30.000 photos? None of them had a clear, sunny sky in them?
>>>
>>>
>>> That hardly sounds like a camera that would blow out skies like a P&S
>>> shooter, does it?
>>>
>>> So, Nikon: explain yourself.
>>>
>>> --
>>> ---
>>> Focus
>>>
>> I don't know what you are doing wrong Focus but both my D90s are spot on
>> with exposure.
>
> Sounds like he needs a polarizing filter. Nikon sells them also.
only make a significant difference when you are shooting
with the sun at a 3 oclock or 9 oclock position relative to
you and the camera. With the sun directly behind you they
make practically no difference whatsoever. In the middle of
an Australian summer with the sun near directly overhead
they also have minimal impact (although your best
photography times come later or earlier in the day, when the
polariser will work better). I have witnessed the Nikon
overexposure issue, and I doubt a polariser would make much
of an improvement.
PDM
you haven't got a D40/40x. They expose like hell on MM, but not so bad on
CW. Just got a D90 myself and, yes, it does overexpose a little, but this
can be finely adjusted in a menu so I'm led to believe. One day I'll find
it.
PDM
"Gemini" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:49ce8cfc$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Mark Thomas
While your overall point is correct, I would argue the details there..
Yes, polarisers work best at 3:00 and 9:00, ie when the sun is at 90
degrees to the direction you are pointing the camera. *But* that means
when the sun is directly overhead, the polariser will work best on the
sky near the horizon. Ie, where you are normally pointing the camera..
Yes, the effect gradually fades as you go upwards..
But to say that a polariser has 'minimal' impact at midday, is to miss
the time when it is actually *very* useful.
Savageduck
Just to clarify, you are just remarking on something that came up in
dpreview forums, aren't you?
I thought you were back to shooting a D300.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Atheist Chaplain
news:49ce8cfc$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
>
didn't you say recently that you bought a brace of them for upcoming work
Douggie ??
hopefully that HUGE expense will help your hobby finally qualify for the
collection of the GST :-)
--
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
Scientology International]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your
Christ." Gandhi
David J Taylor
> Seen a couple of reviews that say the D90 can overexpose. Just be
> thankfull you haven't got a D40/40x. They expose like hell on MM, but
> not so bad on CW. Just got a D90 myself and, yes, it does overexpose
> a little, but this can be finely adjusted in a menu so I'm led to
> believe. One day I'll find it.
>
> PDM
I've found that use a fixed -1/3 stop exposure compensation produces
images exposed in the way I prefer, on the Nikon D40, D60 and a Panasonic
TZ3. Perhaps if I took raw I would not need to do this.
Cheers,
David
PDM
<snip>
> I've found that use a fixed -1/3 stop exposure compensation produces
> images exposed in the way I prefer, on the Nikon D40, D60 and a Panasonic
> TZ3. Perhaps if I took raw I would not need to do this.
>
> Cheers,
> David
Nikon set the meter to expose for the shadows instead of the highlights.
This was done to please the newby so the out of the camera shots appeared
more vibrant. I get round it by reverting to my old Weston Master V meter
with Invercone coupled with manual. Same way I used to shoot for calenders
with 2 1/4 square transparancy film way back in the 1970s/80s. Works well
when the light is not so variable.
Changing to RAW would give you better heardroom, about a stop or even more
perhaps.
PDM
David J Taylor
As with any tool, you can get better results by knowing how to use a
camera to its best. I find that a quick glance at the LCD after taking
the picture is a useful quick check, and use the histogram if I am in
doubt. Having recently been in the Antarctic with quite a lot of bright
ice and snow, getting the right exposure required a little more care than
normal.
Other than that, I've found the Nikon metering to work very well for me.
Cheers,
David
Focus
news:2009032900515216807-savageduck@savagenet...
I was and then I got the D90.
The piece on DPR is also from me, just under another name. Just to clarify.
Maybe somebody at Nikon starts paying attention if enough is written about
this problem.
I think problems of a lesser kind have been blessed with a firmware update
;-)
--
---
Focus
Focus
news:49ceb01b$0$29863$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
Thanks for sharing that.
Nobody can make a point better than someone who sells or sold camera's,
because you're at the receiving end of the problem car.
I had other camera's as well, like the D300 (much better with MM) and even
the cheaper Sony 350 was much better at their version of MM. I would still
have that camera if:
1. the noise wasn't so terrible and
2. if the flash wouldn't close peoples eyes
The tilting screen for liveview is a blessing in a lot of situations and
much under estimated by pro's. It also sports a liveview histogram that's
very accurate and helpfull in decision making.
--
---
Focus
PDM
<snip>
>
> As with any tool, you can get better results by knowing how to use a
> camera to its best. I find that a quick glance at the LCD after taking
> the picture is a useful quick check, and use the histogram if I am in
> doubt. Having recently been in the Antarctic with quite a lot of bright
> ice and snow, getting the right exposure required a little more care than
> normal.
>
> Other than that, I've found the Nikon metering to work very well for me.
>
> Cheers,
> David
highlight warning. But have you noticed that that fantastic grab shot you
just made is always over exposed and by the time you have compensated it's
too late.
Just compared my Westen Meter with the D90. exactly the same in most
lighting. Occasionally over exposes but most is recoverable in NX2. So I'm
guessing that I won't have anywhere near the same problems I have with the
D40x.
PDM
Focus
news:frCdnYoKeoP6nU3U...@supernews.com...
> Focus wrote:
>
>> I was and then I got the D90.
>> The piece on DPR is also from me, just under another name. Just to
>> clarify. Maybe somebody at Nikon starts paying attention if enough is
>> written about this problem.
>> I think problems of a lesser kind have been blessed with a firmware
>> update ;-)
>
> 18-months to get the most bang for the buck. Maybe you should just get a
> Canon 5d MkII?
On your planet maybe?
I buy cheap in another country and sell for my new price in Portugal. Why
wait so long?
;-)
--
---
Focus
David J Taylor
[]
> I too look at the LCD and usually have either the histagram on show
> or the highlight warning. But have you noticed that that fantastic
> grab shot you just made is always over exposed and by the time you
> have compensated it's too late.
Well, no. I keep -1/3 compensation on the D40 and D60, and find that the
great majority of the shots are just fine. When taking a shot, I try and
ensure that the exposure is made with a reasonable mixture of highlights
and lowlights being covered. I might typically expose with one view and
move the camera slightly for taking, just like I did with colour slide
film. Not required for all shots, of course, just where you have
extremes of lighting.
> Just compared my Westen Meter with the D90. exactly the same in most
> lighting. Occasionally over exposes but most is recoverable in NX2.
> So I'm guessing that I won't have anywhere near the same problems I
> have with the D40x.
>
> PDM
Perhaps you need to send your D90 back for adjustment?
Cheers,
David
PDM
> Perhaps you need to send your D90 back for adjustment?
>
> Cheers,
> David
PDM
Paul Furman
Perhaps the D90 is tuned for snapshooters who want to expose for the
people in the center of the frame rather than the sky?
> and even
> the cheaper Sony 350 was much better at their version of MM. I would still
> have that camera if:
> 1. the noise wasn't so terrible and
> 2. if the flash wouldn't close peoples eyes
>
> The tilting screen for liveview is a blessing in a lot of situations and
> much under estimated by pro's. It also sports a liveview histogram that's
> very accurate and helpfull in decision making.
>
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Focus
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:4N6Cl.28452$ZP4....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
I would assume that's what center weight is for.
Otherwise Nikon should call it "center people happy faces with blown sky
mode" and not "3D color matrix II with database of over 30.000 pictures
mode"
Anyway it's stupid of them not to have matched the D300's MM, because a lot
of pro's might concider taking a D90 as a backup, due to the fact that it's
also 12 MP and has a lot in common.
--
---
Focus
ASAAR
>> Perhaps the D90 is tuned for snapshooters who want to expose for the
>> people in the center of the frame rather than the sky?
>
>
> I would assume that's what center weight is for.
> Otherwise Nikon should call it "center people happy faces with blown sky
> mode" and not "3D color matrix II with database of over 30.000 pictures
> mode"
> Anyway it's stupid of them not to have matched the D300's MM, because a lot
> of pro's might concider taking a D90 as a backup, due to the fact that it's
> also 12 MP and has a lot in common.
It's not wise for those that lack a good understanding of the many
things Nikon to make accusations of stupidity. There are too many
differences between the D300 and D90 (other than exposure modes) to
qualify the D90 as an acceptable backup camera, unless money (or the
photographer) is really tight.
PDM
"ASAAR" <cau...@22.com> wrote in message
news:ap7it415806cvajgs...@4ax.com...
Acording to Nikon a lot of newspapers (in the UK) are giving the D90 to
their staff photgraphers as they can use it to record movies for their
websites at the same time as taking still for the actual paper.
PDM
Focus
So you think making a MM worse than a cheaper D40, D40x or D60 is a wise
decision?
--
---
Focus
C J Campbell
Most matrix metering systems nowadays will give you a good exposure --
for at least part of the picture. However, it is impossible for any
camera when faced with both bright sky and shadows to properly expose
for both. It is going to pick one or the other.
The difference between a good photographer and a snap-shooter is the
ability to understand and deal with the limitations of what cameras can
do. That includes a good understanding of lighting problems and what to
do about them.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
PDM
a D40x, and I can assure you that the metering is even worse on the D40x.
The D90 may overexpose, but it is more predicable and consistant compared
to the D40x. This, along with D40/D60 is terrible, is completely
unpredictable. You end up having to constantly adjust the thing.
If only owners would e-mail/write/phone Nikon and complain.
PDM
ASAAR
>> It's not wise for those that lack a good understanding of the many
>> things Nikon to make accusations of stupidity. There are too many
>> differences between the D300 and D90 (other than exposure modes) to
>> qualify the D90 as an acceptable backup camera, unless money (or the
>> photographer) is really tight.
>
>
> So you think making a MM worse than a cheaper D40, D40x or D60
> is a wise decision?
Prejudging a bit here, aren't you? Many D300 users don't share
your opinion. Users of all cameras have to deal with learning
curves, and it should be assumed that the D300's will be steeper
than that of the D40/D60. Those that master the D300's toolset will
be able to get better results than if they chose to use an entry
level DSLR instead. Different doesn't mean worse, except for those
that don't want to, or can't take the time to learn to use their
cameras well. If you're less pleased with the D300, by all means
sell it and switch to a D40 or D60, or maybe to another Sony.
Or you could try to see what others have to say about the D300's
Matrix Metering. Here's one example :
> Metering has changed on the D300, as has autofocus, and the two
> are now having relations together. Yes, we still have the same
> 1005-pixel CCD in the viewfinder doing the metering, though its
> position has changed (still vulnerable to light coming through the
> viewfinder, by the way) and it's now linked in real time to the AF
> system. The critical change comes for matrix meter users: the D300
> pays more attention to what's under the autofocus sensor being used
> than the D200 did. Enough so that you need to pay closer attention
> to your histograms. Some have said that the D300 exposes "hotter"
> than the D200, but that's not actually true in my experience. Nikon
> has changed the mid-tone gamma at the default settings, which gives
> the appearance of brighter images, but in a stable, moderate contrast
> scene with something neutral under the AF sensor, both my D200
> and D300 give the same exposure. But be careful if you've got bright
> or dark objects under the focus point--you'll get more variation of
> the metering in such cases than the D200 gave.
> . . .
>
> Not only does the D300's focus system track as well as any previous
> Nikon system, it also has tricks up its sleeve that make it better--far
> better--than the D200's. First is the size of the area covered by the
> focus system: it's enormous compared to the D200. You have to be
> framing very off center to not have a sensor on your subject. Second,
> in the Auto Area AF mode (and 3D tracking mode) the AF sensor
> and matrix meter get together in interesting and useful ways. The
> system works unusually well on anything that has a flesh tone in it,
> even if the subject moves off the autofocus sensors. There's some
> serious computational stuff going on in the focus system now, and it
> has more "magic" than before. On the other hand, magic isn't
> foolproof, so when the system flops, it flops. I'll repeat what I said
> before: spend time studying your options. With practice you'll start
> to understand the situations where the magic won't happen and
> where you need to step in with a different AF choice. Once you get
> to that level of understanding, you'll have no problems at all with
> the system. But it is enough different than anything that came before
> it that you must spend time learning it.
And similarly, learn to recognize situations where you might not
want to use the D300's matrix metering. You don't think the
D40/D60's M-M is foolproof, do you?
I do get the strong feeling that what would suit you best is a
camera that could be described as a P&S DSLR. Maybe you should
consider using Fuji's S100fs. But if you do, it's almost certain
that you'll be complaining about *many* stupid Fuji decisions. :)
ASAAR
<pdcm99[deletethisbit]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> It's not wise for those that lack a good understanding of the many
>> things Nikon to make accusations of stupidity. There are too many
>> differences between the D300 and D90 (other than exposure modes) to
>> qualify the D90 as an acceptable backup camera, unless money (or the
>> photographer) is really tight.
>
> Acording to Nikon a lot of newspapers (in the UK) are giving the D90 to
> their staff photgraphers as they can use it to record movies for their
> websites at the same time as taking still for the actual paper.
> PDM
That's a reasonable thing to do from the newspaper's
bean-counter's point of view, but it's not quite the same as
choosing the D90 as a D300 backup. It may also be an unwise
decision as shooting good videos isn't necessarily what most good
still photographers are capable of doing. It may also overload many
of them, interfering with what they do best.
Savageduck
I am still baffled as to your reasons for the camera odyssey you have
taken over the last 12-18 months D300 to Sony to D300 to D90????
I can see having a D90 as a D300 backup lifeboat with a video feature,
but not as a replacement if your primary purpose is still photography.
I know you have this plan of buying in one country and selling for a
profit in Portugal as justification for some of this. I would have a
dedicated vid-cam for those motion picture moments rather than the
mind-set compromise of making that switch with the D90. That makes me
think of all the potentially good/great still image captures missed
while fiddling around deciding whether to shoot still or video. Then
the moment is gone.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Bruce
>
>The difference between a good photographer and a snap-shooter is the
>ability to understand and deal with the limitations of what cameras can
>do. That includes a good understanding of lighting problems and what to
>do about them.
Well said. I wonder what proportion of DSLR buyers/users would come
into the "good photographer" category?
10%? Not more, perhaps a lot less. Too many people expect their
cameras to make their creative and technical decisions for them.
John McWilliams
Of all DSLR owners, the answer is 12.7% are good photographers. In these
select usenet groups, the ratio of good and excellent to humdrum and
terrible is 46.3%.
--
John McWilliams
Rob Morley
C J Campbell <christophercam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The difference between a good photographer and a snap-shooter is the
> ability to understand and deal with the limitations of what cameras
> can do. That includes a good understanding of lighting problems and
> what to do about them.
>
The difference between a technically capable photographer and a
snap-shooter is an understanding of the process that commits an image
to the camera. There's more to being a good photographer than getting
good focus and exposure.
C J Campbell
A good point. But then I would say that it is not just an understanding
of the process that commits an image to the camera, but the whole
ability to visualize an image, capture it, and process it into its
final form. Ansel Adams did write "The Print" after all.
BTW, I've been reading Joe McNally's "The Hot Shoe Diaries." Pretty good read.
Focus
news:2009040620050416807-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom...
Henri Cartier-Bresson's most famous picture was taken by pure
accident/coincidence. The man jumping over the water was shot through a
fence of planks, when he just pointed and shot, without even looking. Later
at home he saw the picture for the first time.
So I guess that makes him a P&S shooter ;-)
If you shoot thousands of pictures every week, travel the world, you're
bound to have a few good pictures...even by accident.
Anyway: nobody here seems to understand what I was saying in the original
start of this thread. Everyone assumes that I can't get a good picture, need
advice how to measure light, etc.
The point I made was, the MM of the D90 is not as good as the D300. Period.
It's a fact that the D80 suffers in a worse degree of the same problem, but
the D40 and D40x are much better and more consistent in metering.
Read the first post about how Nikon describes their MM and you'd understand
it must be a miracle MM, specially with a database of over 30.000 pictures.
Many people at the D40-D90 forum at DPreview agree on this. Even a camera
salesman told that a lot of people bring back the D90 because they don't
meter right. The salesman told them to either under expose by 0.5 to 1 stop
or use center weight. Using the last and holding it with the horizon in the
middle, gives much better results than MM anytime; no or less blown skies
and still enough detail in the landscape.
I still think that MM *should* be able to do this job better.
And before I get a lot of *teaching* again: with all camera's I had, I *can*
get the results I want.
Focus of this thread should be: why, why and why?
--
---
Focus
Focus
BTW: The salesman was in this thread, Doug Jewell, who didn't get much
attention...
--
---
Focus
PDM
But it's what newspapers expect from there staff these days.
PDM
PDM
>> salesman told that a lot of people bring back the D90 because they don't
>> meter right. The salesman told them to either under expose by 0.5 to 1
>> stop or use center weight. Using the last and holding it with the horizon
>> in the middle, gives much better results than MM anytime; no or less
>> blown skies and still enough detail in the landscape.
>> I still think that MM *should* be able to do this job better.
>>
yet. And, yes, MM should do a better job.
PDM
Bo...@home.com
I haven't followed this entire thread, but I have a D60 and a D90 and so far I
think the D60 is getting better exposures! But the D90 has far less noise...
although I've only taken 250 pics so far with the 90 compared to 700 with the
60...
Does that mean you can't win ?!
Rob Morley
"Focus" <do...@mail.me> wrote:
> Henri Cartier-Bresson's most famous picture was taken by pure
> accident/coincidence.
Photojournalism: f8 and be there ...
> Anyway: nobody here seems to understand what I was saying
I just found it tedious and irrelevant.
>
> And before I get a lot of *teaching* again: with all camera's I had,
> I *can* get the results I want.
That's just great, well done.
>
> Focus of this thread should be: why, why and why?
>
Focus of this thread is wherever the participants take it.
PDM
"Rob Morley" <nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:20090408035931.4dd10f8f@bluemoon...
Can I suggest that instead of posting your complaints to this group that you
all complain to Nikon. When I asked Nikon about the problem on the
D40/40x/D60 Nikon responded that they were not aware of any complaints. I've
mentioned this to Nikon several times. They won't do anything until they are
pestered. So get pestering. Bobard them with e-mails, get your freinds to do
the same; only this will actually get them to do something.
PDM
Doug Jewell
landscape a "lighting problem". After portraits, sunlit
landscapes would probably be the next most commonly shot
thing - by pros, keen photographers, and mum & dad snapshooters.
I've taken countless landscapes myself, on equipment ranging
from 35mm rangefinders with no light meter, through to
mid-range DSLRs. Yet, I never had a single problem metering
this type of shot, until I got a DSLR. Getting these shots
nailed ain't rocket science. If you have no meter, sunny 16
and open up a bit if it's hazy/cloudy. On my old cameras
that had meters, I could always trust it - even using slide
film. Your gut feel would tell you if a shot warranted
adjustement of the exposure (snowfields, beach etc), but a
simple sunlit landscape wasn't one of those situations.
Manual mode and sunny 16 tends to go ok with my digitals,
but you should still be able to trust the meter, and IME,
you can't. Trust the meter and you'll get a white sky pretty
much every time. This is what I've found with my Canon and
Samsung/Pentax gear, and from what I've seen from others
with the 2-digit Nikon bodies, they handle it even worse
than Canon & Samsung/Pentax.
When I was selling cameras, it would be a fairly regular
occurrence that people would bring Nikon DSLRs in claiming
they were faulty because of this very fault. I'm not talking
about the mum & dad snapshooter with their first DSLR camera
- they probably don't know enough to recognise that they are
getting overexposure. I'm talking about people who are
seasoned photographers, professionals etc.
Yes there are workarounds, and someone with a bit of
experience knows that if they go manual, put negative EC on,
bracket, or use the histogram they can get a correct
exposure. But the fact remains that auto exposure,
especially in a matrix mode that supposedly analyses the
photograph and adjusts for the type of photo, should not get
something as common as a sunlit landscape fundamentally wrong.
>
--
Have you ever noticed that all legal documents need to be
completed in black or blue pen, but we vote in pencil?
C J Campbell
So I have not owned one of the "two digit" Nikons since the D70, which
did not seem to have the exposure problem you describe. It does not
seem to be a problem on the outdoor landscapes you see on review sites.
Neither do I see the problem on photo sharing groups.
I mean, far be it from me to suggest "user error," but there it is. A
camera salesman (who just might be interested in selling more expensive
cameras) and one user who see this problem, against everybody else who
does not. Especially with a user who has expressed extreme
dissatisfaction with every camera he has handled -- I have never seen a
guy who has gone through so many cameras in such a short period of
time. So I hope you will understand that if Focus complains about his
camera, it is pretty much getting to be "same-old, same-old."
Sometimes people who use cameras like the D90 will use S mode and then
run out of apertures, which can cause severe under- or over-exposure.
But I would not expect that a professional camera salesman or a pro
shooter like Focus to make a tyro error like that, eh?
However, it is very difficult to address yours and Focus' assertion
that there is something wrong with the D90 without seeing some actual
photos, along with additional information such as what metering mode
the camera was in, whether it was in P (for Professional), M, A, S, or
one of the built-in programmed modes, whether it was shot raw or JPG,
etc. So far, both you and Focus have been less than forthcoming in
demonstrating the actual problem.
And yes, landscapes pose lighting problems, not least of which can be a
need for fill flash for the foreground. If you are exposing for the
foreground, you may well get a washed out sky. No two ways about it.
This is not a digital problem; it is even worse with film. Camera
sensors, both digital and film, can only address a very limited range
of stops. A "pro" would know this.
For that matter, a "pro" would know how to calibrate the exposure on
his camera, anyway, using a white sheet of paper and an incident light
meter, so that he would know whether his camera consistently over- or
under-exposes and whether it is a common tendency across the board for
a particular model or specific to a particular body. A "pro" would also
know that this can change over time.
So, while I am not calling you a liar, I do point out that your
experience appears to be contrary to that of most users.
Rob Morley
C J Campbell <christophercam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> And yes, landscapes pose lighting problems, not least of which can be
> a need for fill flash for the foreground. If you are exposing for the
> foreground, you may well get a washed out sky. No two ways about it.
>
Often quite easily overcome with a ND filter aligned with the horizon,
and some really high-tech metering system like my Leningrad 4.
Focus
news:2009040807000643658-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom...
Maybe you should do more reading and less writing.
"Most users"???
The link I gave to only one discussion on dpr, resulted in 34 people that
agree there is a problem with MM, (among them a man with 50 years
experience!) and 4 against. The rest is about how to avoid this crappy
problem.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=31335581
If you look more, you'll find more threads about the D90's MM problem.
Also DPreview's test pointed out the same problem.
That I had a lot of camera's, only makes me more qualified to "expose" a
problem. You prefer to mock me and even try to make a fool of me.
Since you don't even own a D90: what the heck are you talking about?
On top of that: Nikon Netherlands replied to my complaint and wrote they
were aware much more people that had problems with it.
But of course: you know everything much better, I just forgot why....
Seems like a lot of ballony: a camera can change over time? LOL, some pro
you are, sir!
--
---
Focus
PDM
"C J Campbell" <christophercam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2009040807000643658-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom...
The D70 doesn't have this metering problem. The D300 gives very good
accuracy too; ditto the pro level cameras. This problem started with the
D80, then the D40(x)/60 and now the D90. Althought the D90 is slightly
better. . It seems Nikon decided to adjust the exposure levels for these
cameras to expose for the shadows instead of the highlights as in the D70
and D300. So you get overexposure. Worse is that it is not consistance so
just setting a 1/3 or 2/3 stop decrease doesn't work. It appears that they
regard people who buy these cameras are likely to be beginners who prefer
images that are bright and cheerful rather than the slightly dull result you
get on the so called pro range. The result is frustration for anyone who
knows how to expose images correctly.
PDM
ASAAR
> If you look more, you'll find more threads about the D90's MM problem.
The more one looks, the easier it becomes to find bogus gripes
that complain about virtually anything that one wants to find.
> Also DPreview's test pointed out the same problem.
> That I had a lot of camera's, only makes me more qualified to "expose" a
> problem. You prefer to mock me and even try to make a fool of me.
> Since you don't even own a D90: what the heck are you talking about?
The only thing that has been exposed is your inability to
competently evaluate cameras. You quickly bounce from "It's a
perfect camera" to "it's a piece of crap". Even without owning a
D90, Mssr. Waddling Eagle is a better judge of it than you.
> On top of that: Nikon Netherlands replied to my complaint and wrote they
> were aware much more people that had problems with it.
> But of course: you know everything much better, I just forgot why....
>
> Seems like a lot of ballony: a camera can change over time? LOL, some pro
> you are, sir!
Thom Hogan is a pro that you should read more of. He finds the
matrix metering of the D40 is comparable to the D50, just slightly
better than the D80, but meters hotter than the D200, and he doesn't
particularly care for the D80's matrix metering. But he says in his
review of the D90 that he likes it quite a lot more than the D80 and
that the D90's metering and AF performance are both better than the
D80's, but not quite as good as the D300's AF and metering.
Thom is quick to point out flaws in Nikon's products and it should
be no surprise that I respect his opinions much more than yours.
But then he doesn't come across as a perpetually whining immature
little boy that has a lot to learn. What seems clear is that you
don't understand how matrix metering works, how its implementation
differs among the different Nikon bodies, and probably little tricks
such as how to get an exposure that's the average of two different
matrix-meter evaluations. A pro wants their DSLR to be a flexible
tool and will take the time to learn how to use it to the best of
their abilities. You seem to be looking more for a camera that can
be used without requiring much thought to get decent pictures.
Maybe a D40 or even a P90 would suit you better.
Eric Stevens
Before things get too heated .... there is another aspect which has
not yet been mentioned.
For many years I used a Nikon 801s (8008s in the US) which almost
totally exclusively was set in 'A' mode. I would choose the aperture
according to the needs of the picture and then check that the shutter
speed was acceptable. This camera had matrix metering but to the best
of my recollection never exhibited the over-exposed sky problem.
Later I used a Nikon D70 which I used in the same fashion. Virtually
all of my shots were in RAW mode and processed by Nikon NX software.
No over-exposed sky problem.
I'm now running a D300, and ditto except that I now use NX2.
There is much more to be considered in the chain other than the simple
metering of the exposure. Maybe the problem varies from mode to mode.
Maybe the problem is in the camera's software, which I bypass by using
RAW and external processing. Who really knows at this stage?
Eric Stevens
Focus
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:0k9qt456rhg4qqrr1...@4ax.com...
Sensible instead of (over)sensitive, that makes sense ;-)
I took some test shots at a usual time and the same place like I took so
many with other camera's, among them the D40, D40x, D300, Sony A350, Canon
40D and a Powershot, which all of them did better.
Now tell me, if you think it's normal that I have to adjust by 2 full stops
to get some detail in the sky. These are made a little before sundown:
http://nikon-box.com/09040815.NEF
http://nikon-box.com/09040817.NEF (adjusted -2 stops)
http://nikon-box.com/090308001.NEF
The real pain in the ass is, that you can't fine tune MM, because the
metering with a flash (internal and SB900) is good.
Also I made some picture at night and they looked as if it was daytime...
With center weight or spot metering: no problem!
Maybe they should add a few more pictures to the "database of 30.000
pictures". I just don't believe it.
--
---
Focus
"mcdonaldREMOVE TO...@scs.uiuc.edu
> On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 19:02:32 +0100, Focus whined:
>
>> If you look more, you'll find more threads about the D90's MM problem.
>
> The more one looks, the easier it becomes to find bogus gripes
> that complain about virtually anything that one wants to find.
>
>
>> Also DPreview's test pointed out the same problem.
>> That I had a lot of camera's, only makes me more qualified to "expose" a
>> problem. You prefer to mock me and even try to make a fool of me.
>> Since you don't even own a D90: what the heck are you talking about?
>
> The only thing that has been exposed is your inability to
> competently evaluate cameras.
Ad hoiminem attacks
Cameras do deserve attacks ... "ad camerae" but that seems a
bit silly, as it actually means "to the room".
And metering systems particularly deserve (warranted) attacks.
One does not actually expect fullframe weighted,
center weighted, or spot metering, applied mindlessly,
to give correct exposure of certain scenes, of which the
bright sky, partially shaded landscape is prototypical.
However, I would posit that if a camera offers a multipoint
"matrix" scheme that claims "30,000 reference images", it
would be able to get it right. But what is "right? Ignore the sky
and expose the land as if a big mountain is in the background?
Cut exposure so that the sky is not clipped and underexpose the
foreground, at least in the "landscape mode" high contrast JPEG?
Cut the contrast in the JPEG so the sky is not clipped and
the foreground at least passable? Expose so a RAW file has
a non-clipped sky and the JPEG be damned?
I'd of course take the last option. But others might differ.
Doug McDonald
ASAAR
REACH ME"@scs.uiuc.edu wrote:
> However, I would posit that if a camera offers a multipoint
> "matrix" scheme that claims "30,000 reference images", it
> would be able to get it right. But what is "right? Ignore the sky
> and expose the land as if a big mountain is in the background?
> Cut exposure so that the sky is not clipped and underexpose the
> foreground, at least in the "landscape mode" high contrast JPEG?
> Cut the contrast in the JPEG so the sky is not clipped and
> the foreground at least passable? Expose so a RAW file has
> a non-clipped sky and the JPEG be damned?
>
> I'd of course take the last option. But others might differ.
Well, that's the nub of Focus's problem. He expects that the
camera really has a matrix metering mind reading system that will
infallibly provide the exposure that will keep him grinning. As I
said, the camera is a tool and better results will come from
learning how to understand how it works, in order to use it to the
photographer's best advantage. In his D90 review, Thom Hogan
repeatedly points out how the D90 functions similar to the D300, and
says that as far as metering is concerned, its improved over the
D80, but not quite as good as the D300. He says of the D300 :
> Metering has changed on the D300, as has autofocus, and the two
> are now having relations together. Yes, we still have the same
> 1005-pixel CCD in the viewfinder doing the metering, though its
> position has changed (still vulnerable to light coming through the
> viewfinder, by the way) and it's now linked in real time to the AF
> system. The critical change comes for matrix meter users: the D300
> pays more attention to what's under the autofocus sensor being used
> than the D200 did. Enough so that you need to pay closer attention
> to your histograms. Some have said that the D300 exposes "hotter"
> than the D200, but that's not actually true in my experience. Nikon
> has changed the mid-tone gamma at the default settings, which gives
> the appearance of brighter images, but in a stable, moderate contrast
> scene with something neutral under the AF sensor, both my D200
> and D300 give the same exposure. But be careful if you've got bright
> or dark objects under the focus point--you'll get more variation of
> the metering in such cases than the D200 gave.
And the same applies to the D90. Most real daylight scenes have a
much greater dynamic range that any camera can capture, so it's up
to the photographer to steer the camera towards capturing the subset
that is wanted. If Focus thinks that the D40's metering is much
better, then that's the camera he should use, and not be seduced by
what others think of the D90. The D90 simply exposes how he's
succumbed to the Photographer's Peter Principle.
C J Campbell
>
> Henri Cartier-Bresson's most famous picture was taken by pure
> accident/coincidence. The man jumping over the water was shot through a
> fence of planks, when he just pointed and shot, without even looking. Later
> at home he saw the picture for the first time.
> So I guess that makes him a P&S shooter ;-)
Somehow I sincerely doubt that story, though Bresson himself might have
told it. Even Bresson did not just walk around pointing the camera
aimlessly, squeezing the shutter with his shut. Bresson worked hard to
capture his moments. He was not a chimpanzee randomly pecking keys on a
typewriter to produce the works of Shakespeare. Bresson's work is a
tribute to the documentary photographer's ability to anticipate,
visualize and capture a moment all in a split second. But he did not
skip any of those steps, whether he realized it or not.
C J Campbell
> On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 08:01:20 -0500, "mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY
> REACH ME"@scs.uiuc.edu wrote:
>
>> However, I would posit that if a camera offers a multipoint
>> "matrix" scheme that claims "30,000 reference images", it
>> would be able to get it right. But what is "right? Ignore the sky
>> and expose the land as if a big mountain is in the background?
>> Cut exposure so that the sky is not clipped and underexpose the
>> foreground, at least in the "landscape mode" high contrast JPEG?
>> Cut the contrast in the JPEG so the sky is not clipped and
>> the foreground at least passable? Expose so a RAW file has
>> a non-clipped sky and the JPEG be damned?
>>
>> I'd of course take the last option. But others might differ.
>
> Well, that's the nub of Focus's problem. He expects that the
> camera really has a matrix metering mind reading system that will
> infallibly provide the exposure that will keep him grinning.
Yes. He wants the camera to read his mind and automatically expose for
the sky when he wants it to do that, and expose for the ground when he
wants it to do that, or miraculously come up with a perfect exposure
for both in the same frame!
Bruce
>
>Even Bresson did not just walk around pointing the camera
>aimlessly, squeezing the shutter with his shut. Bresson worked hard to
>capture his moments. He was not a chimpanzee randomly pecking keys on a
>typewriter to produce the works of Shakespeare. Bresson's work is a
>tribute to the documentary photographer's ability to anticipate,
>visualize and capture a moment all in a split second. But he did not
>skip any of those steps, whether he realized it or not.
All true, but HCB was a prolific shooter and took a great many photos
while out shooting. Even though there are many volumes of his published
work, we have seen only very few of those shots.
Perhaps there is a valid comparison to be made with National Geographic
shooters who typically produced over 10,000 shots on film in order to
illustrate an article with only a couple of dozen, if that.
I am not suggesting (in either case) that the published shots happened
by chance. Far from it: I have no doubt that great care was taken with
the majority of shots taken, and that a very large percentage of them
would be considered suitable for publication.
However, I also have no doubt that the taking of such large numbers of
images in both cases actively contributes to the extremely high standard
of published work - work to which we are privileged to have access at
the small cost of buying a book, or the magazine.
C J Campbell
> C J Campbell <christophercam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Even Bresson did not just walk around pointing the camera
>> aimlessly, squeezing the shutter with his shut. Bresson worked hard to
>> capture his moments. He was not a chimpanzee randomly pecking keys on a
>> typewriter to produce the works of Shakespeare. Bresson's work is a
>> tribute to the documentary photographer's ability to anticipate,
>> visualize and capture a moment all in a split second. But he did not
>> skip any of those steps, whether he realized it or not.
>
>
> All true, but HCB was a prolific shooter and took a great many photos
> while out shooting. Even though there are many volumes of his published
> work, we have seen only very few of those shots.
>
> Perhaps there is a valid comparison to be made with National Geographic
> shooters who typically produced over 10,000 shots on film in order to
> illustrate an article with only a couple of dozen, if that.
Gregg Gibson told me that he typically takes over 7,000 frames at a
wedding. He winnows those down to about 130 that he shows the happy
couple, and they make their selection from those.
Gibson did not win two Pulitzer Prizes by taking 10,000 copies of the
same image with only slight variation among them. I have seen him at
work; he takes one shot -- then changes position, focal length, or
something else. When he is done with a shoot he is literally dripping
with sweat because he is moving around so actively. He may shoot 100
frames or more in the space of a minute or two. Each frame will be
radically different.
How he keeps that energy level up at an entire wedding is beyond me.
Nat Geo photographers do not always take 10,000 images and select only
a dozen. Sometimes they have the opportunity to do that; sometimes not.
Sometimes you get only a handful of images to choose from. That's the
way the cookie crumbles.
I do not know how many pictures Eddie Adams took on February 1, 1968.
He got the Pulitzer for only one of them -- the execution of a Viet
Cong officer by General Nguyen Ngoc Loan. This execution was also
filmed by a TV crew. A documentary interviewing Adams, showing the
picture, and also a film clip of the execution can be seen here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6459381285349469159
Obviously, Adams could not take 10,000 images of this execution. He had
time for one. The entire execution, from the time that they start
dragging the Viet Cong into the street to the time that he is lying in
it, is less then 5 seconds. That was it. I do not know what else he
shot that day, but for that day, and perhaps for the entire war, it was
"the" picture.
>
> I am not suggesting (in either case) that the published shots happened
> by chance. Far from it: I have no doubt that great care was taken with
> the majority of shots taken, and that a very large percentage of them
> would be considered suitable for publication.
>
> However, I also have no doubt that the taking of such large numbers of
> images in both cases actively contributes to the extremely high standard
> of published work - work to which we are privileged to have access at
> the small cost of buying a book, or the magazine.
Indeed. I don't think people fully appreciate this. We have come a long
way from attempting to communicate with stained glass windows and
illuminated manuscripts painstakingly constructed over a period of
decades. I am not sure that it is always for the better, but on the
whole I believe it is.
Alan Browne
> Nat Geo photographers do not always take 10,000 images and select only a
> dozen. Sometimes they have the opportunity to do that; sometimes not.
> Sometimes you get only a handful of images to choose from. That's the
> way the cookie crumbles.
Actually some nat geo photogs don't even see the photos until they're
published, and they might see only a small percentage of the remaining
stock photos. In the film days they would ship undeveloped film back to
DC for development and the photo editors, working with the article
writer would decide which photos to use.
In the digital age, I'm not sure what the modus operandi is, but it
probably involves electronic transfer to DC, and again the photog is not
the one choosing what goes into the article.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
frank
wrote:
Part of it is, you're out in the field for months at a time. You don't
get to process the images and see what is there. Maybe you'll get
feedback. Way different than how most of us shoot.
Think of it as you're taking your gear with you somewhere where there
is NO support. What you carry in and film. Or digital cards.
I've read on line of going to the Galapagos as sort of similar.
Of course you're expected to have decent images on those 10,000 you
send in. that's not a lot, only about 300 rolls.
Much easier to have decent shots the vast majority of the time than it
was 40 years ago. Digital wasn't around, but even with film. Much
easier to shoot 10,000 shots also. Used to be 2 or 3 frames a sec was
fast. Anybody ever used flashbulbs? Thought not...
Bob Larter
[...]
> fast. Anybody ever used flashbulbs? Thought not...
Well, not since I was a kid. Remember the 4 shot bulbs that rotated
after each shot?
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
nospam
<bobby...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > fast. Anybody ever used flashbulbs? Thought not...
>
> Well, not since I was a kid. Remember the 4 shot bulbs that rotated
> after each shot?
especially the magicubes that triggered with a strike pin rather than
by using electricity. throw them against the ground and boom...
PDM
> I'm now running a D300, and ditto except that I now use NX2.
>
> There is much more to be considered in the chain other than the simple
> metering of the exposure. Maybe the problem varies from mode to mode.
> Maybe the problem is in the camera's software, which I bypass by using
> RAW and external processing. Who really knows at this stage?
>
Eric Stevens
Metering is not affected by using RAW and/or NX2
PDM
Stormin Mormon
could get em to flash for you?
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Bob Larter" <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:49df1d28$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Stormin Mormon
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:100420090403203700%nos...@nospam.invalid...
Alan Browne
> On Apr 9, 2:54 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca>
> wrote:
>> C J Campbell wrote:
>>> Nat Geo photographers do not always take 10,000 images and select only a
>>> dozen. Sometimes they have the opportunity to do that; sometimes not.
>>> Sometimes you get only a handful of images to choose from. That's the
>>> way the cookie crumbles.
>> Actually some nat geo photogs don't even see the photos until they're
>> published, and they might see only a small percentage of the remaining
>> stock photos. In the film days they would ship undeveloped film back to
>> DC for development and the photo editors, working with the article
>> writer would decide which photos to use.
>>
>> In the digital age, I'm not sure what the modus operandi is, but it
>> probably involves electronic transfer to DC, and again the photog is not
>> the one choosing what goes into the article.
>>
>
> get to process the images and see what is there. Maybe you'll get
> feedback. Way different than how most of us shoot.
>
> Think of it as you're taking your gear with you somewhere where there
> is NO support. What you carry in and film. Or digital cards.
>
> I've read on line of going to the Galapagos as sort of similar.
>
> Of course you're expected to have decent images on those 10,000 you
> send in. that's not a lot, only about 300 rolls.
Around 2000 NatGeo had a small article about the photographers. The
_average_ assignment turned in 27,000 frames over its course (one
photog). It was all film, so the photog never saw them until (s)he came
home (and many rarely went to Washington at all).
During the assignment they would get direction on needs from both the
photo editor (Wash DC) and the article writer/researcher (field). Often
the photog would show up days or weeks at a location after the writer
had left - but had to capture material per the writers needs.
Exceptionally, the article writer was the photog, in which case (s)he
would see much more of the photography.
> Much easier to have decent shots the vast majority of the time than it
> was 40 years ago. Digital wasn't around, but even with film. Much
> easier to shoot 10,000 shots also.
Yep. Fewer 'safety' shots. Histogram and monitor let the photog be
assured his exposure is right.
> Used to be 2 or 3 frames a sec was
> fast. Anybody ever used flashbulbs? Thought not...
I doubt many Nat Geo photogs relied on machine gun photography very often.
frank
Yeah, Kodak Magic Cubes. One of the many camera types, mainly for
Instamatic, had the film that was in a cartridge. Used to have one
that was blue for tungsten film I think. Somebody actually came out
with an adaptor to put on top of a 35mm so you could use the cubes.
Might have been some 3rd party that did it. One camera store used to
have all sorts of odd stuff by mail like that.
Didn't know you could have them go off by dropping them. They were the
improvement over the small peanut flash bulbs. Damn, that's been....35
years???
Flash bulbs were fun as you couldn't carry a lot of them, came in huge
boxes, think long ship model kit type boxes, maybe 12 or 20. Surface
used to really melt after use. And they were hot. But way faster and
more stable than electronic flash. At least back then.
Used to carry pockets full of them.
Never had one explode during use, but heard they might do it. Came in
various sizes also.
Which is what the F mode was for on old PC flash connectors. no, not
personal computers.
Had IR ones for IR film also. Whoo hooo. High tech.
Eric Stevens
I agree. But the OP only believes his metering is wrong on the basis
of what he sees in the image on the screen or print. I'm saying that
what he he sees depends in part on what has happened in between the
taking of the picture and display of the image.
In any case, the point is now moot as it seems that his problems may
have been due to a camera fault.
Eric Stevens
ASAAR
> In any case, the point is now moot as it seems that his problems may
> have been due to a camera fault.
"may", as in maybe, maybe not. It may also be a bit of
face-saving spin, as the tech might have said "well, that's
certainly possible" or some such. But even so, if the camera was
really defective, that just emphasizes Focus's immaturity, that he's
so often shows, that he's overly quick to blame someone or something
without having all of the facts.
> So, Nikon: explain yourself.
> Anyway it's stupid of them not to have matched the D300's MM
>> It's not wise for those that lack a good understanding of the many
>> things Nikon to make accusations of stupidity. There are too many
>> differences between the D300 and D90 (other than exposure modes) to
>> qualify the D90 as an acceptable backup camera, unless money (or the
>> photographer) is really tight.
>
> So you think making a MM worse than a cheaper D40, D40x or D60
> is a wise decision?
To which I replied "Prejudging a bit here, aren't you?" It now
appears that I was right, and Focus's vision was blurred.
> The link I gave to only one discussion on dpr, resulted in 34 people that
> agree there is a problem with MM, (among them a man with 50 years
> experience!) and 4 against. The rest is about how to avoid this crappy
> problem.
> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=31335581
>
> If you look more, you'll find more threads about the D90's MM problem.
>
> Also DPreview's test pointed out the same problem.
> That I had a lot of camera's, only makes me more qualified to "expose" a
> problem. You prefer to mock me and even try to make a fool of me.
> Since you don't even own a D90: what the heck are you talking about?
But if his personal D90 is defective and the problem isn't due to
a poor MM design, the mocking was deserved, and his early ill
considered comments show that Focus was the only one responsible for
making a fool of himself. Should we now assume that Focus will
never comment about any camera or lens that he hasn't used? I don't
think it's fair that he should so restrict himself. What the heck.
After all, owning a D90 didn't seem to be particularly beneficial.
> Maybe they should add a few more pictures to the "database of 30.000
> pictures". I just don't believe it.
And I don't believe that Focus should consider having a future as
a trouble shooting technician. :)
Eric Stevens
I can't stop you wanting to throw rocks at him.
Eric Stevens
ASAAR
> I can't stop you wanting to throw rocks at him.
He really needs to stop creating such a tempting, deserving target.
He also is becoming somewhat troll-like. He'd be better off posting
his less obnoxious, sometimes interesting contributions here and
saving his flights of fancy posts for a personal blog, or maybe get
a job as Ken Rockwell's foreign correspondent.
Bob Larter
> On Apr 10, 5:19 am, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> frank wrote:
>> [...]
>>> fast. Anybody ever used flashbulbs? Thought not...
>> Well, not since I was a kid. Remember the 4 shot bulbs that rotated
>> after each shot?
>
> Instamatic, had the film that was in a cartridge.
Yep, that's them.
> Didn't know you could have them go off by dropping them.
That's news to me too. I used to zap them with a 9V battery to set them
off for fun.
> Flash bulbs were fun as you couldn't carry a lot of them, came in huge
> boxes, think long ship model kit type boxes, maybe 12 or 20. Surface
> used to really melt after use.
<nods> The glass would actually bubble up under the safety plastic.
> Had IR ones for IR film also. Whoo hooo. High tech.
"IR" ones? What would be the difference between those & the standard
variety?
nospam
<bobby...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yeah, Kodak Magic Cubes. One of the many camera types, mainly for
> > Instamatic, had the film that was in a cartridge.
>
> Yep, that's them.
>
> > Didn't know you could have them go off by dropping them.
>
> That's news to me too. I used to zap them with a 9V battery to set them
> off for fun.
if you used a battery to fire them, then they were regular flash cubes.
magicubes were mechanically fired by a spring which when released, hit
a pin on the bulb which caused it to flash. you could flash one bulb
by poking a screwdriver into one of the holes, or if you threw a
magicube on the ground, all four springs would release and all four
bulbs would flash.
regular flash cube on the left, magicube on the right:
<http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2062/2541617504_2606640de2.jpg>
> > Had IR ones for IR film also. Whoo hooo. High tech.
>
> "IR" ones? What would be the difference between those & the standard
> variety?
they put out infrared light which is invisible to humans. with
infrared film, one could take flash photos without anyone noticing. a
photographer named weegee was most known for this, often taking photos
inside theatres of the audience. these days, one can use an infrared
flash head.
C J Campbell
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> said:
> C J Campbell wrote:
>
>> Nat Geo photographers do not always take 10,000 images and select only
>> a dozen. Sometimes they have the opportunity to do that; sometimes not.
>> Sometimes you get only a handful of images to choose from. That's the
>> way the cookie crumbles.
>
> Actually some nat geo photogs don't even see the photos until they're
> published, and they might see only a small percentage of the remaining
> stock photos. In the film days they would ship undeveloped film back to
> DC for development and the photo editors, working with the article
> writer would decide which photos to use.
>
> In the digital age, I'm not sure what the modus operandi is, but it
> probably involves electronic transfer to DC, and again the photog is not
> the one choosing what goes into the article.
Yeah, Gregg said he never saw his photos until they were published. He
often saw some of the rejects later and sometimes thought they were
better than the ones that were published. But the editor makes the
selection. Gregg Gibson was one of the first professional documentary
photographers to go digital. His photo of Clinton, the elder Bush, and
Perot standing together on Newsweek was the first digital photo to
appear on the cover of a national magazine. It was transmitted
electronically as he took it and thus beat his competition who depended
on film runners by several hours. The photo was one of the body of work
which got him his first Pulitzer.
It basically works the same way now. You send your photos to an editor,
usually some guy who is stationed permanently in the region who handles
a bunch of photographers, and he sends his picks on for publication.
Bruce
>On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 17:08:34 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:
>> I can't stop you wanting to throw rocks at him.
>
> He really needs to stop creating such a tempting, deserving target.
I agree. I had to put him in my kill file, otherwise I would not be
able to resist pointing out what a serial idiot he is. It seems that
there are now plenty of people to do that, so no need to duplicate.
PDM
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> In article <49e0908a$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter
> <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Yeah, Kodak Magic Cubes. One of the many camera types, mainly for
>> > Instamatic, had the film that was in a cartridge.
>>
>> Yep, that's them.
>>
>> > Didn't know you could have them go off by dropping them.
>>
>> That's news to me too. I used to zap them with a 9V battery to set them
>> off for fun.
>
> if you used a battery to fire them, then they were regular flash cubes.
>
> magicubes were mechanically fired by a spring which when released, hit
> a pin on the bulb which caused it to flash. you could flash one bulb
> by poking a screwdriver into one of the holes, or if you threw a
> magicube on the ground, all four springs would release and all four
> bulbs would flash.
>
remember them too!).
PDM
Ken Hart
"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:grngfi$pbr$1...@news.motzarella.org...
> And if you throw em on the ground really hard, sometimes you
> could get em to flash for you?
>
> --
> Christopher A. Young
> Learn more about Jesus
> www.lds.org
> .
>
>
> "Bob Larter" <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:49df1d28$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> frank wrote:
> [...]
>> fast. Anybody ever used flashbulbs? Thought not...
>
> Well, not since I was a kid. Remember the 4 shot bulbs that
> rotated
> after each shot?
>
> --
> W
>
Magicubes had an 'explosive' charge in them to create the flash. In the base
of the 'cube was a little spring wire for each bulb. The camera had a
plunger that pushed the spring wire off of it's holder, it hit the charge,
and flashed. If you could jar the 'cube sufficiently to knock the spring off
it's holder, you got a flash. I never tried it (damn things were
expensive!), but I suspect that if you threw it against a hard object and it
hit top first, you could probably fire all four sides at once. The advantage
of the Magicube was that there was no battery required to fire, and hence no
concerns of a dead battery or corroded contacts.
The Magicubes were slightly larger and had a different base from the earlier
flashcubes. The flashcubes were basically four AG1 bulbs in a cube
container. I once
'inherited' an adaptor for flashcubes that mounted on a camera shoe, had a
PC sync cord and a battery (22.5V?). This one carried the Konica brand. Not
having much use for it, I sold it on eBay, and got $10 for it!
While on the subject of convenience-oriented flashbulbs, there was also the
FlipFlash. This was a unit with 8 (AG-1?) bulbs, 2-wide and 4-high. It had a
connector on each end that fit into the flipflash socket on the camera. The
top bulbs fired first, and as each bulb was used, the conductive path on the
internal circuit board was burned away so that the next bulb would fire.
After using the four top bulbs, you removed the unit, flipped it over, and
fired the other four bulbs. In a moment of rare engineering genius, the
designers set it up so that the bulbs fartherest away from the camera were
active, decreasing the red-eye effect. The FlipFlash was common on the later
Kodak Pocket Instamatics, also the Kodak Instant print cameras. Kodak also
came out with an electronic flash that would attach to these cameras and
sync through the flash socket.
Ken Hart
> frank wrote:
>> On Apr 10, 5:19 am, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> frank wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> fast. Anybody ever used flashbulbs? Thought not...
>>> Well, not since I was a kid. Remember the 4 shot bulbs that rotated
>>> after each shot?
>>
>> Yeah, Kodak Magic Cubes. One of the many camera types, mainly for
>> Instamatic, had the film that was in a cartridge.
>
> Yep, that's them.
>
>> Didn't know you could have them go off by dropping them.
>
> That's news to me too. I used to zap them with a 9V battery to set them
> off for fun.
>
Magicubes had no electical connection. If you were zapping cube flashes with
a battery, you were zapping flashcubes. Althougth you could zap Magicubes by
pushing a small screwdriver into the base and tripping the trigger wire.
If you really what to have fun with flashbulbs, get some of the big bulbs
with the standard Edison/household screw-in base (either #5 or #25, I can
never remember which), screw it into a ceiling lamp (make sure it's turned
off!), then wait for someone to turn on the light. Keep in mind that the
bulb could shatter, start a fire, cause a heart attack, break up a marriage,
or other fun stuff!
As for Kodak's film in cartridge, first there was the 126 "Instamatic" size.
Twelve exposures to a roll, the film about the width of 35mm. There was a
sprocket hole for each square frame that caught a pawl inside the camera for
double exposure prevention. Neg size was about 25mmX25mm. After 126 size,
there was 110 "Pocket Instamatic" size. The cartridge was similar in shape,
except much narrower as the film was about 16mm wide. Again there was a
sprocket hole for each rectangular frame. Finally in the Kodak cartridge
saga was the APS size, but the less said about that the better!
Bob Larter
FWIW, I was only a kid when they were around. ;^)
Bob Larter
> "Bob Larter" <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:49e0908a$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>> frank wrote:
>>> On Apr 10, 5:19 am, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> frank wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>> fast. Anybody ever used flashbulbs? Thought not...
>>>> Well, not since I was a kid. Remember the 4 shot bulbs that rotated
>>>> after each shot?
>>> Yeah, Kodak Magic Cubes. One of the many camera types, mainly for
>>> Instamatic, had the film that was in a cartridge.
>> Yep, that's them.
>>
>>> Didn't know you could have them go off by dropping them.
>> That's news to me too. I used to zap them with a 9V battery to set them
>> off for fun.
>>
>
> Magicubes had no electical connection. If you were zapping cube flashes with
> a battery, you were zapping flashcubes.
Probably so. It was long enough ago that I don't remember the details.
Focus
"Bruce" <n...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:u8l3u49s3fhud874e...@4ax.com...
KMA, dumbshit...
--
---
Focus
Paul Furman
> Bruce said:
I like that idea of roaming around snapping as you explore. I usually do
about 200 photos for a few hours of visiting some place and winnow that
down to about 50 photos. That's hard work, culling.
> Obviously, Adams could not take 10,000 images of this execution. He had
> time for one. The entire execution, from the time that they start
> dragging the Viet Cong into the street to the time that he is lying in
> it, is less then 5 seconds. That was it. I do not know what else he shot
> that day, but for that day, and perhaps for the entire war, it was "the"
> picture.
>
>>
>> I am not suggesting (in either case) that the published shots happened
>> by chance. Far from it: I have no doubt that great care was taken with
>> the majority of shots taken, and that a very large percentage of them
>> would be considered suitable for publication.
>>
>> However, I also have no doubt that the taking of such large numbers of
>> images in both cases actively contributes to the extremely high standard
>> of published work - work to which we are privileged to have access at
>> the small cost of buying a book, or the magazine.
>
> Indeed. I don't think people fully appreciate this. We have come a long
> way from attempting to communicate with stained glass windows and
> illuminated manuscripts painstakingly constructed over a period of
> decades. I am not sure that it is always for the better, but on the
> whole I believe it is.
>
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam