From: HEMI-Powered on
Alan Browne offered these thoughts for the group's consideration
of the matter at hand:

>> I agree it doesn't make sense, but why argue with reality?
>> Just go with the flow, pick the setting that does the job for
>> you, and just ignore Canon's nomenclature. But, again, Alan,
>> it is when I think I'm getting smarter than the camera and
>> switch off P to T or A that I tend to get worse results. My
>> Rebel XT does a damn fine job of setting a good compromise
>> shutter and aperture with P, so why risk failure. The ONLY
>> time I switch to Av is when I KNOW I'll have a DOF problem.
>> e.g., suppose I am shooting a car in the foreground and
>> there's a building or foliage in the background I also want
>> in focus. I MAY switch to Av and go to f/11 or f/16 and even
>> up the ISO from 100 to 200. But, those situations are rare
>> for me.
>
> In using Av / Tv you really need to understand the meter of
> the camera.
> What area it's covering and what is the relative reflectance
> of the
> part being metered. From there using exposure compensation
> comes in.

Yes, e.g., the 3 available modes of metering light. In my case, I
almost always use Evaluative.

> OTOH, P is likewise affected, but it probably weights strongly
> to the overall scene as a starting point so whatever errors
> get biased out fairly well in "average" scenes. In Av/Tv
> start with scene evaluative metering (whatever mode in the
> camera meters all over the scene) and then work towards more
> spot metered areas using exposure compensation. Look up all
> the meter offset values (ashphalt is 0, grass is -1, skin
> (palm of hand) is +1, yellow is +1, red is 0, etc. .. use a
> gray card as a target and then build your own table of what
> EC's to use.... Use the histogram..
>
I would probably agree, Alan, if I had the faintest clue what
you're talking about! <grin> Well, I have some clue ... But, as
you've been following along in my comments in this and other
threads, getting an absolutely, precisely accurate exposure isn't
really an issue for my car pictures - usually. The bigger problem
is uneven exposure and dynamic range problems that are really
difficult to easily fix. e.g. suppose it is daylight, I am in P
mode on Evaluative, I do an AF lock and allow the camera to
simultaneously do the AE lock. Rare for me to need to pick a
different sample point for AE, which is so common is flash
situations. At car shows, the hoods are almost always up because
the judges need to see that and because the owners like to show
off their hard work. When the car is reasonably well exposed and
there are no serious backlight problems, the engine will be
almost black. And, the interior will also be quite dark, but not
as dark as the engine. To fix that. I tweak the entire scene in
PSP 9 using the usual techniques, then do individual selections
on area(s) that are either too bright or too dark and adjust them
until I have a good compromise.

The main reason I have never taken the time to develop custom WB
and exposure settings, as you describe, and/or using an image
already in memory as the base point, is that from car to car to
car, the problems vary too much to try to diddle around with
multiple custom settings. And, even with the LCD set all the way
to bright, in daylight, it is virtually impossible for me to read
the menus unless I crouch down in a shadow on the car, not to
mention that there seldom is enough time to be all that careful.

If that makes me a fool in the eyes of some folks, so be it. I
think I've clarified my position enough that it isn't what other
folks think is "right" or "wrong", what the camera books say, or
what teachers in a photography class say - although I do place
weight on those things - it only matters what the photographer
thinks is important and right, for them.

--
HP, aka Jerry
From: John McWilliams on
HEMI-Powered wrote:

<< Snipped bits out >>
>
> Have a great holiday!

Thanks; I will. Finals of NCAA D-1 lacrosse start in an hour or so.

Jerry-

Alan has given a splendid discourse on it, while I've previously
suggested you use manual, in a very few words. It's not so difficult as
you seem to make out.

In any event, it looks like you have had your mind made up some years
ago on this, and naught's going to change it.

Happy shooting!

--
john mcwilliams
From: HEMI-Powered on
John McWilliams offered these thoughts for the group's
consideration of the matter at hand:

> HEMI-Powered wrote:
>
> << Snipped bits out >>
>>
>> Have a great holiday!
>
> Thanks; I will. Finals of NCAA D-1 lacrosse start in an hour
> or so.
>
> Jerry-
>
> Alan has given a splendid discourse on it, while I've
> previously suggested you use manual, in a very few words. It's
> not so difficult as you seem to make out.
>
> In any event, it looks like you have had your mind made up
> some years ago on this, and naught's going to change it.
>
It isn't that my mind is made up, although it is, it is more that
I just don't see the benefits of doing it "right" vs. the effort.
That is not in any way an insult to Alan or anybody, just how I
feel. I use examples of my personal experiences to illustrate my
realist and pragmatist approach to everything in my life,
including photography, cars, PCs, etc. People on this and
rec.photo.digital apparently confuse my comments as complaints,
they are not, or requests for help in solving my problems, which
they also are not. I pretty much gave up asking for specific help
because my philosophy of doing things is incompatible with
people's recommendations, which inevitably leads to bad blood. I
don't want to see that, so I'm just "taking an even strain."

As to RTFM, I have, but it is like most manuals, poorly written
and indended to be a reference manual, not a tutorial. If you
believe manuals are easy to glean information from, I am happy
for you. I find it extremely difficult and thus extremely
frustrating.

In conclusion, again, I do NOT want to insult anyone or diss them
by appeearing to ignore their advice. Responders to all OPs in
this NG tend to be more experienced and much more interested in
superior results than I am. That's fine by me. I wish that people
would cut me a little slack and allow me to feel the way I do, if
I am happy and satisfied with my results. Now, if I could improve
my percentage of first-time good images, I surely would - but it
has to be with a good eye on the cost-benefit curves. There are
just so many other things in life more important to me than
photography of any subject that I have to prioritize my time, and
that leaves out learning the more esoteric aspects of digital.
However, I DO keep a folder of what people say, whether to me or
in general, that I can always print if I want to try my hand at
improving.

Let me comment on one aspect of this and rec.photo.digital. OPs
that are newbies of one sort of another more often than not put a
couple of paragraphs in that do not have nearly enough detail for
anyone to respond intelligently. When the thread goes toward the
highly technical, high quality end, I suspect that the OP doesn't
want to look stupid, so they simply don't come back in. It has
been said that beauty is in the eye of the behold, and I would
submit that so is image quality and print quality.

Thanks for your comments.

--
HP, aka Jerry
From: Alan Browne on
HEMI-Powered wrote:

<A lot of good points that I've snipped>

> I appreciate you many good pieces of advice,Alan. I'm sorry that
> I won't be able to follow you direction however, for the reasons
> I have stated. There is a continuum between two extremes where
> one is lesser quanitity but much higher quality, and the other is
> quantity enough to try to at least get SOME image on a really
> large number of cars, but sacrificing quality to the point where
> it may get pretty dismal at times. Forget me, and just think of
> the general cases I describe. Each photographer has to decide
> where in the continuum they want to be, or can be, and adjust
> their technique(s) accordingly. There are times when I think I
> might be better off giving up my DSLR and going back to a
> "snapshot camera", i.e., a small P & S. It annoys me that I
> cannot take advantage of better methodologies, but that's the way
> the cookie crumbles.

I think that you're trying to get too much quantity into your quality.

I took a couple hours to photograph a friends Benz a few years ago.
Very nice results, but nowhere near pro-photog quality...

If it's a "collection of photos of every damned car ever presented at a
rally" then that's what you will get. But few high Q shots...


>
> Have a great holiday!

You too. ( Cerberus give holidays? )

--
-- 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.
From: HEMI-Powered on
Alan Browne offered these thoughts for the group's consideration
of the matter at hand:

> HEMI-Powered wrote:
>
> <A lot of good points that I've snipped>
>
>> I appreciate you many good pieces of advice,Alan. I'm sorry
>> that I won't be able to follow you direction however, for the
>> reasons I have stated. There is a continuum between two
>> extremes where one is lesser quanitity but much higher
>> quality, and the other is quantity enough to try to at least
>> get SOME image on a really large number of cars, but
>> sacrificing quality to the point where it may get pretty
>> dismal at times. Forget me, and just think of the general
>> cases I describe. Each photographer has to decide where in
>> the continuum they want to be, or can be, and adjust their
>> technique(s) accordingly. There are times when I think I
>> might be better off giving up my DSLR and going back to a
>> "snapshot camera", i.e., a small P & S. It annoys me that I
>> cannot take advantage of better methodologies, but that's the
>> way the cookie crumbles.
>
> I think that you're trying to get too much quantity into your
> quality.

Alan, again, I thank you for your thoughts. If I demeaned or
isulted you at any time, I apologize; it certainly wasn't
intentional. All I can say is that we each do what we think best.

My daughter and her fiance were over yesterday. They just got
back from Mackinac Island. She has an older Kodak 4 mp P & S, he
has a new Canon something or other that cost him about $400 at
Costco. She just prints at 4 x 6 and doesn't give a rip about
quality. He intends to shoot at the full 7 mp because doncha
know, that's how you get better pictures. Neither are completely
right nor completely wrong. But, their views ARE completely
different, certainly very different than mine and even more
different than yours. He likes all the neat features like IS
multiple images sizes and qualities and all sorts of manual modes
but has zero knowledge of photography at all. It'll be
interesting to see what happens when he starts experimenting!

> I took a couple hours to photograph a friends Benz a few years
> ago. Very nice results, but nowhere near pro-photog quality...
>
> If it's a "collection of photos of every damned car ever
> presented at a rally" then that's what you will get. But few
> high Q shots...
>
Life is one big compromise and is also frequently a zero sum
game, so you are correct.

>> Have a great holiday!
>
> You too. ( Cerberus give holidays? )
>
Don't know about Cerberes! I'm retired so on one big "holiday".
The Cerberes deal hasn't gone through yet, it will proably be
fall before all the approvals are secured. Nobody knows,
obviously, what they plan. Being that I wasn't in a union, I
wouldn't be surprised if they chipped away at my pension and
healthcare.

--
HP, aka Jerry
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Samsung GX-10 - wow!
Next: Flash stuck in hot shoe