Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: Justinr on August 25, 2015, 11:58:06 am
-
There I was standing in the middle of field covering a major classic tractor event for a couple of magazines. It was an overcast day that threatened rain although it was the middle of summer and yet, despite the multitude of settings I tried to obtain a reasonable exposure, nothing seemed to be working. I turned to a fellow writer who I know is also very fussy about his cameras and images, he too was struggling while a third colleague also confessed that only a fraction of his pictures were useable due to poor exposure. Thinking about it afterwards I decided to try manual and rely on the good old histogram and since that happy moment around 90% of my pictures are now 'keepers' (how I hate that word!). Using flash is going to be a problem as I can't see anyway of selecting an intensity setting on my flash head and adjusting aperture or ISO to achieve the desired result, but for all other purposes taking a few test shots to get the right exposure seems to work just fine. Just for the record I was using a Nikon and the others Canon and to further rub salt into the wound many people were getting better exposures on their smart phones!
I've attached a few taken using manual exposure.
-
An EVF with a live histogram and/or zebras/blinkies is a lovely thing. Nowadays when I over- or underexpose it's entirely due to my own inattentiveness.
-Dave-
-
Justin, this post would make more sense if you included "wrong" auto-exposure examples. Than we could tell you what you, not the camera, did wrong ;) Lovely pics, btw.
-
Justin, this post would make more sense if you included "wrong" auto-exposure examples. Than we could tell you what you, not the camera, did wrong ;) Lovely pics, btw.
Ah, but then I would need to include details of what the other experienced photographers were supposedly doing wrong!
Over the years I have been shooting digital there has always problems with exposure but it could never be allowed that digital cameras were in anyway flawed but all the fault lies with user. I never really bought into that and having been using digital for over ten years with all the various combinations of metering modes, ISO's and settings with many thousands of images taken I still suffer problems of incorrect exposure, and I am not alone it seems.
-
... experienced photographers...
Vegetarian = an old Indian word for "bad hunter"
Experienced photographer = an old Indian word for those who never really bothered to learn the basics, yet survived years without it
;D
-
Assuming multicolored tractors with uniform overcast lighting, it seems similar to the case of shooting sports, particularly indoors.
In shooting basketball, with light and dark toned jerseys, you will drive yourself crazy trying to use autoexposure. The light is not changing, but the camera sees different tones based on what you are focusing on and tries to compensate.
Your best choice with constant lighting is to take test shots to establish exposure, set on manual, and the click away.
-
Assuming multicolored tractors with uniform overcast lighting, it seems similar to the case of shooting sports, particularly indoors.
In shooting basketball, with light and dark toned jerseys, you will drive yourself crazy trying to use autoexposure. The light is not changing, but the camera sees different tones based on what you are focusing on and tries to compensate.
Your best choice with constant lighting is to take test shots to establish exposure, set on manual, and the click away.
Quite so, and to be honest I find the problem extends beyond the sort of circumstances you describe. Having found a reasonable exposure setting I then vary it with the changing light. On the day described a stop or two either way would be required from a base setting as cloud cover shifted and position in relation to the sun changed.
-
Vegetarian = an old Indian word for "bad hunter"
Experienced photographer = an old Indian word for those who never really bothered to learn the basics, yet survived years without it
;D
One basic flaw of digital cameras is that each sensor is different. One company I worked for had to calibrate each and every body they bought to ensure consistency across their product even though the cameras were the same model and may have come off the production line one after the other.
-
One basic flaw of digital cameras is that each sensor is different. One company I worked for had to calibrate each and every body they bought to ensure consistency across their product even though the cameras were the same model and may have come off the production line one after the other.
I'm not sure how that would effect the situation you described.
-
I'm not sure how that would effect the situation you described.
Nor am I. However, two thoughts.
1. It indicates that digital cameras are not the wonderfully precise instruments that we are led to believe they are.
2. If the camera firmware is set to respond to a certain exposure reading in a certain way then unless that response is calibrated to each individual sensor problems are going to occur.
I'm not knocking digital, only our our unquestioning belief that it is faultless and any deviation from perfection is automatically the fault of the user.
-
Nor am I. However, two thoughts.
1. It indicates that digital cameras are not the wonderfully precise instruments that we are led to believe they are.
2. If the camera firmware is set to respond to a certain exposure reading in a certain way then unless that response is calibrated to each individual sensor problems are going to occur.
I'm not knocking digital, only our our unquestioning belief that it is faultless and any deviation from perfection is automatically the fault of the user.
Who the heck is saying digital is flawless? What point are you trying to make?
-
I decided to try manual and rely on the good old histogram and since that happy moment around 90% of my pictures are now 'keepers'
Welcome to being a photographer.
Auto exposure will hardly ever be right because it relies on light reflected back from the subject (which depends on the subject itself) which has very little to do with incident light hitting the subject (which determines the correct exposure).
If you photograph a bride and groom separately standing next to each other in exactly the same light on auto (Av, Tv or anything except M) then the two exposures will be vastly different which is wrong. Set the exposure correctly on manual and never worry about "exposure compensation" which is to compensate for the getting it wrong. in the film days (or if you want to understand it better) you would use an incident light meter and measure the light at the subject.
-
Nor am I. However, two thoughts.
1. It indicates that digital cameras are not the wonderfully precise instruments that we are led to believe they are.
2. If the camera firmware is set to respond to a certain exposure reading in a certain way then unless that response is calibrated to each individual sensor problems are going to occur.
I'm not knocking digital, only our our unquestioning belief that it is faultless and any deviation from perfection is automatically the fault of the user.
Sorry Justin this is absolutely and completely wrong.
Tony Jay
-
Sorry Justin this is absolutely and completely wrong.
Tony Jay
Would you kindly explain why?
-
I have been shooting away happily with auto exposure ever since I got my first DSLR Canon EOS-1d in 2002 (or so). If I know from previous experience that exposure compensation is needed I dial that in before I start shooting, or if the histogram says the same I make a correction. There are several metering patterns in my Nikons, but usually I just use the multi pattern, sometimes resort to center weighted or even spot, which is a bit dangerous if I forget to reset the camera back to default after the shot. I suspect OP had his camera on spot metering?
Generally the multi pattern metering combined by the huge exposure latitude of new Nikons can take care of practically every situation. There is always the old school possibility of locking the exposure and reframing also, if and when I know metering will be off.
In a desparate situation there is also the possibility of auto bracketing, which happens so fast that the tractor is not going to get away during the half second 3 frame burst…
Summa summarum: manual exposure is practically useless for me in 98% of shooting situations I encounter in daily press photography.
-
Who the heck is saying digital is flawless? What point are you trying to make?
Most of those who's default reaction is to blame the user the moment they encounter any criticism of digital cameras. Look at the folk who stand aghast at the very thought of digital cameras being considered anything less than heaven sent miracles, even on this thread already.
The point I made in the OP is that auto exposure is a still pretty much a hit and miss affair as far as I am concerned and as one who does a reasonable amount of editorial work I think it fair to suggest that I am not a Sunday hobbyist who picked up a shiny new dSLR from a box shifter last week.
-
Welcome to being a photographer.
Auto exposure will hardly ever be right because it relies on light reflected back from the subject (which depends on the subject itself) which has very little to do with incident light hitting the subject (which determines the correct exposure).
If you photograph a bride and groom separately standing next to each other in exactly the same light on auto (Av, Tv or anything except M) then the two exposures will be vastly different which is wrong. Set the exposure correctly on manual and never worry about "exposure compensation" which is to compensate for the getting it wrong. in the film days (or if you want to understand it better) you would use an incident light meter and measure the light at the subject.
Been doing photography on a pro basis for around 12/13 years now, never full time admittedly, but I started off doing weddings on a Bronica with said light meter for Wedding Services in the UK, a company owned by Kodak at the time.
-
I have been shooting away happily with auto exposure ever since I got my first DSLR Canon EOS-1d in 2002 (or so). If I know from previous experience that exposure compensation is needed I dial that in before I start shooting, or if the histogram says the same I make a correction. There are several metering patterns in my Nikons, but usually I just use the multi pattern, sometimes resort to center weighted or even spot, which is a bit dangerous if I forget to reset the camera back to default after the shot. I suspect OP had his camera on spot metering?
Generally the multi pattern metering combined by the huge exposure latitude of new Nikons can take care of practically every situation. There is always the old school possibility of locking the exposure and reframing also, if and when I know metering will be off.
In a desparate situation there is also the possibility of auto bracketing, which happens so fast that the tractor is not going to get away during the half second 3 frame burst…
Summa summarum: manual exposure is practically useless for me in 98% of shooting situations I encounter in daily press photography.
I'm not saying AE is always wrong, it's not, but only that I find more a more consistent exposure by doing it myself.
As for tractors then yes, they are moving darn quickly when you are trying to frame a particular shot. I'm not in the business of taking any old snaps of tractors but aim to achieve a particular or dramatic look which is why it is not unknown for my work to appear on magazine covers.
-
When "many people were getting better exposures on their smart phones" the answer to "Why is auto exposure so useless?" is simply that photographers mess it up.
When "many people were getting better exposures on their smart phones" the photographers would do better to set their cameras to auto everything like their smart phones ;-)
The correct exposure is the one that gives you the picture you want with least effort. The camera doesn't know what picture you want. The camera doesn't know how much effort you're willing to make.
So that's why cameras have AE modes :-)
Dumb luck and a very limited budget led me to buy a camera designed for full-time live view and I started using raw so WB could be adjusted. As-long-as the significant highlights are not-clipped the raw file provides tremendous latitude to adjust exposure in post-processing.
Full-time live view plus raw means that most-of-the-time all I need to do for my "correct" exposure is check the live view histogram -- so I use Manual.
I reject 90% but not because of "incorrect exposure", that just doesn't seem to be a problem anymore.
All well and good 99% of what I take clutters up the hard drive unused (I really ought to be more disciplined in clearing out the trash), but at the end of the day AE still requires a health warning that it is far from perfect.
One of the reasons I upgraded to a D3 was a belief that AE would be a great deal better than the Pentax's I left behind, this has proven not to be the case and although it has many virtues it's by no means perfect.
Good and consistent AE is quite possible as proven by my my Mamiya with a creaky old ZD back. It does tend to get it right but it's hardly a camera to go humping around fields so I reserve it for cover or static shots where there is the time for it to crank up and perform it's little wonders. See below.
-
I'm not saying AE is always wrong, it's not, but only that I find more a more consistent exposure by doing it myself.
So what really is the problem? No camera is perfect and no photographer is perfect and you have learned a valuable lesson. I try to get the "best" exposure but as long as I don't over expose by 2 stops or underexpose by 2 stops then I know the exposure can be balanced out by processing. The problem is that some photographers are unwilling/unable to process their images and want a "perfect" exposure from their cameras. This won't happen for a long time to come. Hopefully you will be able to accept this and move on?
-
So what really is the problem? No camera is perfect and no photographer is perfect and you have learned a valuable lesson. I try to get the "best" exposure but as long as I don't over expose by 2 stops or underexpose by 2 stops then I know the exposure can be balanced out by processing. The problem is that some photographers are unwilling/unable to process their images and want a "perfect" exposure from their cameras. This won't happen for a long time to come. Hopefully you will be able to accept this and move on?
It's not me that needs to move on but all those who would pretend that cameras are in fact perfect. It is an argument as old as digital photography itself and I have long been a critic of this unquestioning loyalty to the camera manufactures and have suffered on here as well as other forums for pointing to the emperor's semi nakedness before.
Anyway, it's good to see admissions that in fact camera craft is not actually redundant despite the protestations of camera vendors to the contrary over the previous decade.
-
When using modern "iso-less sensors" which have low noise, a large dynamic range and shooting shooting raw exposure hardly matters any more.
Some purist might cringe but in practice for me auto exposure always gets close enough and a few Lightroom adjustments do the rest.
There was even a reviewer who praised the new A7Rii as the camera to use when you're too drunk to expose properly ;)
-
When using modern "iso-less sensors" which have low noise, a large dynamic range and shooting shooting raw exposure hardly matters any more.
Some purist might cringe but in practice for me auto exposure always gets close enough and a few Lightroom adjustments do the rest.
There was even a reviewer who praised the new A7Rii as the camera to use when you're too drunk to expose properly ;)
If only customers would pay enough to cover the cost of all that extra time required at the computer to render images acceptable. I do a certain amount but it is a blessing when the post production workload is minimised. I usually need to send a selection of 15 - 20 images in with an article of which 5 or 6 will be used, but I still needed to polish those 10-15 that weren't.
Altering the light levels of images whether in RAW or JPEG can rapidly lead to colour variations and artificial tones that can look quite horrible when printed, so once again there is no substitute for a good original file just as there was none for a well exposed negative in the days of film.
-
It's not me that needs to move on but all those who would pretend that cameras are in fact perfect. ...
Anyway, it's good to see admissions that in fact camera craft is not actually redundant despite the protestations of camera vendors to the contrary over the previous decade.
Can you point me to anyone (user or vendor) who says the camera is perfect? Or anyone who says that camera craft is redundant? If they thought so then why would they put a manual option on the mode dial?
What I do read from reviews is to the effect of 'the AE program produces images that I can use'. Now you clearly have very exacting standards but that is your choice - I don't see how you can extrapolate that to mean that other people who find AE acceptable think it is perfect.
-
Would you kindly explain why?
The point is that digital cameras in general and light meters in particular perform exactly as advertised.
Whether one is spot metering or using a metering mode that looks at most of frame all the meter is doing is comparing what it is metering to middle grey (18% grey). If one allows the camera to calculate exposure automatically based on this it is unlikely to consistently get the exposure correct. This is because the light meter and the camera overall has no idea whether the metered area should be middle grey or not, merely whether it is, or not. I.E. the light meter is just a one-trick-pony.
Thus, to get the best results out of a camera, and by extension the light meter, requires human judgement.
If the area metered is really required to be middle grey - all well and good.
If the area metered needs to darker, or lighter, then human judgement is required to notice this and expose accordingly. The camera will not, and cannot, do this by itself.
Sometimes an incident light meter might give one better information about how to expose than TTL metering that relies on light reflected from one's photographic subject. But again, how to expose is as much a creative decision as it is a technical one, so one may choose to under or overexpose compared to the meter's recommendations according to what is desired
Again, if one is shooting raw images according to ETTR principles then all one is trying to do is not to blow the highlights while allowing as much exposure as possible. No camera that I am aware of will do this automatically. Most of the time the camera will tell you that you are overexposing, sometimes by many stops of light. Some newer models can help one out here by dynamically showing areas that are blown at the current exposure settings prior to taking the images via live view. One resets exposure settings as appropriate to just reduce the blown areas to a non-clipping level of exposure. This functionality, termed zebra stripes, has been borrowed from video camera technology and is very useful for those who like to shoot ETTR.
While camera manufacturers do talk up the ability of their cameras to shoot in auto everything mode in reality there are so many exceptions and quid pro quo's that the likelihood of the shooting conditions actually confronting one conforming to their best-case scenario is vanishing small. For many individuals the result may be "good enough". For someone who does know how to expose and is shooting raw then the camera's automatic way of doing things is usually significantly suboptimal.
I sometimes use spot metering to quickly meter the brightest and darkest parts of the potential scene that need detail in them, especially if I am concerned that the dynamic range of the scene might be bigger than the dynamic range of the sensor. This is much less of an issue than it used to be and generally now all that concerns me is how bright the brightest parts of the scene are and to subsequently expose such as not to blow the highlights.
From a couple of your posts it appears that you are aware of the shortcomings of the camera but seem to believe that a camera automatically determining exposure should generally deliver the correct exposure. Nobody that I am aware of who understands how metering systems work and how they instruct the camera believes this however.
Light meters and cameras work according to specific principles but cannot, by themselves, consistently deliver the perfect exposure, howsoever defined.
Tony Jay
-
Can you point me to anyone (user or vendor) who says the camera is perfect? Or anyone who says that camera craft is redundant? If they thought so then why would they put a manual option on the mode dial?
What I do read from reviews is to the effect of 'the AE program produces images that I can use'. Now you clearly have very exacting standards but that is your choice - I don't see how you can extrapolate that to mean that other people who find AE acceptable think it is perfect.
You obviously haven't been around during the great digital revolution, or weren't paying attention as the manufacturers insisted that all was wonderfully rosy in the garden.
Now I know it's bad form to answer one question with another but can you point to a review where a camera's consistency in exposure under varying conditions is actually tested?
Here's a DPreview of the Nikon D3
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NIKOND3/22
Could you point out where the AE is assessed or even mentioned? I must admit I missed the relevant paragraphs when skimming through it.
As I have already noted, it's interesting to see the emerging narrative that users are expecting far too much from their poor little cameras despite the marketing hype and great cost.
-
You obviously haven't been around during the great digital revolution, or weren't paying attention as the manufacturers insisted that all was wonderfully rosy in the garden.
Now I know it's bad form to answer one question with another but can you point to a review where a camera's consistency in exposure under varying conditions is actually tested?
Here's a DPreview of the Nikon D3
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NIKOND3/22
Could you point out where the AE is assessed or even mentioned? I must admit I missed the relevant paragraphs when skimming through it.
I've been using cameras for 35 years through film and digital so the idea that because I disagree with you I "obviously haven't been around during the great digital revolution," is nonsensical and patronising.
That article does not test AE program but equally nowhere does it say the AE is perfect as in your original claim.
I could even argue the other side and say that you have failed to spend time to understand how your camera meters a scene because if you got used to the way it meters and applied exposure compensation you would get the same result as using fully manual.
As I have already mentioned it's interesting to note the emerging narrative that users are expecting far too much from their poor little cameras despite the marketing hype and great cost.
I am sure why this 'emerging narrative' is a surprise. If people 'expect' a 'good enough' picture then where are they 'expecting too much'?
-
The point is that digital cameras in general and light meters in particular perform exactly as advertised.
Whether one is spot metering or using a metering mode that looks at most of frame all the meter is doing is comparing what it is metering to middle grey (18% grey). If one allows the camera to calculate exposure automatically based on this it is unlikely to consistently get the exposure correct. This is because the light meter and the camera overall has no idea whether the metered area should be middle grey or not, merely whether it is, or not. I.E. the light meter is just a one-trick-pony.
Thus, to get the best results out of a camera, and by extension the light meter, requires human judgement.
If the area metered is really required to be middle grey - all well and good.
If the area metered needs to darker, or lighter, then human judgement is required to notice this and expose accordingly. The camera will not, and cannot, do this by itself.
Sometimes an incident light meter might give one better information about how to expose than TTL metering that relies on light reflected from one's photographic subject. But again, how to expose is as much a creative decision as it is a technical one, so one may choose to under or overexpose compared to the meter's recommendations according to what is desired
Again, if one is shooting raw images according to ETTR principles then all one is trying to do is not to blow the highlights while allowing as much exposure as possible. No camera that I am aware of will do this automatically. Most of the time the camera will tell you that you are overexposing, sometimes by many stops of light. Some newer models can help one out here by dynamically showing areas that are blown at the current exposure settings prior to taking the images via live view. One resets exposure settings as appropriate to just reduce the blown areas to a non-clipping level of exposure. This functionality, termed zebra stripes, has been borrowed from video camera technology and is very useful for those who like to shoot ETTR.
While camera manufacturers do talk up the ability of their cameras to shoot in auto everything mode in reality there are so many exceptions and quid pro quo's that the likelihood of the shooting conditions actually confronting one conforming to their best-case scenario is vanishing small. For many individuals the result may be "good enough". For someone who does know how to expose and is shooting raw then the camera's automatic way of doing things is usually significantly suboptimal.
I sometimes use spot metering to quickly meter the brightest and darkest parts of the potential scene that need detail in them, especially if I am concerned that the dynamic range of the scene might be bigger than the dynamic range of the sensor. This is much less of an issue than it used to be and generally now all that concerns me is how bright the brightest parts of the scene are and to subsequently expose such as not to blow the highlights.
From a couple of your posts it appears that you are aware of the shortcomings of the camera but seem to believe that a camera automatically determining exposure should generally deliver the correct exposure. Nobody that I am aware of who understands how metering systems work and how they instruct the camera believes this however.
Light meters and cameras work according to specific principles but cannot, by themselves, consistently deliver the perfect exposure, howsoever defined.
Tony Jay
Yes but no but.
a camera automatically determining exposure should generally deliver the correct exposure
But shouldn't it if it is sold as an feature of the camera? Where is there any disclaimer published by any vendor?
Of course there are so many variables involved in exposure and in my general field of machinery photography the decision has to be what particular aspects of a machine or its context needs to be featured the most strongly. But constant and incorrect exposure as experienced by three press photographers using three different cameras in the field should not be acceptable when there is an implied promise that AE will produce images that require little further adjustment back at base. We are not talking about minor faults but a correction of two or three stops being required. Neither are we talking about the ability to correct RAW files by spending hours fiddling around with them, that is simply not economically viable for much magazine work, what we, as professional users in the field, require are cameras that are consistent in their metering and will require only tweaking in the computer rather than wholesale adjustment. If that is not possible then let us be honest about it, especially the vendors who tend to avoid the subject altogether.
My point about the variation in sensor response being a possible reason for the difficulties experienced is as yet unaddressed.
-
As I have already mentioned it's interesting to note the emerging narrative that users are expecting far too much from their poor little cameras despite the marketing hype and great cost.
I've been using cameras for 35 years through film and digital so the idea that because I disagree with you I "obviously haven't been around during the great digital revolution," is nonsensical and patronising.
That article does not test AE program but equally nowhere does it say the AE is perfect as in your original claim.
I could even argue the other side and say that you have failed to spend time to understand how your camera meters a scene because if you got used to the way it meters and applied exposure compensation you would get the same result as using fully manual.
I am sure why this 'emerging narrative' is a surprise. If people 'expect' a 'good enough' picture then where are they 'expecting too much'?
It would be lovely to have all that time to set up the perfect shot in the field, but life isn't always that convenient. At the event mentioned there were over 100 machines operating and we had around three hours to capture a good record of the day, and it wasn't just a question of getting a static snap of each as the machines were working and so presenting a constantly changing range of scenarios in which to capture them.
Again it is sad to note that you have fallen back to being disparaging about the user as is the usual response when the loveliness of modern cameras is at all questioned.
BTW, where did I claim that AE was perfect?
-
But constant and incorrect exposure....We are not talking about minor faults but a correction of two or three stops being required.
Can you show an example?
-
Can you show an example?
Err... No, because I have deleted them.
-
Again it is sad to note that you have fallen back to being disparaging about the user as is the usual response when the loveliness of modern cameras is at all questioned.
I had no intention to be disparaging at all - I am going off many articles and books advising get to know how your camera meters a specific scene and apply relevant compensation. It was just a question phrased admittedly too inquisitorially.
If you know a gun pulls to the left when fired you compensate. If a car understeers you compensate when gong round corners. If the camera manufacturer has set a camera up to (what you consider) overexposure you compensate depending on the conditions. The camera is a tool like a car or a gun.
The human visual system is a marvellous thing and it corrects so many problems which corrects for glare, hot spots and colour shifts - cameras cannot do this and I thought this had been known virtually since the
camera had been invented.
BTW, where did I claim that AE was perfect?
Using phrases like 'far form perfect' certainly give the impression that is what you are after. And if you aren't expecting perfection then I am even more unsure what your problem is.
-
I had no intention to be disparaging at all - I am going off many articles and books advising get to know how your camera meters a specific scene and apply relevant compensation. It was just a question phrased admittedly too inquisitorially.
If you know a gun pulls to the left when fired you compensate. If a car understeers you compensate when gong round corners. If the camera manufacturer has set a camera up to (what you consider) overexposure you compensate depending on the conditions. The camera is a tool like a car or a gun.
The human visual system is a marvellous thing and it corrects so many problems which corrects for glare, hot spots and colour shifts - cameras cannot do this and I thought this had been known virtually since the
camera had been invented.
Using phrases like 'far form perfect' certainly give the impression that is what you are after. And if you aren't expecting perfection then I am even more unsure what your problem is.
Going back to my OP you will see that I mention trying all sorts of combination none of which worked. I am not the total novice that people would wish to pretend I am when confronted by a situation that is not a agreeable to their beliefs or prejudices.
I am looking for something nearer to perfection than it would seem is available or generally advertised. As mentioned, the Mamiya is a lot better but not the camera for field work, so it is possible.
-
Yes but no but.
a camera automatically determining exposure should generally deliver the correct exposure
But shouldn't it if it is sold as an feature of the camera? Where is there any disclaimer published by any vendor?
Of course there are so many variables involved in exposure and in my general field of machinery photography the decision has to be what particular aspects of a machine or its context needs to be featured the most strongly. But constant and incorrect exposure as experienced by three press photographers using three different cameras in the field should not be acceptable when there is an implied promise that AE will produce images that require little further adjustment back at base. We are not talking about minor faults but a correction of two or three stops being required. Neither are we talking about the ability to correct RAW files by spending hours fiddling around with them, that is simply not economically viable for much magazine work, what we, as professional users in the field, require are cameras that are consistent in their metering and will require only tweaking in the computer rather than wholesale adjustment. If that is not possible then let us be honest about it, especially the vendors who tend to avoid the subject altogether.
My point about the variation in sensor response being a possible reason for the difficulties experienced is as yet unaddressed.
I am pretty sure that different sensors on different cameras behave slightly differently especially when the signal-to-noise ratios are low. SNR has a relationship to the native ISO of that sensor as well as the dynamic range of that sensor. However there cannot be major differences where three cameras shooting at the same ISO and the same aperture and shutter speed with the same lens (say three different Canon models) will expose a middle grey target radically differently.
The problem is that few of us, for any purpose, shoot grey cards and real world exposure is worlds apart from that.
Left to its own devices my camera will often change both exposure settings and white balance when I am shooting multi-shot panoramas where the light quality is not changing. Just point the camera 15 degrees to the left or right of the previous shot fools the light meter and the camera's interpretation of white balance. The camera is not at fault - it is behaving exactly as designed.
I just flick to M mode and set a specific white balance and exposure.
If one's shooting environment is even more chaotic such as press, street, sports, or wildlife photography, then it is hard to get exposure and white balance exactly correct in camera either by letting the camera do it or by manual settings. My experience is that manual settings do a better job overall but sometimes letting the camera set exposure is perfectly adequate.
My experience with every camera that I have owned (several Canon as well as a few Sony models) is that it takes time to learn how to optimally expose with it. The problem is never exposing middle grey tonality to middle grey in a captured image but rather how the sensor behaves at its upper and lower limits.
Tony Jay
-
This is turning into a rant against manufacturers and members of the forum. It is obvious that your mind is made up and despite what several well informed members have stated you are obviously not going to change your mind? It is naive to believe all that manufacturers state because they will paint a rosy picture - short of telling lies - because they want to maximise profits. What about a long cold bath with a long cold beer and think again?
-
This is turning into a rant against manufacturers and members of the forum. It is obvious that your mind is made up and despite what several well informed members have stated you are obviously not going to change your mind? It is naive to believe all that manufacturers state because they will paint a rosy picture - short of telling lies - because they want to maximise profits. What about a long cold bath with a long cold beer and think again?
Er... no, once again, although you would seem to wish it to appear so.
-
there is an implied promise that AE will produce images that require little further adjustment back at base.
I work as a press photographer, I show RAW with Nikon D4 and D800e (sometimes also with Fujifilm X-Pro1 and X-T1), and adjusting a RAW file in LR for proper exposure takes less than 15 seconds extra per frame, maybe just 5 seconds, as I go through all the frames to choose the ones worth developing and tweaking in LR anyway. I would say I need less than 30 seconds per frame to adjust exposure, WB, clarity and add some vignetting maybe, on the average, after I have chosen the frames to give to the picture editor. It is very seldom I need to adjust the general exposure more than 0.5 stop using AE, but I also quite often open shadows a bit also with the shadow slider. Modern RW files are so robust that they can take +2 stop brightening without anybody noticing, also same amount of darkening if the highlights are not blown. So why worry?
Hard to imagine an assignment where one does not have 5 minutes extra post processing time to adjust exposures for 20 frames (maybe 3-6 will be used, what a waste of time?). Never so busy even in a weekly news magazine.
-
I am pretty sure that different sensors on different cameras behave slightly differently especially when the signal-to-noise ratios are low. SNR has a relationship to the native ISO of that sensor as well as the dynamic range of that sensor. However there cannot be major differences where three cameras shooting at the same ISO and the same aperture and shutter speed with the same lens (say three different Canon models) will expose a middle grey target radically differently.
The problem is that few of us, for any purpose, shoot grey cards and real world exposure is worlds apart from that.
Left to its own devices my camera will often change both exposure settings and white balance when I am shooting multi-shot panoramas where the light quality is not changing. Just point the camera 15 degrees to the left or right of the previous shot fools the light meter and the camera's interpretation of white balance. The camera is not at fault - it is behaving exactly as designed.
I just flick to M mode and set a specific white balance and exposure.
If one's shooting environment is even more chaotic such as press, street, sports, or wildlife photography, then it is hard to get exposure and white balance exactly correct in camera either by letting the camera do it or by manual settings. My experience is that manual settings do a better job overall but sometimes letting the camera set exposure is perfectly adequate.
My experience with every camera that I have owned (several Canon as well as a few Sony models) is that it takes time to learn how to optimally expose with it. The problem is never exposing middle grey tonality to middle grey in a captured image but rather how the sensor behaves at its upper and lower limits.
Tony Jay
Admittedly it's going back a few years but the experience of the school photo company that I worked for was that senors on identical cameras could vary quite considerably and they had to label them all with a necessary exposure adjustment as well as assign specific lighting outfits to each camera. Sensor performance may now be more predictable (I would hope it is anyway) but can we sure that the problem has been eliminated?
As I have already mentioned, I'm not looking for perfection, just a more consistent result overall.
-
I work as a press photographer, I show RAW with Nikon D4 and D800e (sometimes also with Fujifilm X-Pro1 and X-T1), and adjusting a RAW file in LR for proper exposure takes less than 15 seconds extra per frame, maybe just 5 seconds, as I go through all the frames to choose the ones worth developing and tweaking in LR anyway. I would say I need less than 30 seconds per frame to adjust exposure, WB, clarity and add some vignetting maybe, on the average, after I have chosen the frames to give to the picture editor. It is very seldom I need to adjust the general exposure more than 0.5 stop using AE, but I also quite often open shadows a bit also with the shadow slider. Modern RW files are so robust that they can take +2 stop brightening without anybody noticing, also same amount of darkening if the highlights are not blown. So why worry?
Hard to imagine an assignment where one does not have 5 minutes extra post processing time to adjust exposures for 20 frames (maybe 3-6 will be used, what a waste of time?). Never so busy even in a weekly news magazine.
3-5 minutes is my average for adjusting an image but that will also include cropping and one or two other items I use to freshen it up. In the world of magazines where I operate there are many factors that can influence the final choice of images ranging from layout to 'political considerations' to which I am not privy. Overall though printers tend to reduce the quality of image considerably so I need to make it as good as possible to begin with.
-
As I have already mentioned, I'm not looking for perfection, just a more consistent result overall.
[/quote]
Stick to the one camera/sensor and you will learn to get consistent results?
-
As I have already mentioned, I'm not looking for perfection, just a more consistent result overall.
Stick to the one camera/sensor and you will learn to get consistent results?
Just so long as I use manual, then yes, probably so.
-
I'm not looking for perfection, just a more consistent result overall.
Are you talking about consistency between cameras or between different situations?
Overall though printers tend to reduce the quality of image considerably so I need to make it as good as possible to begin with.
This sounds to me like it is your own personal desire to get things absolutely spot on according to what you see rather than a perfectly publishable image for people who were not there at the time. Nothing wrong with that but it means you are putting way more requirements on the internal meter than it was ever designed to do.
I am still not sure what the difference is between your approach using manual, and a situation where you set AE and think "I know from experience I need to overexpose this mage by 2 stops" and turning the compensation dial. For me, that suits my way of thinking better than 'ah, that needs f8 1/200 but add 2 stops which mean f8 1/50'.
-
Are you talking about consistency between cameras or between different situations?
This sounds to me like it is your own personal desire to get things absolutely spot on according to what you see rather than a perfectly publishable image for people who were not there at the time. Nothing wrong with that but it means you are putting way more requirements on the internal meter than it was ever designed to do.
I am still not sure what the difference is between your approach using manual, and a situation where you set AE and think "I know from experience I need to overexpose this mage by 2 stops" and turning the compensation dial. For me, that suits my way of thinking better than 'ah, that needs f8 1/200 but add 2 stops which mean f8 1/50'.
Spot on. :)
-
I have to confess I have got lazy for less critical work, my D800E has so much DR and there is no real penalty for pushing exposure in post that I worry less.
The histogram is great as long as (with a DSLR) you have time for a trial and error approach to exposing each time.
-
Are you talking about consistency between cameras or between different situations?
This sounds to me like it is your own personal desire to get things absolutely spot on according to what you see rather than a perfectly publishable image for people who were not there at the time. Nothing wrong with that but it means you are putting way more requirements on the internal meter than it was ever designed to do.
I am still not sure what the difference is between your approach using manual, and a situation where you set AE and think "I know from experience I need to overexpose this mage by 2 stops" and turning the compensation dial. For me, that suits my way of thinking better than 'ah, that needs f8 1/200 but add 2 stops which mean f8 1/50'.
I fear you may be hearing the wrong things in that case and as for demanding more from the meter that it was ever designed to provide then I suggest that little nugget of wisdom be more widely dispersed and it is good to see it aired in the open here for I am sure there are many who have somehow come to believe that AE is just that, if only because that is the inference from the various marketing ploys used by the vendors/manufacturers. Honesty is wonderful stuff don't you think?
and a situation where you set AE
And therein lies the major problem, AE is not consistent so there is no point in setting any exposure compensation. Your way of thinking seems to miss this point.
-
I have to confess I have got lazy for less critical work, my D800E has so much DR and there is no real penalty for pushing exposure in post that I worry less.
The histogram is great as long as (with a DSLR) you have time for a trial and error approach to exposing each time.
Not necessarily each time, but certainly it will indicate when you are close to the required exposure under certain circumstances and you can then work from that point, using it to check whether you are recording the information you want. Shadow detail is often more important than a burnt out sky for instance.
-
And therein lies the major problem, AE is not consistent so there is no point in setting any exposure compensation. Your way of thinking seems to miss this point.
But AE is predictable enough that exposure compensation is a valuable tool. If exposure varies +-1 stop from the optimal one because AF is not perfect, and you know it will underexpose 1 or 2 stops on the average (light background, beach, snow), setting the compensation dial to +1 or +2 will bring the results back to normal. All there is to it.
-
I fear you may be hearing the wrong things in that case and as for demanding more from the meter that it was ever designed to provide then I suggest that little nugget of wisdom be more widely dispersed and it is good to see it aired in the open here for I am sure there are many who have somehow come to believe that AE is just that, if only because that is the inference from the various marketing ploys used by the vendors/manufacturers. Honesty is wonderful stuff don't you think?
I still do not recognise these 'marketing ploys' you talk about. Where do the manufacturers overplay the internal metering capability? Can you point me to a website or catalogue?
and a situation where you set AE
And therein lies the major problem, AE is not consistent so there is no point in setting any exposure compensation. Your way of thinking seems to miss this point.
Again, what do you mean by 'consistent'? If it gives the same reading under the same conditions it is consistent. If you change the conditions and it gives a different reading them maybe it is because the conditions have changed. Now, if your 'manual setting' is the same for both conditions and gives the same result, but the meter gives different readings then that is something to look at.
From your description in the OP it seems to me that you take a picture, look at the image and change settings manually. I use the meter as a start point and apply the compensation I think it needs, take a picture, look at the image and change settings with the compensation dial if I need to. Same difference but I have no expectations that the meter is perfect, just a starting point.
[/quote]
-
But AE is predictable enough that exposure compensation is a valuable tool. If exposure varies +-1 stop from the optimal one because AF is not perfect, and you know it will underexpose 1 or 2 stops on the average (light background, beach, snow), setting the compensation dial to +1 or +2 will bring the results back to normal. All there is to it.
That's just what I am saying, it is not predictable, if it was we wouldn't be having this conversation.
-
I still do not recognise these 'marketing ploys' you talk about. Where do the manufacturers overplay the internal metering capability? Can you point me to a website or catalogue?
Again, what do you mean by 'consistent'? If it gives the same reading under the same conditions it is consistent. If you change the conditions and it gives a different reading them maybe it is because the conditions have changed. Now, if your 'manual setting' is the same for both conditions and gives the same result, but the meter gives different readings then that is something to look at.
From your description in the OP it seems to me that you take a picture, look at the image and change settings manually. I use the meter as a start point and apply the compensation I think it needs, take a picture, look at the image and change settings with the compensation dial if I need to. Same difference but I have no expectations that the meter is perfect, just a starting point.
Exactly the problem.
It is not predictable.
-
That's just what I am saying, it is not predictable, if it was we wouldn't be having this conversation.
If it was not predictable and reasonably consistent, we would not be having this conversation, as I would not be making a decent living photographing most everything with AE and would not be sitting at my office at the publishing company typing this.
-
If it was not predictable and reasonably consistent, we would not be having this conversation, as I would not be making a decent living photographing most everything with AE and would not be sitting at my office at the publishing company typing this.
Good to hear, but there are others who may well work under different circumstances and for whom AE is not reliable enough.
-
If an "ISOless" camera AE attempted to ETTR, it would be "consistent" (and also "optimal" in some significant ways). It would probably not look "pretty" as interpreted in current raw developers.
That could perhaps be improved by the camera (meter) tagging the ETTR-exposed raw file with a scalar suggesting to the raw developer how bright the file should be rendered. The user should (of course) be free to alter that value or to default to some other value.
I think it makes sense for the photographer to concentrate on recording those parts of the scene that she cares about accurately in the field, then decide on rendering brightness at a later stage (possibly leaving it to automatic tools).
-k
-
Exactly the problem.
It is not predictable.
Odd. If I set my camera on a tripod and set an aperture under Av program and change the aperture, or go to Tv or go to manual and tweak until the compensation meter reads zero they all give the same readings. For every camera I have had. Whether it is the exposure I want is a different matter.
If I swing the camera to give a different balance of (for example) land and sky the meter reading changes which is exactly what I would expect.
You seem very reluctant to explain what you mean by consistency
-
Odd. If I set my camera on a tripod and set an aperture under Av program and change the aperture, or go to Tv or go to manual and tweak until the compensation meter reads zero they all give the same readings. For every camera I have had. Whether it is the exposure I want is a different matter.
If I swing the camera to give a different balance of (for example) land and sky the meter reading changes which is exactly what I would expect.
You seem very reluctant to explain what you mean by consistency
I'm sure you do, but as I have explained several times in this thread that for much of what I do I don't have time to mess about with such niceties as tripods.
If you fail to understand what is meant by consistency in exposure then I do begin to wonder what benefit you may gain from being involved in this thread.
Now put the text book down and back away slowly.
-
Every auto exposure system I've ever used has been utterly consistent but it is dependent on the being behind the camera pointing it at a suitable value.
Alas, not every subject has a grey card attached to it.
-
Alas, not every subject has a grey card attached to it.
Yes, but every camera has a gray matter attached behind it ;)
-
Yes, but every camera has a gray matter attached behind it ;)
Apparently not it seems. ;D It's probably best to recap at this point.
I was covering an event for a couple of magazines back in July where there were numerous tractors and forage harvesters strutting their stuff. Also present were two colleagues working for other publications. We got talking to each other and we all despaired of the fact that AE was pretty blo*dy useless in our line of work as it was likely to deliver less than optimal results, quite a bit less on frequent occasions. It was not always wrong but certainly not consistent enough to trust.
The work entailed taking pictures of machines as they worked the harvesters and so our positions in relation to them changed constantly, if only to avoid having our legs chewed off!
Personally I have been taking pictures professionally for over 12 years with a variety of cameras and formats and I know the other two as competent photographers. Whatever tricks and settings I tried on the day the camera would deliver a variety of exposures, some of which were fine, some of which would be acceptable after adjustment but many were instantly deleted mainly because of gross under exposure.
If it were just me then perhaps we could settle on my stupidity but my experience was mirrored by two others who's work I respect, so it's either us poor lads in the field not having a clue or posters on here lacking in grey matter.
Take your pick!
-
Done.
Jolly good, and I trust that some other posters on here are not too offended.
-
When I've been faced with similar circumstances, I've studied my subject to find a spot that nearly approximates 18% grey, spot metered it, and reframed for the shot. Shoot only raw. I have never submitted images to anyone that I have not processed to my satisfaction . . . except once many years ago. I had a client approach me with a job for his website. He had a limited budget and said his web design guy could process the images if only I could shoot them for what he could pay. That was a learning experience I will never repeat. I don't think there's a viable shortcut for processing.
-
When I've been faced with similar circumstances, I've studied my subject to find a spot that nearly approximates 18% grey, spot metered it, and reframed for the shot. Shoot only raw. I have never submitted images to anyone that I have not processed to my satisfaction . . . except once many years ago. I had a client approach me with a job for his website. He had a limited budget and said his web design guy could process the images if only I could shoot them for what he could pay. That was a learning experience I will never repeat. I don't think there's a viable shortcut for processing.
Quite so on the release of images. I certainly don't let them out until I'm happy with them and this has caused some upset when companies just expect me to hand over the pictures willy nilly, but that's a subject for a different thread.
Studying the subject when it is proceeding towards you at trotting pace with flails and knives slicing away at the grass and anything else it their path is an exercise that is best kept to the bare minimum. Sure, we all know that would be the ideal but we are not talking about a static situation here, rather it is one that is fast moving and dangerous to the unwary.
-
Apparently not it seems. ;D It's probably best to recap at this point.
I was covering an event for a couple of magazines back in July where there were numerous tractors and forage harvesters strutting their stuff. Also present were two colleagues working for other publications. We got talking to each other and we all despaired of the fact that AE was pretty blo*dy useless in our line of work as it was likely to deliver less than optimal results, quite a bit less on frequent occasions. It was not always wrong but certainly not consistent enough to trust.
The work entailed taking pictures of machines as they worked the harvesters and so our positions in relation to them changed constantly, if only to avoid having our legs chewed off!
Personally I have been taking pictures professionally for over 12 years with a variety of cameras and formats and I know the other two as competent photographers. Whatever tricks and settings I tried on the day the camera would deliver a variety of exposures, some of which were fine, some of which would be acceptable after adjustment but many were instantly deleted mainly because of gross under exposure.
If it were just me then perhaps we could settle on my stupidity but my experience was mirrored by two others who's work I respect, so it's either us poor lads in the field not having a clue or posters on here lacking in grey matter.
Take your pick!
That sounds not me not so much a matter of 'consistency' by the camera because you are continually moving position and at different times presenting the camera with different balances of light and shade, colour tone and glare. Some of those situations it can cope with (being within its programming limits) and other times it gets fooled. It is acting totally consistently within itself and how it meters but it is inconsistent as to how far from (or how near to) your desired output its picture is. This is why I kept asking what you meant by consistency which you derided me for.
I have a similar problem all the time with birds in flight where the bird is passing clouds, then dark shadow, then well exposed foliage and it is those times I switch to manual. In AE the camera is being consistent, but how acceptable it is to me (the exposure on the bird) depends on where in the flight path the picture was taken.
-
Ok, ok... time out, everyone! Time to pause and see what is going on here. In one corner, we have a clearly disappointed, yet without doubt experienced photographer, and in the other all of us making fun of him.
So let me switch corners and come to my friend's defense. I think I know what is causing this misunderstanding.
It is called Matrix metering. Also known as Evaluative metering and several other names. While all other metering modes are indeed utterly predictable (as long as you assume 18% gray), matrix metering may not necessarily be. Here is what Wikipedia says about it (emphasis mine):
... the camera measures the light intensity in several points in the scene, and then combines the results to find the settings for the best exposure. How they are combined/calculated deviates from camera to camera. The actual number of zones used varies wildly, from several to over a thousand. However performance should not be concluded on the number of zones alone, or the layout. In general, the most advanced metering is found on single-lens reflex cameras.
Many manufacturers are less than open about the exact calculations used to determine the exposure. A number of factors are taken into consideration, including the following: Autofocus point, distance to subject, areas in focus or out of focus, colors/hues of the scene, and backlighting. Multi-zone tends to bias its exposure towards the autofocus point being used (while taking into account other areas of the frame too), thus ensuring that the point of interest has been exposed for properly, (this often means the subject area being exposed for as a mid-tone). A database of many thousands of exposures is pre-stored in the camera, and the processor can use a selective pattern to determine what is being photographed...
There is considerable variation from different manufacturers as to how multi-zone metering is implemented, and even from the same maker in their model range, and how much "priority" is given to the AF point itself...
However, some photographers may be uncomfortable with multi-zone metering. This tends to stem from a lack of clarity about "how" the camera reacts in certain situations...
Some users have problems making wide-angle shots with high contrast, due to the large area which can vary greatly in brightness...
So, for instance, while Justin is sure he is photographing a bright orange combine, his camera might think it is a sunset instead.
-
Ok, ok... time out, everyone! Time to pause and see what is going on here. In one corner, we have a clearly disappointed, yet without doubt experienced photographer, and in the other all of us making fun of him.
So let me switch corners and come to my friend's defense. I think I know what is causing this misunderstanding.
It is called Matrix metering. Also known as Evaluative metering and several other names. While all other metering modes are indeed utterly predictable (as long as you assume 18% gray), matrix metering may not necessarily be. Here is what Wikipedia says about it (emphasis mine):
So, for instance, while Justin is sure he is photographing a bright orange combine, his camera might think it is a sunset instead.
Now there is an interesting article and may well start to explain what is going on. All we need now is some way of opting out of this memory bank consultation process that seems to be going on. Can it be done?
-
Than you Slobodan. I assumed people knew how matrix metering worked, especially experienced professionals (not a dig at all, just an assumption that may well not be valid) .
All we need now is some way of opting out of this memory bank consultation process that seems to be going on. Can it be done?
I don't think you can. In the old days (maybe the Mamiya you had) it would assume the whole scene was 18% and gave the appropriate reading and people overrode it. But in many scenes this leads to under/over exposure of the true subject so manufacturers developed the matrix metering and it databank to try and second guess what the user wants. So now if the cameras will see a scene with white on the lower half and from its database works out it is a snow scene and it is programmed that for that particular type of scene it knows it needs to increase exposure from 18% to keep faces from underexposure and to keep the snow from turning grey.
-
Now there is an interesting article and may well start to explain what is going on. All we need now is some way of opting out of this memory bank consultation process that seems to be going on. Can it be done?
Ha! That is a very succinct and accurate way to describe it!
It can be done, but not within matrix metering. You'd need to switch to any other auto or manual metering mode (they all rely on the 18% gray assumption) and then adjust accordingly. Or rely on post-processing.
-
Quite so on the release of images. I certainly don't let them out until I'm happy with them and this has caused some upset when companies just expect me to hand over the pictures willy nilly, but that's a subject for a different thread.
Studying the subject when it is proceeding towards you at trotting pace with flails and knives slicing away at the grass and anything else it their path is an exercise that is best kept to the bare minimum. Sure, we all know that would be the ideal but we are not talking about a static situation here, rather it is one that is fast moving and dangerous to the unwary.
I'm really not trying to be difficult. My point was that there is no viable option other than processing your files. What I mean, and in my experience, is that modern professional level (most consumer level even) equipment will get the exposure within a window that can be easily corrected in post processing. I have recovered highlights or shadows that would have been impossible a few years ago.
-
Than you Slobodan. I assumed people knew how matrix metering worked, especially experienced professionals (not a dig at all, just an assumption that may well not be valid) .
I don't think you can. In the old days (maybe the Mamiya you had) it would assume the whole scene was 18% and gave the appropriate reading and people overrode it. But in many scenes this leads to under/over exposure of the true subject so manufacturers developed the matrix metering and it databank to try and second guess what the user wants. So now if the cameras will see a scene with white on the lower half and from its database works out it is a snow scene and it is programmed that for that particular type of scene it knows it needs to increase exposure from 18% to keep faces from underexposure and to keep the snow from turning grey.
I would consider myself quite familiar with the concept of matrix metering but the existence of a look up data bank is certainly new to me; you? It is not dissimilar to the idea of engine mapping and I suppose we should not be surprised if methods used in one area of technology are deployed in another.
The Mamiya I refer to is a 645AFD, a model which is still pretty much with us today although it bears the Phase One badge. The ZD back is not perfect but it's upgrade is expensive, however, I doubt that either bothers with the data bank.
-
I'm really not trying to be difficult. My point was that there is no viable option other than processing your files. What I mean, and in my experience, is that modern professional level (most consumer level even) equipment will get the exposure within a window that can be easily corrected in post processing. I have recovered highlights or shadows that would have been impossible a few years ago.
I'm not so sure TBH. I do find that colours and saturation levels, or perhaps the relationships between colours, start to deteriorate the greater the depths or heights from which you try and recover the image. Maybe on much more recent equipment it is different but the D3 I have (age 4 or 5) isn't particularly generous in this quarter and anything more than about two stops isn't worth bothering with, but that's subjective.
-
I would consider myself quite familiar with the concept of matrix metering but the existence of a look up data bank is certainly new to me; you?
Yes, I was familiar with it. It has constantly amazed me how the computer in that little plastic box can not only meter and adjust settings in the time it takes to press a shutter, but that in doing it so it uses a library of (in the link below) some 30,000 images! There's some fancy algorithms gong on there...
https://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/13774/~/what-is-the-difference-between-spot,-center-weighted-and-matrix-metering%3F
-
Yes, I was familiar with it. It has constantly amazed me how the computer in that little plastic box can not only meter and adjust settings in the time it takes to press a shutter, but that in doing it so it uses a library of (in the link below) some 30,000 images! There's some fancy algorithms gong on there...
https://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/13774/~/what-is-the-difference-between-spot,-center-weighted-and-matrix-metering%3F
From the link -
This meter instantly analyzes a scene’s overall brightness, contrast, and other lighting characteristics, comparing what is sees against an onboard database of over 30,000 images for unsurpassed exposure accuracy, even in the most challenging photographic situations.
My reply to that is a most genteel 'Bollux'.
Interestingly it is also a claim by the manufacturers that AE is accurate and far more than just an approximation or guide to exposure, so those who suggested that no such claims have ever been made might take note of this marketing ploy.
-
... Interestingly it is also a claim by the manufacturers that AE is accurate...
Strictly speaking, it isn't (the claim). They do not claim it is "accurate," just that it is more accurate than other (auto) methods.
Coincidentally, most grown-ups understand that "truth in advertising" is an oxymoron.
-
Strictly speaking, it isn't (the claim). They do not claim it is "accurate," just that it is more accurate than other (auto) methods.
Well spotted, but the inference is there. It is part of what a friend recently described to me as the "Bullshit economy". There's a lot of it about!
-
In shooting basketball, with light and dark toned jerseys, you will drive yourself crazy trying to use autoexposure. The light is not changing, but the camera sees different tones based on what you are focusing on and tries to compensate.
Your best choice with constant lighting is to take test shots to establish exposure, set on manual, and the click away.
Also with birds moving against various backgrounds, particularly birds with extensive areas of white or black plumage. I gave up on auto-exposure many years ago and now with a live histogram and zebras in the viewfinder most of the time I even ignore the meter reading, using only the image in the EVF to set exposure.
-
Err... No, because I have deleted them.
I try not to delete all the unsatisfactory photos but keep some as-examples; note what I think's wrong with them and what I think I could have done better.
Nice to have the time.
The camera doesn't know what picture you want. Some photographers know how to use the AE modes to make the camera expose for the picture they want.
Wonders will never cease.
While matrix/evaluative metering is indeed the most sophisticated metering mode. let me once again say that meters do not necessarily give the correct answer for proper exposure. They give "an" answer but "correct" is another matter. However, as I'll discuss… matrix metering is what I use almost all the time. … Because digital cameras also offer one of the best-of-all exposure aids: the histogram. (John Shaw's Guide to Digital Nature Photography (https://books.google.com/books?id=TrOFBAAAQBAJ&lpg=PT135&dq=While%20matrix%2Fevaluative%20metering&pg=PT135#v=onepage&q=While%20matrix/evaluative%20metering&f=false).)
But why bother with metering if you are going to resort to the histogram anyway? Cut out the middleman and all that.
I have never used Nikon, but I read about this in a Joe McNally book (https://books.google.com/books?id=37W6tI76WHwC&lpg=PA1&dq=the%20moment%20it%20clicks&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q=data%20bank&f=false).
It's not exclusive to Nikon
The manufacturers also say that you can do stuff wrong -- "Matrix metering will not produce the desired results with autoexposure lock." page 129 D3 Manual (http://cdn-10.nikon-cdn.com/pdf/manuals/kie88335f7869dfuejdl=-cww2/D3_en.pdf) pdf
It's called covering their ass and TBH it's fairly self evident that if you lock the autoexposure then it can't work if the conditions change.
But otherwise very good.
-
Well spotted, but the inference is there.
There are the old sayings relating to 'Assume' and 'assumptions'....and I think the word 'inference' is close enough for the same logic (and before you go all semantic on me I am aware of the difference between them).
-
There are the old sayings relating to 'Assume' and 'assumptions'....and I think the word 'inference' is close enough for the same logic (and before you go all semantic on me I am aware of the difference between them).
This meter instantly analyzes a scene’s overall brightness, contrast, and other lighting characteristics, comparing what is sees against an onboard database of over 30,000 images for unsurpassed exposure accuracy, even in the most challenging photographic situations.
So are we to assume or infer from the above that Nikon believes it's AE system works well or not?
-
...So are we to assume or infer from the above that Nikon believes it's AE system works well or not?
Yes, and not just Nikon, most of us also believe it works freakishly well... most of the time. Just not perfect, not all the time, and not in every situation. That's what the gray matter behind the camera is for.
-
Yes, and not just Nikon, most of us also believe it works freakishly well... most of the time. Just not perfect, not all the time, and not in every situation. That's what the gray matter behind the camera is for.
Well that's me buggered then, even yer man Isaac is on my case pointing out the multitude of my wicked shortcomings. Time for the whiskey and revolver!
-
Do you have time not to learn from your mistakes?
(You do make mistakes, don't you?)
You photograph from a low camera position looking upwards, and then wonder why AE exposes for the sky instead of those bits of machinery that interest you :-)
The photographers who know how to use AE modes to make the camera expose for the picture they want -- still get the picture they want when the light keeps changing.
If you say so me old mucker, if you say so.
-
If you say so me old mucker, if you say so.
It looks like the biggest problem is your attitude? You have been consistently dismissive and sneering to every member that has tried to "help" you. No doubt I am next? :(
-
Been doing photography on a pro basis for around 12/13 years now, never full time admittedly, but I started off doing weddings on a Bronica with said light meter for Wedding Services in the UK, a company owned by Kodak at the time.
engaged in a specified activity as one's main paid occupation rather than as an amateur.
"a professional boxer"
synonyms: paid, salaried, non-amateur, full-time
"a professional tennis player"
Your point about "never full time admittedly" is an oxymoron. If you aren't full time then you aren't a professional?
-
It looks like the biggest problem is your attitude? You have been consistently dismissive and sneering to every member that has tried to "help" you. No doubt I am next? :(
You are quite right, you are next. I made a point about AE not being anything like as handy as it's supposed to be and then get piled upon with patronising 'wisdom' about how wrong I was with a pervading assumption that I knew naff all about photography so if only I would sit down at these noble feet then all would be revealed in time! But guess what, it emerged that I might have a case after all, at which point a deathly hush descended except for one who said he knew all along (then why didn't he say so?) and our man Isaac who went off lecturing me as if I were a newbie down at the camera club!
But you are quite wrong as well. There are those that came up with sensible suggestions and I tried to answer them in a like manner, but to those that might feel offended by a rather brash response may I suggest that they climb down of their high horses and learn to appreciate that there are many approaches to photography and no one pot of absolute truth in the craft that anyone holds the key to, which is the impression given in several cases.
-
It looks like the biggest problem is your attitude? You have been consistently dismissive and sneering to every member that has tried to "help" you. No doubt I am next? :(
Or me ;D
It's very simple: learn your equipment well enough so it gives you the desired consistent results you want or accept you'll need some corrections in PP when shooting raw. Both are perfectly acceptable and easily doable (despite you dismissing both of these multiple times).
Blaming the equipment isn't going to get you anywhere, the equipment will always give the same result when being put in exactly the same situation. Your inconsistent results are probably caused by slight changes in the situation you're putting it in.
-
engaged in a specified activity as one's main paid occupation rather than as an amateur.
"a professional boxer"
synonyms: paid, salaried, non-amateur, full-time
"a professional tennis player"
Your point about "never full time admittedly" is an oxymoron. If you aren't full time then you aren't a professional?
Oh good lord are you that desperate to score a cheap point! That is the hoariest old chestnut in the book and has been done to death over the years, if not the centuries!
I have a stack of mags in front of me, Oh look, there's a two page photo spread, and another, and I'm on the cover of this one as well as this, in fact that was used as an advertising poster by one company. Four pages on a Lanz Alldog in another and five on the post war history of the French Tractor industry in its sister publication, or dos the fact that I also write about what I photograph preclude me from being considered any sort of professional?
-
engaged in a specified activity as one's main paid occupation rather than as an amateur.
"a professional boxer"
synonyms: paid, salaried, non-amateur, full-time
"a professional tennis player"
Your point about "never full time admittedly" is an oxymoron. If you aren't full time then you aren't a professional?
There is no contradiction between:
1: "Professional" meaning that activity is your _main paid occupation_
2: Not working at full time.
A family member is working 40% as a musical teacher and 60% as a musician. I would consider him a "professional musician".
I know people who work 50% as bus drivers or nurses due to a medical condition, or due to taking care of kids or parents. I would still consider these "professional" bus drivers or nurses.
Not that "professional" has a lot of positive connotation to me. In my experience, professionals are prone to do any given job "good enough", while an amateur ("lover of") will often invest what seems like irrational amounts of time and money into getting things "as good as possible".
Granted, in professions such as photography, the line between professional and amateur, occupation and "lover of" is often blurred. People may do something for a living, yet invest more effort/money than what is required by their customers. Unlike more mundane occupations, perhaps? You don't often see bus drivers or nurses doing their thing for free for a decade before deciding to start charging by the hour?
-h
-
Or me ;D
It's very simple: learn your equipment well enough so it gives you the desired consistent results you want or accept you'll need some corrections in PP when shooting raw. Both are perfectly acceptable and easily doable (despite you dismissing both of these multiple times).
Blaming the equipment isn't going to get you anywhere, the equipment will always give the same result when being put in exactly the same situation. Your inconsistent results are probably caused by slight changes in the situation you're putting it in.
Spot on. And we all knew that digitals used a bank of reference images to impose a a theoretical 'correctness' upon our shooting didn't we. Well it appears in some cases that it simply doesn't work. Did you know that?
-
Well it appears in some cases that it simply doesn't work. Did you know that?
Yes I do, and knowing your equipment will help you determine when that is the case.
-
Spot on. And we all knew that digitals used a bank of reference images to impose a a theoretical 'correctness' upon our shooting didn't we. Well it appears in some cases that it simply doesn't work. Did you know that?
In this day of "big data" and "pattern recognition", it seems safe to assume that any problem of sufficient monetary interest that cannot (as of now) be solved analytically, is a candidate for number-crunching fed by databases of examples.
This applies to auto-exposure, but also to autofocus (especially head-tracking, smile-detection and such but possibly also motion tracking) auto-whitebalance. One might even try to apply it to things like tonemapping/auto-dodge-and-burn preferences.
Any automatic process will have a limited accuracy, especially when used at the edges of the tested/prioritized cases. Use when needed.
-h
-
In this day of "big data" and "pattern recognition", it seems safe to assume that any problem of sufficient monetary interest that cannot (as of now) be solved analytically, is a candidate for number-crunching fed by databases of examples.
This applies to auto-exposure, but also to autofocus (especially head-tracking, smile-detection and such but possibly also motion tracking) auto-whitebalance. One might even try to apply it to things like tonemapping/auto-dodge-and-burn preferences.
Any automatic process will have a limited accuracy, especially when used at the edges of the tested/prioritized cases. Use when needed.
-h
A good point that. It's rather frightening to see how Big Brother (bad) has been sold to the public as Big Data (good) and the global society seems to have swallowed it whole. The pernicious collection and use of information that would hitherto have been considered private is an alarming development and one that is so vast and comprehensive that one feels quite helpless in front of it all, which, no doubt, suits its sponsors very well indeed.
-
Yes I do, and knowing your equipment will help you determine when that is the case.
If you would like to tell me the model of your major camera then I'll prepare an exam based on its manual. Doubtless you'll score 100%.
-
If you would like to tell me the model of your major camera then I'll prepare an exam based on its manual. Doubtless you'll score 100%.
Haha, don't bother, you're better off spending the time learning your own camera, not from the manual but from practice in the field.
-
Haha, don't bother, you're better off spending the time learning your own camera, not from the manual but from practice in the field.
Err, righto.
Any more senseless jibes?
-
Err, righto.
Any more senseless jibes?
Why should I? You don't want to be helped anyway.
-
Why should I? You don't want to be helped anyway.
Honestly mate, you need to grow up.
Why are you carrying on like this?
-
Honestly mate, you need to grow up.
Who needs to grow up?
Every sound advice in this thread has been countered with "doesn't work for me, too much effort, don't want to learn, it's the equipment not me"
Being called on that behavior the only thing you resort to are cynical personal attacks
But if that's the way you are fine, just don't look for my advice in the future because I genuinely tried to help but if this is how you handle this I know enough.
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice ....
-
There is no contradiction between:
1: "Professional" meaning that activity is your _main paid occupation_
2: Not working at full time.
A family member is working 40% as a musical teacher and 60% as a musician. I would consider him a "professional musician".
I know people who work 50% as bus drivers or nurses due to a medical condition, or due to taking care of kids or parents. I would still consider these "professional" bus drivers or nurses.
Not that "professional" has a lot of positive connotation to me. In my experience, professionals are prone to do any given job "good enough", while an amateur ("lover of") will often invest what seems like irrational amounts of time and money into getting things "as good as possible".
Granted, in professions such as photography, the line between professional and amateur, occupation and "lover of" is often blurred. People may do something for a living, yet invest more effort/money than what is required by their customers. Unlike more mundane occupations, perhaps? You don't often see bus drivers or nurses doing their thing for free for a decade before deciding to start charging by the hour?
-h
A lot of photographers like to call themselves pros because they think they have elevated abilities. Most photographers have been paid at sometime or another. So if it isn't a full time profession then what amount of money are we talking about before the amateur/professional status changes for the leap to be made? I prefer the description.... when someone makes the bulk of their earnings from a chosen occupation then they are professional? But if a photographer is a bus driver 9 to 5 and gets paid working as a photographer a couple of hours in the evenings or on his/her day off then they aren't a professional photographer? Unfortunately Justin doesn't state what his full time job is assuming he has one?
-
I was going to suggest using EV (http://www.digital-photo-secrets.com/tip/19/exposure-value/), however this is another train wreck. I hope that it isn't going to be a common occurrence, I just closed a thread because of negative comments, LuLa has been above this negativity!
Cheers,
-
Who needs to grow up?
Every sound advice in this thread has been countered with "doesn't work for me, too much effort, don't want to learn, it's the equipment not me"
Being called on that behavior the only thing you resort to are cynical personal attacks
But if that's the way you are fine, just don't look for my advice in the future because I genuinely tried to help but if this is how you handle this I know enough.
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice ....
I fear that you may have a rather too high opinion of your abilities, knowledge and experience.
-
I was going to suggest using EV (http://www.digital-photo-secrets.com/tip/19/exposure-value/), however this is another train wreck. I hope that it isn't going to be a common occurrence, I just closed a thread because of negative comments, LuLa has been above this negativity!
Cheers,
EV has already been mentioned but as pointed out it relies on a consistent variation from the correct exposure. The problems I, and others, have encountered with AE are wild and apparently random variations from the 'correct' exposure. I should point out once again that I have run through a whole gamut of adjustments and settings to try and overcome this issue, including EV, but nothing appears to work satisfactorily. If it becomes necessary to adjust EV for each frame then surely one might as well just switch to manual and rely on the histogram to ensure that the required information is captured.
-
I fear that you may have a rather too high opinion of your abilities, knowledge and experience.
Did I ever claim I had any? I'm afraid you need to take a good look in the mirror
-
Matrix was commented on a few posts back and colour was commented on when calculating exposure. The reason I don't use matrix- I prefer centre weighted - is that when a camera calculates exposure then colour doesn't come into the equation. It only calculates luminosity, shades of grey and black so any reference to a colour image in it's bank would be futile??? Colour is added after the luminosity and grey and black has been calculated???
-
Did I ever claim I had any? I'm afraid you need to take a good look in the mirror
Justin the tone of your posting has been one of "superiority" in this thread imo. Even Isaac's post was imo a helpful one?
-
A lot of photographers like to call themselves pros because they think they have elevated abilities. Most photographers have been paid at sometime or another. So if it isn't a full time profession then what amount of money are we talking about before the amateur/professional status changes for the leap to be made? I prefer the description.... when someone makes the bulk of their earnings from a chosen occupation then they are professional? But if a photographer is a bus driver 9 to 5 and gets paid working as a photographer a couple of hours in the evenings or on his/her day off then they aren't a professional photographer? Unfortunately Justin doesn't state what his full time job is assuming he has one?
That really is the cheapest and bitchiest comment on this thread.
What point, exactly, are you trying to make?
-
Justin the tone of your posting has been one of "superiority" in this thread imo. Even Isaac's post was imo a helpful one?
It was helpful to you?
-
Note to myself: "When shooting farm equipment framed against the sky remember to use manual exposure. In other cases use matrix metering".
-
Note to myself: "When shooting farm equipment framed against the sky remember to use manual exposure. In other cases use matrix metering".
It's a start, but there is a little more to it than that.
-
Y'know folks, I'm getting the distinct impression that somebody somewhere doesn't like it being pointed out that AE is not always the best thing since sliced bread.
-
Y'know folks, I'm getting the distinct impression that somebody somewhere doesn't like it being pointed out that AE is not always the best thing since sliced bread.
I have noticed that when using studio flash AE tends to overexpose badly. Manual exposure seems to work better...
-
I have noticed that when using studio flash AE tends to overexpose badly. Manual exposure seems to work better...
In the studio, when in total control of the light, I only use manual although I do very little studio work nowadays anyway.
-
Y'know folks, I'm getting the distinct impression that somebody somewhere doesn't like it being pointed out that AE is not always the best thing since sliced bread.
That is your opinion.....others differ?
-
That is your opinion.....others differ?
Glad to hear it. It would be a dull old world otherwise, it also greatly expediates progress. Who knows, if it were generally recognised that AE was not as bombproof as suggested by the camera trade (see examples above) then they might get their finger out and attend to the problem rather than trying to set a narrative that distracts from this awkward fact.
-
On reason I like AE is that it is a good starting point. If I have taken a picture with AE I know that if I want to take a grab shot a few minutes afterwards under different circumstances there is a very good chance the output will be usable. If I have had it set on manual and want to take a grab shot a few minutes later those different circumstances may well render the image unusable without having twiddled a dial or two. And in the time it takes to do that I may well miss the shot.
With AE plus compensation I effectively have manual exposure - all I need to decide is whether I agree with what the camera says not think what settings I want. In both cases I am still assessing the scene, it takes the same amount of understanding and experience and I end up with the same result. And because I have that understanding I can decide if I need to go to full manual.
-
Who knows, if it were generally recognised that AE was not as bombproof
You keep on coming up with this claim that the general public considers AE to be bomb-proof - do you have any evidence for this? A more likely explanation is that if you went up to someone and said 'you do realise that AE is flawed' the likely response would be a shrug of the shoulders and 'So. It gives perfectly acceptable images to me'.
Nor have you given any real examples of the camera trade suggesting it is bombproof other than your inference of what they say.
-
Perhaps the best thing we can do is just agree with Justinr so we can move on. ;)
-
You keep on coming up with this claim that the general public considers AE to be bomb-proof - do you have any evidence for this? A more likely explanation is that if you went up to someone and said 'you do realise that AE is flawed' the likely response would be a shrug of the shoulders and 'So. It gives perfectly acceptable images to me'.
Nor have you given any real examples of the camera trade suggesting it is bombproof other than your inference of what they say.
So Nikon championing the marvels of their AE system is not to be taken as any sort of suggestion or indication that they think it is any good? You may also note that I said the camera trade, or industry if you prefer, suggests it is bombproof, not the public. So kindly get your accusations straightened out before presenting them.
-
Perhaps the best thing we can do is just agree with Justinr so we can move on. ;)
Please don't. I'm all for disagreement but cheap jibes as such as Stamper sneering about my employment situation (which he has failed to explain) are indeed something we could do without.
-
I guess "intelligent" matrix metering IS the best the camera industry has been able to come up with so far. Sometimes it fails, and for professionals it fails more often than for amateurs because
the camera knows if the operator is getting paid. amateurs tend to take easier pictures and are more content with what the camera delivers.
I work only part time now, waiting for retirement, so apparently I am not considered a professional anymore, so AE mostly with matrix works 100% of the time for me for reportage situations (no studio flash), spiced with some exposure compensation at times.
Here are some samples, ALL of them taken with AE matrix metering: https://www.flickr.com/photos/112698197@N08/albums
and of course ALL of them have been shot in RAW and processed, including exposure adjustment, in LightRoom.
-
Please don't. I'm all for disagreement but cheap jibes as such as Stamper sneering about my employment situation (which he has failed to explain) are indeed something we could do without.
Are you a full time professional photographer or do you have other employment? :)
-
On reason I like AE is that it is a good starting point. If I have taken a picture with AE I know that if I want to take a grab shot a few minutes afterwards under different circumstances there is a very good chance the output will be usable. If I have had it set on manual and want to take a grab shot a few minutes later those different circumstances may well render the image unusable without having twiddled a dial or two. And in the time it takes to do that I may well miss the shot.
With AE plus compensation I effectively have manual exposure - all I need to decide is whether I agree with what the camera says not think what settings I want. In both cases I am still assessing the scene, it takes the same amount of understanding and experience and I end up with the same result. And because I have that understanding I can decide if I need to go to full manual.
Quite so, it has its uses but I look at the situation like this.
A camera is very much a tool as far as I am concerned, it is one I enjoy using but even so it has to prove effective at its purpose.
When I cover a story/feature/event I need that that to tool to work at it's optimal capacity, or as near as for 100% is hardly likely to be achieved.
The major reasons for deletion of shots is incorrect exposure, therefore I need to maximise the percentage of shots that are either correctly exposed or near enough for them to be easily and satisfactorily adjusted back on the computer.
At a guess, but after some consideration, I would say that the yield of acceptable shots using AE alone was never more than 50%. By using manual that yield is greatly increased, probably nearer to 80 or 90% (excluding test shots which are never intended to be kept).
Is it really acceptable that a tool costing thousands of dollars can only achieve such a success rate when left to its own devices? Others on here have expressed their satisfaction with AE, which is fair enough, it seems that their work might conform more to what is generally regarded as press photography and the camera's firmware can more happily deal with it. I have found myself specialising in machinery (not just tractors) and here it seems that cameras struggle to perform as they would in other situations.
This is a genuine problem encountered not just by me but by others working in the same area using the other big name in cameras. Trying to apply the reasoning of hobby photographers (nothing against them, I was one myself) to a commercial situation is not helping to define, clarify or answer the difficulties encountered.
-
Are you a full time professional photographer or do you have other employment? :)
I'm sorry, but you really are an ignorant and ill mannered little twerp. Oh, and rather stupid to. A little research would answer that question, it's simply a matter of clicking on a link or two.
-
This is a genuine problem encountered not just by me but by others working in the same area using the other big name in cameras. Trying to apply the reasoning of hobby photographers (nothing against them, I was one myself) to a commercial situation is not helping to define, clarify or answer the difficulties encountered.
No point in asking a hobby photographer his opinion because you have left their ranks? You should have stated that at the outset and there would have been a lot less posts to read. :) ;) BTW some of the hobby photographers might just be more knowledgable than your good self?
-
No point in asking a hobby photographer his opinion because you have left their ranks? You should have stated that at the outset and there would have been a lot less posts to read. :) ;) BTW some of the hobby photographers might just be more knowledgable than your good self?
Boo hoo.
-
I'm sorry, but you really are an ignorant and ill mannered little twerp. Oh, and rather stupid to. A little research would answer that question, it's simply a matter of clicking on a link or two.
Quote Justin Reply# 17
Been doing photography on a pro basis for around 12/13 years now, never full time admittedly, but I started off doing weddings on a Bronica with said light meter for Wedding Services in the UK, a company owned by Kodak at the time
-
So Nikon championing the marvels of their AE system is not to be taken as any sort of suggestion or indication that they think it is any good [1]? You may also note that I said the camera trade, or industry if you prefer, suggests it is bombproof, not the public [2]. So kindly get your accusations straightened out before presenting them.
[1] 'Being good' is not the same as 'bombproof'
[2] You precise words were "Who knows, if it were generally recognised that AE was not as bombproof " so if when you said 'generally recognised' you were not referring to the general public who were you referring to?
So I think my assertions were correct
-
By providing an exposure compensation dial (or similar) camera makers recognize that AE systems are not bombproof. What else there is to it?
-
Quote Justin Reply# 17
Been doing photography on a pro basis for around 12/13 years now, never full time admittedly, but I started off doing weddings on a Bronica with said light meter for Wedding Services in the UK, a company owned by Kodak at the time
Where have I contradicted that?
You need to move on my friend, the days of just sticking to one trade in the media are pretty much over, it happens if you are lucky but the number of full time pro photographers is well down and unlikely to recover.
I have also pointed out on this thread that I am a writer and in the past I have made it quite clear on LuLa that photography is just part of the package that I offer my customers. I have also stated that since I started selling myself as a writer I have never been busier with the camera!
A camera is an essential tool of my trade and I have many years experience in using one, which is why I am busy selling my product into various magazines.
And you? Other than posting pretty piccies on Fliker that is. Have you ever gone out with the responsibility of having to return with the goods? Ever done a wedding for instance where the models can't be re-booked for the next day? Covered a story that a publication or company is paying you to get right? The world isn't quite so straightforward when you only have the one chance at a job.
-
By providing an exposure compensation dial (or similar) camera makers recognize that AE systems are not bombproof. What else there is to it?
Oh I see, pity that's never made clearer when the cameras are being sold or 'reviewed', which is much the same thing. Perhaps it should be?
-
[1] 'Being good' is not the same as 'bombproof'
[2] You precise words were "Who knows, if it were generally recognised that AE was not as bombproof " so if when you said 'generally recognised' you were not referring to the general public who were you referring to?
So I think my assertions were correct
The intent of the language used is to suggest that AE is all you need. Argue the semantics if you like but it is nothing more than an admission of quasi misrepresentation
-
May I suggest a more agreeable topic? UV filters, for example. Or Canon vs. Nikon. PC or Mac?
-
May I suggest a more agreeable topic? UV filters, for example. Or Canon vs. Nikon. PC or Mac?
You left out the eternal pro/am argument. :)
-
Oh I see, pity that's never made clearer when the cameras are being sold or 'reviewed', which is much the same thing. Perhaps it should be?
You mean from my 7D2 manual "Exposure compensation can brighten (increased exposure) or darken (decreased exposure) the standard exposure set by the camera"
Who cares if the AE is bombproof - if the picture varies from what you want you can adjust it no matter what the reason.
-
The intent of the language used is to suggest that AE is all you need. Argue the semantics if you like but it is nothing more than an admission of quasi misrepresentation
It is you reading the inference and the intent. Nothing more. I just take the text at face value and work with the information.
-
You mean from my 7D2 manual "Exposure compensation can brighten (increased exposure) or darken (decreased exposure) the standard exposure set by the camera"
Who cares if the AE is bombproof - if the picture varies from what you want you can adjust it no matter what the reason.
That does not indicate that that the AE is fallible, only that it may be altered.
-
BTW, anybody know how the old film cameras managed without 30,000 reference images?
-
BTW, anybody know how the old film cameras managed without 30,000 reference images?
By using center-weighted or spot metering. Options still available in today's digital cameras.
-
By using center-weighted or spot metering. Options still available in today's digital cameras.
I'm not entirely sure that dSLR's are completely free of interference in those modes, but I've argued enough for the day. ;)
-
I've never been interested in making my photos so predictable that the camera could look up the exposure scenario and pick the right one.
-
BTW, anybody know how the old film cameras managed without 30,000 reference images?
Worse.
The latest film models did have matrix metering with some sort of budding intelligence built in.
-
Worse.
The latest film models did have matrix metering with some sort of budding intelligence built in.
My recollection of the old Zenits I kicked off with was that the meter wasn't entirely unreliable and certainly good enough to produce some well exposed prints. But film was a lot more forgiving.
-
My recollection of the old Zenits I kicked off with was that the meter wasn't entirely unreliable and certainly good enough to produce some well exposed prints. But film was a lot more forgiving.
What?
Good old slide gave maybe 7 stops from shadows to blown highlights, now newest Nikons and Sonys deliver over 14 stops. Where have you been the last 10 years?
I had to get the exposure within -0.5 to 0 from perfect slide. Now I can go -4 to + 1 and still get as good or better frame from my Nikons. More latitude?
-
What?
Good old slide gave maybe 7 stops from shadows to blown highlights, now newest Nikons and Sonys deliver over 14 stops. Where have you been the last 10 years?
Transparencies always had a much lower range than negative so lets compare like with like. Digital has spent the last 10 years trying to catch up with negative. And that's colour, pushing at B&W could yield all sorts of details at either end.
Now here's a fellow who has a few thoughts on the subject.
http://www.120studio.com/dynamic-range.htm
-
Now here's a fellow who has a few thoughts on the subject.
http://www.120studio.com/dynamic-range.htm
If you cite that article as something reliable, well, actually I can not really think anything nice to say, so I say nothing.
-
Now here's a fellow who has a few thoughts on the subject.
and is shooting jpg. Do you think what he presents is a valid and relevant conclusion?
-
Lads lads, why the hate? Where's the bitterness coming from? What's the problem?
-
Lads lads, why the hate? Where's the bitterness coming from? What's the problem?
There is no bitterness and hate from my side, I think we're having a technical discussion and are trying to understand some of the points you're making.
-
I think this is bordering on funny actually.
-
I think this is bordering on funny actually.
Indeed, I gave up taking you and Pegelli seriously about lunchtime today,
-
Okay, I picked up on this thread during my bar lunch today, and not having digested either the 'meal' or the thread too well, I feel I might be able to contribute a simple solution to all of this crap that seems to be going down.
1. The words infer and imply do not mean the same thing.
2. Old cameras never did well with exposure if using their own built-in abilities, other than those with spot, which was also usually far too wide to be much use.
3. For olde filme days, you learned to use a Weston with or without Invercone. For black/white you directly measured the darkest shadow (by reflected light reading of it) that was important to you, exposed for that and developed for the highlights i.e. you tended to differ somewhat from the recommended processing times the makers suggested, and, as with camera makers, they suggested, assuming that you were bright enough to know what your intended result was all about.
For transparencies, you used the same meter, with an Invercone fitted, and simply pointed from the subject to where the camera was; if the subject was more side-lit than directly, you pointed between camera and light - usually sun in my case - and set the machine to that. If you couldn't get close enough to the subject with the Invercone, you could use a real spot meter and measure a highlight, such as a white person's face, open a stop and a bit, and click.
My Nikon F had no metering prism; the F2 came with a Photomic head which after the first attempt, I refused to consult ever again; the F3 had a meter of sorts, and the F4s I kept for such a short time that I can't truthfully remember much about it, other than it never loaded properly first time, causing much embarrassement, and a rapid selling off of it. The various FM bodies were only bought to enable a faster flash synch, and rarely used: they sounded and felt like old sardine tins. With rust. The tins, not the cameras.
Once I'd bought myself a Minolta Flash Meter 111, the various Westons went to permanent sleep.
4. Happy digital days. I only ever bought two Nikon digital bodies, the D200 and the D700. On both, Matrix works bloody well enough to make life reasonably free from tears. But, as with everything that's supposed to 'help' you into foolproof mode, it can be a mixed blessing because it takes away the will to think beyond pretty pretty image: you slide into the bad habit of only seeing what's in the viewfinder and not thinking much beyond that, quite a different approach to film, as detailed above.
But there's a perfectly good solution which removes the need to depend on anything but the ASA ISO setting: use an incident light meter and trust it. I've run tests recently on that very thing, and if I set the camera to what the incident light reading is, ignoring the silent screams of protest of the built-in meters, I don't blow highlights where they exist (and not all shots have them) and the other tones fall into place just like with transparencies.
This may read as heresy to some - I neither know nor care - but it works for me on those tests and that's all that matters to me. Try it for yourselves if you still have hand-held meters.
Rob C
-
... Rob C
Hoooorrrayyy!
-
... Matrix works bloody well enough to make life reasonably free from tears...
And this short sentence, ladies and gentlemen, succinct and eloquent, embodies everything some of us so dearly missed during Rob's absence.
-
Okay, I picked up on this thread during my bar lunch today, and not having digested either the 'meal' or the thread too well, I feel I might be able to contribute a simple solution to all of this crap that seems to be going down.
1. The words infer and imply do not mean the same thing.
2. Old cameras never did well with exposure if using their own built-in abilities, other than those with spot, which was also usually far too wide to be much use.
3. For olde filme days, you learned to use a Weston with or without Invercone. For black/white you directly measured the darkest shadow (by reflected light reading of it) that was important to you, exposed for that and developed for the highlights i.e. you tended to differ somewhat from the recommended processing times the makers suggested, and, as with camera makers, they suggested, assuming that you were bright enough to know what your intended result was all about.
For transparencies, you used the same meter, with an Invercone fitted, and simply pointed from the subject to where the camera was; if the subject was more side-lit than directly, you pointed between camera and light - usually sun in my case - and set the machine to that. If you couldn't get close enough to the subject with the Invercone, you could use a real spot meter and measure a highlight, such as a white person's face, open a stop and a bit, and click.
My Nikon F had no metering prism; the F2 came with a Photomic head which after the first attempt, I refused to consult ever again; the F3 had a meter of sorts, and the F4s I kept for such a short time that I can't truthfully remember much about it, other than it never loaded properly first time, causing much embarrassement, and a rapid selling off of it. The various FM bodies were only bought to enable a faster flash synch, and rarely used: they sounded and felt like old sardine tins. With rust. The tins, not the cameras.
Once I'd bought myself a Minolta Flash Meter 111, the various Westons went to permanent sleep.
4. Happy digital days. I only ever bought two Nikon digital bodies, the D200 and the D700. On both, Matrix works bloody well enough to make life reasonably free from tears. But, as with everything that's supposed to 'help' you into foolproof mode, it can be a mixed blessing because it takes away the will to think beyond pretty pretty image: you slide into the bad habit of only seeing what's in the viewfinder and not thinking much beyond that, quite a different approach to film, as detailed above.
But there's a perfectly good solution which removes the need to depend on anything but the ASA ISO setting: use an incident light meter and trust it. I've run tests recently on that very thing, and if I set the camera to what the incident light reading is, ignoring the silent screams of protest of the built-in meters, I don't blow highlights where they exist (and not all shots have them) and the other tones fall into place just like with transparencies.
This may read as heresy to some - I neither know nor care - but it works for me on those tests and that's all that matters to me. Try it for yourselves if you still have hand-held meters.
Rob C
Hand held meters!
Good lord, didn't they go down with the ark? OK, not all of them did, I still have mine (I think) both digital and analogue. I remember an item in BJP in which we were informed that one particular purveyor of meters had developed an instrument specifically for digital capture and went to some length to explain why it was different from the film version. Alas, I can't remember the details but it all sounded very convincing at the time. I do wonder what happened to them though, swept away by the tide of histogram analysis no doubt.
-
Show what you mean by "poor exposure".
Side-by-side show AE "poor exposure" versus "manual exposure" of the same scene.
Isaac, did you not say the following -
Much of the thread is indigestible. I hope you have more luck with the meal.
You obviously failed to even attempt masticating parts of it because we have been through this before. Anyway, could I refer you to an earlier post of mine -
Quite so, it has its uses but I look at the situation like this.
A camera is very much a tool as far as I am concerned, it is one I enjoy using but even so it has to prove effective at its purpose.
When I cover a story/feature/event I need that that to tool to work at it's optimal capacity, or as near as for 100% is hardly likely to be achieved.
The major reasons for deletion of shots is incorrect exposure, therefore I need to maximise the percentage of shots that are either correctly exposed or near enough for them to be easily and satisfactorily adjusted back on the computer.
At a guess, but after some consideration, I would say that the yield of acceptable shots using AE alone was never more than 50%. By using manual that yield is greatly increased, probably nearer to 80 or 90% (excluding test shots which are never intended to be kept).
Is it really acceptable that a tool costing thousands of dollars can only achieve such a success rate when left to its own devices? Others on here have expressed their satisfaction with AE, which is fair enough, it seems that their work might conform more to what is generally regarded as press photography and the camera's firmware can more happily deal with it. I have found myself specialising in machinery (not just tractors) and here it seems that cameras struggle to perform as they would in other situations.
This is a genuine problem encountered not just by me but by others working in the same area using the other big name in cameras. Trying to apply the reasoning of hobby photographers (nothing against them, I was one myself) to a commercial situation is not helping to define, clarify or answer the difficulties encountered.
There, that should explain it again.
-
There, that should explain it again.
What you have again demonstrated is that you are unwilling to show any examples of AE "poor exposure". It must be really really difficult to take a photo with "poor exposure" using AE ;-)
Here's a DPreview of the Nikon D3
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NIKOND3/22
Could you point out where the AE is assessed or even mentioned?
There are a couple of mentions:
-- "Arguably the best metering of the bunch (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NIKOND3/23) (1005 pixel RGB sensor)*"
-- "Metering struggles to keep up if you shoot at the very fastest continuous rate (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NIKOND3/34) (i.e. in manual focus mode at 9fps or 11fps in DX mode)."
I'm not so sure TBH. I do find that colours and saturation levels, or perhaps the relationships between colours, start to deteriorate the greater the depths or heights from which you try and recover the image. Maybe on much more recent equipment it is different but the D3 I have (age 4 or 5) isn't particularly generous in this quarter and anything more than about two stops isn't worth bothering with, but that's subjective.
*"…the D3 an usually wide exposure latitude, able to pull back both shadow and highlight detail if your exposure goes awry (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3/20) in the press scrum or when trying to follow the action at 9 frames per second. As the example below shows the ability to pull back color information is impressive, and though you can't expect miracles these are some of the most pliable RAW files we've yet seen."*
-
Indeed, I gave up taking you and Pegelli seriously about lunchtime today,
Haha, that's really funny. I think you gave up talking seriously a lot earlier, or do you blame that on your key board?
Well, I guess I'll stop here. Let's call it a win-win if we don't exchange any more ideas from now on ;)
-
What you have again demonstrated is that you are unwilling to show any examples of AE "poor exposure". It must be really really difficult to take a photo with "poor exposure" using AE ;-)
There are a couple of mentions:
-- "Arguably the best metering of the bunch (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NIKOND3/23) (1005 pixel RGB sensor)*"
-- "Metering struggles to keep up if you shoot at the very fastest continuous rate (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NIKOND3/34) (i.e. in manual focus mode at 9fps or 11fps in DX mode)."
*"…the D3 an usually wide exposure latitude, able to pull back both shadow and highlight detail if your exposure goes awry (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3/20) in the press scrum or when trying to follow the action at 9 frames per second. As the example below shows the ability to pull back color information is impressive, and though you can't expect miracles these are some of the most pliable RAW files we've yet seen."*
Isaac, I don't give a flying feck whether you believe me or not, my name is here as is a link to my website so everybody knows who I am and I stand by my word.
-
... Make some ... exposures and show them here -- that might be interesting.
Look who is talking! ;)
-
My bad, Isaac, my bad :)
-
I expect the other posters also "stand by [their] word" !
Make some AE "poor exposures" and show them here -- that might be interesting.
I wonder if you would care to indulge me while I explain a somewhat awkward flaw in this scheme.
If I were to post some badly exposed images would you believe they were genuine problem files or would you suspect that I had just made them up to prove a point?
If you consider that I made them up then there is nothing that can be done to persuade you of my concerns.
If you were to take my word that they were genuine then why do you seem so reluctant to believe what I said in the OP?
-
If I were to post some badly exposed images would you believe they were genuine problem files or would you suspect that I had just made them up to prove a point?
As far as I know there is no way to manipulate RAW files. Give us some RAW files and we can even see what the exposure system was and if exposure compensation was used.
If you are not shooting RAW and using the manipulation possibilities it offers (like several stops of exposure correction), this discussion is quite useless.
-
I'm not reluctant to believe that you took some "poor exposures" using AE.
All that's of interest is understanding what led to those "poor exposures".
I can honestly say that all the under exposed files from that day have been deleted. I will look to see if I have kept any from elsewhere.
-
I believed you the first time. Are AE "poor exposures" so unlikely that you won't be able to make some more tomorrow?
That depends on whether I get my tax return done which I was meant to be doing today! But If time allows over the weekend I might try it again to see if I can establish a pattern between shutter/aperture priority etc.
-
I'm not Justinr but I do have some example photos. They're not AE photos because I gave up on the concept many years ago (but then I've only been doing this for 45 years)
From experience I'm pretty sure AE (the camera's suggested exposure) would have clipped highlights:
(http://www.wildlightphoto.com/mammals/mustelidae/nrotte15.jpg)
(http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/trochilidae/calypte/anhumm26.jpg)
(http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/ardeidae/bubulcus/caegre04.jpg)
I know which highlights I wanted to keep from clipping; the camera didn't
(http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/anatidae/oxyura/ruduck03.jpg)
whether the bird is against a light background or a dark background the exposure I care about is on the bird;
why would I want to diddle with an exposure compensation dial to fix the camera's exposure error when I know what exposure I want and I don't have to diddle at all?
(http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/trochilidae/calypte/anhumm07.jpg)
(http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/trochilidae/calypte/anhumm22.jpg)
These sorts of exposure scenarios happen so often that it's much simpler to set exposure manually than it is to think "is this where I should compensate or switch to manual, or can I let AE do its thing?".
-
I'm not Justinr but I do have some example photos. They're not AE photos because I gave up on the concept many years ago (but then I've only been doing this for 45 years)
From experience I'm pretty sure AE (the camera's suggested exposure) would have clipped highlights:
(http://www.wildlightphoto.com/mammals/mustelidae/nrotte15.jpg)
(http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/trochilidae/calypte/anhumm26.jpg)
(http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/ardeidae/bubulcus/caegre04.jpg)
I know which highlights I wanted to keep from clipping; the camera didn't
(http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/anatidae/oxyura/ruduck03.jpg)
whether the bird is against a light background or a dark background the exposure I care about is on the bird;
why would I want to diddle with an exposure compensation dial to fix the camera's exposure error when I know what exposure I want and I don't have to diddle at all?
(http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/trochilidae/calypte/anhumm07.jpg)
(http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/trochilidae/calypte/anhumm22.jpg)
These sorts of exposure scenarios happen so often that it's much simpler to set exposure manually than it is to think "is this where I should compensate or switch to manual, or can I let AE do its thing?".
Well I wish you were Justinr then I could lay claim to those shots! :)
-
These sorts of exposure scenarios happen so often that it's much simpler to set exposure manually than it is to think "is this where I should compensate or switch to manual, or can I let AE do its thing?".
As I said -- full-time live view plus raw means that most-of-the-time all I need to do for my "correct" exposure is check the live view histogram -- so I use Manual (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=103293.msg847494#msg847494).
However, that leaves me unpractised in the AE adjustments my camera provides; and when the light in-the-frame is changing rapidly I've wished I could off-load exposure-time or ISO adjustments to the camera -- so I can pay attention to what's happening.
(As-it-happens my camera doesn't allow me to set a reduced range of exposure-time / aperture / ISO; and that's really what I'd like, because I'm going to be able to do a lot with the raw file -- as-long-as the exposure is fast-enough and the ISO is low-enough -- but the camera doesn't know what I'm going to do with the raw.)
-
Rob, welcome back!
Cheers,
-
Justin,
I found a solutions for you: (http://ww.lu.mu)
-
why would I want to diddle with an exposure compensation dial to fix the camera's exposure error when I know what exposure I want and I don't have to diddle at all?
These sorts of exposure scenarios happen so often that it's much simpler to set exposure manually than it is to think "is this where I should compensate or switch to manual, or can I let AE do its thing?".
Yup. Manual is usually much easier than AE. Set correct exposure and....well that's it.
Nice pics BTW.
-
Yup. Manual is usually much easier than AE. Set correct exposure and....well that's it.
Nice pics BTW.
That was why I suggested using a hand meter: once you know the correct exposure for the highlight, you got it all as with trannies.
Naturally, that assumes the direction of the light remains pretty much the same for the shots you are about to make, as it was for the reading.
Either way, Matrix or hand meter, you gotta use your brain, at least a bit.
Rob C
-
I use manual exposure for concert lighting, which is anything but static.
Get the base exposure correct and you capture the lighting as it was intended.
-
Let's see if I understand this correctly. We can't trust the camera's auto exposure ability. I have heard it is "USELESS". So we'll shoot manually. That's the solution!!! But how do we know if our manual exposure is correct while we're shooting?
Oh wait, of course, I've got it! We'll check the histogram to be sure our manual exposure is correct. I guess it must be OK to trust the camera's determination of what the histogram should look like. Right?? Or maybe the camera's histogram can't be trusted as we've seen discussed here many times before ("We want a RAW histogram, not some crummy jpg rendered histogram that isn't accurate!!").
Hmmm. OK, NOW I've got it! We'll review the captured manually exposed image on the camera's LCD to be sure the exposure is correct. It must be OK to trust the camera's jpg rendering on that little 3" screen. Right?? or maybe we can't trust either the camera's jpg conversion from the RAW data or the LCD's ability to faithfully show the camera's converted jpg on the LCD !!
After all, if we can't trust the camera's auto exposure capability to generate a file we can use, why should we trust anything else that the camera does that might help us get to an exposure that we decide is correct?
Further variations on this theme:
Why trust the incident meter because......
Why trust either the camera's or my hand held spot meter because......
Why trust that my monitor's rendering of the image file because........
Brad
-
I don't think you really understand what auto or manual exposure means.
-
I don't think you really understand what auto or manual exposure means.
I can't wait to be enlightened (pardon the pun) ;)
-
There I was standing in the middle of field covering a major classic tractor event for a couple of magazines. It was an overcast day that threatened rain although it was the middle of summer and yet, despite the multitude of settings I tried to obtain a reasonable exposure, nothing seemed to be working. I turned to a fellow writer who I know is also very fussy about his cameras and images, he too was struggling while a third colleague also confessed that only a fraction of his pictures were useable due to poor exposure. Thinking about it afterwards I decided to try manual and rely on the good old histogram and since that happy moment around 90% of my pictures are now 'keepers' (how I hate that word!). Using flash is going to be a problem as I can't see anyway of selecting an intensity setting on my flash head and adjusting aperture or ISO to achieve the desired result, but for all other purposes taking a few test shots to get the right exposure seems to work just fine. Just for the record I was using a Nikon and the others Canon and to further rub salt into the wound many people were getting better exposures on their smart phones!
I've attached a few taken using manual exposure.
The fallacy is that there is some magic "CORRECT" exposure. There is not. What you want is some rendering of the subject you prefer, but the camera doesn't know that.
I'm not saying that auto exposure will yield "EXPECTED" results under all conditions, but you can get closer to that goal. First, you have to calibrate the camera. Shoot known exposures and make the appropriate adjustment. Now you must dial in the adjustment with all shooting. Second, you need to pick the appropriate metering mode (Matrix, Center Weighted, or Spot) depending on conditions. Also, in changing light conditions (moving subject and/or moving camera) then it takes some time for the camera to calculate and set the camera.
-
Let's see if I understand this correctly. We can't trust the camera's auto exposure ability. I have heard it is "USELESS". So we'll shoot manually. That's the solution!!! But how do we know if our manual exposure is correct while we're shooting?
Oh wait, of course, I've got it! We'll check the histogram to be sure our manual exposure is correct. I guess it must be OK to trust the camera's determination of what the histogram should look like. Right?? Or maybe the camera's histogram can't be trusted as we've seen discussed here many times before ("We want a RAW histogram, not some crummy jpg rendered histogram that isn't accurate!!").
Hmmm. OK, NOW I've got it! We'll review the captured manually exposed image on the camera's LCD to be sure the exposure is correct. It must be OK to trust the camera's jpg rendering on that little 3" screen. Right?? or maybe we can't trust either the camera's jpg conversion from the RAW data or the LCD's ability to faithfully show the camera's converted jpg on the LCD !!
After all, if we can't trust the camera's auto exposure capability to generate a file we can use, why should we trust anything else that the camera does that might help us get to an exposure that we decide is correct?
Further variations on this theme:
Why trust the incident meter because......
Why trust either the camera's or my hand held spot meter because......
Why trust that my monitor's rendering of the image file because........
Brad
+1 !!!!
Basically what the AE does is that instead of you adjusting the exposure according to the reading the light meter in the camera (or hand-held meter) provides, the camera transfers the values automatically. So if you are using the camera's meter to adjust manual exposure, you are just complicated things unnecessarily.
So basically OP is saying his camera's light meter is not working properly.
For a true manual exposure you have to just shoot manual, and then check the exposures on your monitor or print them, then adjust accordingly. Trusting the histogram is not "pure manual exposure" just like Brad explained above. For me this is too slow, can not travel to the office between every exposure, and the auto exposure gives good enough result or even perfect result actually (+-1 EV tweaking latitude) 98% of the time, given the huge latitude modern cameras provide.
Just yesterday a colleague of mine showed a studio portrait which was underexposed 5 stops. The picture looked totally black unadjusted. With LR sliders it was possible to tweak the photo to be perfectly useable, nobody would notice anything unless pixel peeping. Camera was Nikon D4. So unless overexposing more than 1 stop just about anything AE provides is perfectly fine.
-
+1 !!!!
1. Basically what the AE does is that instead of you adjusting the exposure according to the reading the light meter in the camera (or hand-held meter) provides, the camera transfers the values automatically. So if you are using the camera's meter to adjust manual exposure, you are just complicated things unnecessarily.
So basically OP is saying his camera's light meter is not working properly.
For a true manual exposure you have to just shoot manual, and then check the exposures on your monitor or print them, then adjust accordingly. Trusting the histogram is not "pure manual exposure" just like Brad explained above. For me this is too slow, can not travel to the office between every exposure, and the auto exposure gives good enough result or even perfect result actually (+-1 EV tweaking latitude) 98% of the time, given the huge latitude modern cameras provide.
Just yesterday a colleague of mine showed a studio portrait which was underexposed 5 stops. The picture looked totally black unadjusted. With LR sliders it was possible to tweak the photo to be perfectly useable, nobody would notice anything unless pixel peeping. Camera was Nikon D4. So unless overexposing more than 1 stop just about anything AE provides is perfectly fine.
1. You have to use a hand incident light reading method, because using a hand meter for reflected light reading takes you to the same situation as using the camera's meter, the latter probably even les accurate.
Rob C
-
..., because using a hand meter for reflected light reading takes you to the same situation as using the camera's meter...
Unless you are using it in the spot mode and know where to point it.
-
Unless you are using it in the spot mode and know where to point it.
AFAIK, built-in camera ones don't go narrow enough; should be 1° for worthwhile control, but maybe things have moved on...
-
AFAIK, built-in camera ones don't go narrow enough; should be 1° for worthwhile control, but maybe things have moved on...
Both you and I are talking about hand-held meters.
-
AFAIK, built-in camera ones don't go narrow enough; should be 1° for worthwhile control, but maybe things have moved on...
Incident or spot not really the issue. The problem is expecting their to be a "TRUE" reading. Move that spot meter around and you get different readings. Which is "CORRECT". Incident solves this to some extent by taking the reflectance difference of surfaces out of the equation, but try in dappled light!
The point of auto exposure is efficiency in changing conditions and automatically setting the camera to the metered settings. Still doesn't change the fact that it is 1) metering the correct thing, 2) the meter itself is accurate, 3) the camera response to the meter is in sync, or 4) that even if those things all worked out correctly, that the set exposure will be the one you like best. Which is another reason that Exposure Bracketing exists as a feature on most cameras.
No light meter in the world can know your mind. You can help it along with a little preference compensation, but all you do is get close. The extended DR of newer cameras is certainly helpful, but if post processing of RAW is involved, then you might want a totally different exposure for the file versus the finished image.
-
No light meter in the world can know your mind. You can help it along with a little preference compensation, but all you do is get close. The extended DR of newer cameras is certainly helpful, but if post processing of RAW is involved, then you might want a totally different exposure for the file versus the finished image.
Which, if I'm not mistaken, is part of the point of the Zone System. All meters try to get Zone V (i.e. middle gray), and if I use think most of the scene is actually in Zone IV, just add a stop of compensation. The meter didn't "lie", it did what it was supposed to. It's just your job as the photographer to figure out how to interpret the results.
-
... Move that spot meter around and you get different readings. Which is "CORRECT". [?]...
Every one of them.
-
"Why is auto exposure so USELESS?"
Such blatant hyperbole is a common trick with those who enjoy trolling.
I am surprised it succeeded in catching so many fish in this forum.
-
As this topic has aged, I've typed up a follow-up response a few times and then not posted it. I'm convinced that when people make these types of declarations; Why is auto exposure so useless?, they're not really interested in a discussion. They don't want others to disagree with their post. They only want a bunch of followers to say how brilliant they are and how much they agree. I think they're disappointed when an actual discussion takes place.
-
Incident or spot not really the issue. The problem is expecting their to be a "TRUE" reading. Move that spot meter around and you get different readings. Which is "CORRECT". Incident solves this to some extent by taking the reflectance difference of surfaces out of the equation, but try in dappled light!
That's not the way to use a spot meter nor any other reflecting light meter. You should point it specifically at a mid-grey, which can be any colour, as long as it's a mid-tone. The difficulty isn't for the meter, the difficulty is for the photographer to know what a mid-tone really looks like, which is why they sell grey cards.
In my own battles with reflected light metering, I used to measure the darkest area I had to have with detail, and expose for that, which would sound like over-exposure, but I always cut development vis-â-vis the maker's recommendations. You got flatter negs with a longer range.
I wouldn't use that technique for digital: I'd use incident readings, in which case I'd take the reading from the subject position pointing the meter at the camera. That would expose so that it didn't blow the max. white. In other words, trannies and digital work much the same way: respect the highlights.
All the above, with digital, doesn't make a lot of sense if you can work your Matrix meter. The point of introducing the idea of an incident light hand-meter into this thread was to enable the snapper to set his camera (digital) at a single, given combination for all of his shots, just as long as the subject always got the same lighting on it. That way, he could point the camera up or down or however, ignore the message of panic signalled inside the viewfinder, and just keep shooting, because the subject would be exposed properly, and only the sky might get blown, which wouldn't much matter.
Rob
-
As this topic has aged, I've typed up a follow-up response a few times and then not posted it. I'm convinced that when people make these types of declarations; Why is auto exposure so useless?, they're not really interested in a discussion. They don't want others to disagree with their post. They only want a bunch of followers to say how brilliant they are and how much they agree. I think they're disappointed when an actual discussion takes place.
But fortunately, regardless of the OP intentions, which I guess remain private to him, discussing these things can make folks take a deeper look at the why of some technique... not all bad, in the end.
Actually, it's quite interesting to have to reconsider the things one used to take for granted and do without a second thought in a previous life. That's one drawback of digital: it removes curiosity and understanding because so much works by itself, without our really thinking why...
;-)
Rob
-
That's not the way to use a spot meter nor any other reflecting light meter. You should point it specifically at a mid-grey, which can be any colour, as long as it's a mid-tone. The difficulty isn't for the meter, the difficulty is for the photographer to know what a mid-tone really looks like, which is why they sell grey cards.
Which is very simple really, not sure why other people think metering or manual exposure is so difficult. I used to point camera at my palm which I always had with me unlike a grey card, add 2/3rds of a stop and slides would come out spot on.
You can also learn to calculate the exposure by eye.
-
Some thoughts
All metering techniques and devices have their shortcomings. A couple of examples:
- Hand held meters do not take in consideration lens transmission (T numbers) and the effect of magnification at close ranges / macro
- Incident metering is not always an option since you might not get access to where you are pointing your camera and the lighting conditions may be different than those where you are (think about inside a theatre)
Nothing difficult with metering or manual exposure, the only issue is that it might be slow for action, news
You can actually use a spot meter to point at different areas of the scene to understand the actual dynamic range and see if it will be possible to capture it with your camera.
Add flash / fill flash and it gets a little bit more complicated
What it lighting changes during actual exposure? Even more difficult
Auto is not that bad actually, if you understand under what conditions it works or fails (in my modest experience)
Bracketing is here to stay
"He would point it (exposure meter) in several directions, take a reading from each, and fiddle with the dial with a thoughtful expression. "It says one-quarter second at f/32, I'll give one second"
Ansel Adams, The negative, about how Edward Weston determined exposure
-
Let's see if I understand this correctly. We can't trust the camera's auto exposure ability. I have heard it is "USELESS". So we'll shoot manually. That's the solution!!! But how do we know if our manual exposure is correct while we're shooting?
Oh wait, of course, I've got it! We'll check the histogram to be sure our manual exposure is correct. I guess it must be OK to trust the camera's determination of what the histogram should look like. Right?? Or maybe the camera's histogram can't be trusted as we've seen discussed here many times before ("We want a RAW histogram, not some crummy jpg rendered histogram that isn't accurate!!").
Hmmm. OK, NOW I've got it! We'll review the captured manually exposed image on the camera's LCD to be sure the exposure is correct. It must be OK to trust the camera's jpg rendering on that little 3" screen. Right?? or maybe we can't trust either the camera's jpg conversion from the RAW data or the LCD's ability to faithfully show the camera's converted jpg on the LCD !!
After all, if we can't trust the camera's auto exposure capability to generate a file we can use, why should we trust anything else that the camera does that might help us get to an exposure that we decide is correct?
Further variations on this theme:
Why trust the incident meter because......
Why trust either the camera's or my hand held spot meter because......
Why trust that my monitor's rendering of the image file because........
Brad
One tiny point, A histogram is a representation of what has been recorded, it is still the operator making the decision as to whether the exposure is acceptable, not an algorithm that references 30,000 representative images and cooks up the camera settings based on what a programmer thinks ideal from his Asian office.
Fom my point of view, trying to take multiple shots in a rapidly changing environments, AE has no use.
-
Justin,
I found a solutions for you: (http://ww.lu.mu)
Alas, I have no iphone. But listening to my families constant grumbles about lousy battery life and poor reception on their various smartphones perhaps that should be a 'hooray' as my ancient old mobile will go a week without recharging and I don't have to stand on the loo with my head out of the window to hear callers.
-
I believed you the first time. Are AE "poor exposures" so unlikely that you won't be able to make some more tomorrow?
Well I was out on another job today and I could have spent time trying various exposure modes etc but to be honest neither I nor the farmer were prepared to spend all day at it. Out of the 116 shots I took only four were too far out of the acceptable range, ie, I wouldn't be able to recover them successfully, and two of those were sighting shots that I didn't delete in the field. All done manually with varying levels of light as the sun played peek a boo between the clouds.
Does anyone get a 98% success rate with AE?
The attached is just about spot on for this job although I'll need to freshen it up and get rid of the telephone line before sending off.
-
Does anyone get a 98% success rate with AE?
It depends what you call "success", but here's some data from participating in a FotoJam in Antwerp last Sunday. Shooting conditions were varied, harsh sunshine, shadow scenes, inside a tunnel, the station and various churches. Light was all over the place.
I took about 250 shots with two cameras and exclusively used AE (matrix metering mode). I did frequently use the + and - EV option based on the situation I was faced with (backlight/frontlight/contrast).
Of the 250 shots I left 167 shots in my Lightroom library for the moment, the deletes were never because of exposure failure, but mainly doubles, undesirable composition, missed focus.
Of these 167:
- 9 shots required +/- 0.2 EV in the raw converter
- 8 shots required between 0.3 and 0.5 EV in the raw converter (positive and negative)
- 2 shots required between 0.6 and 1.0 EV in the raw converter (positive and negative)
- 3 shots required + 1.2 EV in the raw converter (because I left my -EV compensation at -0.7 in the camera by mistake while they actually needed +0.3, it was the end of the day and I was tired)
All other shots do not need any EV correction in the raw converter
All shots are easily tune-able to a desired end-state in my raw converter, didn't spend more than 2-3 minutes per picture on average.
All-in-all I'm happy how the camera's AE system performed during the day.
-
Until you show some example of the AE failures you claim happened, there's not a lot more to be said.
Quite so, so lets not say anything. I got the shots I wanted, manually, with two different cameras and with no time spent fapping about with AE modes or endlessly arguing over the finer points of camera workings. I now have the article to write based on the conversation I was holding with the owner while shooting it.
Pegelli got his shots with AE and so he's happy, as am I, so that's two happy bunnies! Why spoil it?
-
Pegelli got his shots with AE and so he's happy, as am I, so that's two happy bunnies! Why spoil it?
Maybe rename the thread to "why I don't like AE?" and then indeed just lock it, no point in stringing it out further.
-
If you have no intention of showing some example of the AE failures you claim happened, you might as well lock the thread, because some of the criticism voiced in this thread starts to seem more valid.
No, I won't be locking the thread because I am more than happy for folk to have their say whether it be in my favour or not, it's a sort of free world and I would only encourage it to remain so.
As an old hand of fora I know damn well that characters will get on their high horses to spout off about the subject mainly in an effort to demonstrate some sort of superiority and I really haven't the time, energy or patience for that sort of malarky nowadays.
The situation is that I find AE unsatisfactory in the field and I know that other professional users do to. Lads on here can shout and stomp and sneer as much as they like while using every device to demonstrate that we are all idiots and know nuffink, but may I point out that those who actually get commissioned for this sort of work do so because they produce decent images, three of us met in the field last month and were somewhat relieved to find that we all share the same opinion of AE.
But carry on anyway.
-
The situation is that I find AE unsatisfactory in the field and I know that other professional users do to. Lads on here can shout and stomp and sneer as much as they like while using every device to demonstrate that we are all idiots and know nuffink, but may I point out that those who actually get commissioned for this sort of work do so because they produce decent images, three of us met in the field last month and were somewhat relieved to find that we all share the same opinion of AE.
And this is not being shouted from a high horse? ???
-
And this is not being shouted from a high horse? ???
Sorry for taking your toy away.
What's a Fotojam BTW?
-
Sorry for taking your toy away.
You didn't, I never throw my my toys out of the pram ;) (nor claim superiority based on getting paid or any other reason like you do)
What's a Fotojam BTW?
Google is your friend (and so am I, you just need mature a little more to realize it) FotoJam (http://fotojam.nl/)
-
You didn't, I never throw my my toys out of the pram ;) (nor claim superiority based on getting paid or any other reason like you do) Google is your friend (and so am I, you just need mature a little more to realize it) FotoJam (http://fotojam.nl/)
What's your problem, do you want to share it with us?
-
This real topic to be discussed is "For which shooting situations and under what lighting conditions is it advantageous to use AE versus Manual and how to get the most predictable results from AE?"
Metering your palm is fine if it is in the same light as your subject. Otherwise it is detrimental.
You always have to calibrate the meter you are using. Otherwise it will be consistently wrong.
My AE is 100% accurate...that is 100% of the time it sets the same expsosure in the camera that it reads when it metered! Doh!
Oh, with film we were attempting to get the best exposure because the limited DR for film, especially slide film. With Digital now it isn't quite that limited. My D810 allows not only more forgiveness, but more flexibility. Now we are trying to maximize quality and minimize post processing.
Finally, a histogram is usually a converted representation based on a specific conversion profile. I have found custom calibration profiles to require significantly less exposure adjustment in post.
-
Just came across this thread. I don't remember having an image unrecoverably screwed because of exposure issues for many many years.
There are some lighting conditions, typically in extreme WB cases, where it is good practise to dial in a -0.7 on the D810. Not doing it isn't a major issue in most cases but doing it results in a better file which may matter since those are often low light images where DR is reduced due to higher ISO being used.
Anyway, I still always check the histogram in flat mode but it is very very rare I have to reshoot.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
What's your problem, do you want to share it with us?
No problem on my side, nothing to share.
And we can read about your "problems" on your website, so no need to repeat them here either ;)
-
Just came across this thread. I don't remember having an image unrecoverably screwed because of exposure issues for many many years.
There are some lighting conditions, typically in extreme WB cases, where it is good practise to dial in a -0.7 on the D810. Not doing it isn't a major issue in most cases but doing it results in a better file which may matter since those are often low light images where DR is reduced due to higher ISO being used.
Anyway, I still always check the histogram in flat mode but it is very very rare I have to reshoot.
Cheers,
Bernard
With time and dedication a lot of images can be recovered, but what is of concern is that these things take time and patience and that is not always available. I have found that it's better to ignore AE and its various adjustments and just go with the histogram as a guide to exposure, but that is outrageously shameful conduct it appears.
-
No problem on my side, nothing to share.
And we can read about your "problems" on your website, so no need to repeat them here either ;)
Ah, so you've visited my website, jolly good, the more visitors the better. Not sure about the problems though, would you care to explain?
-
I have found that it's better to ignore AE and its various adjustments and just go with the histogram as a guide to exposure, but that is outrageously shameful conduct it appears.
No, not shameful, but it assumes that the profile set in the camera is what you want. A RAW histogram would almost never be what you wanted for the output and any converted histogram (what cameras provide) is based on the set profile.
The question is are we looking for the best we can get out of camera or are we discussing the best exposure for a RAW or JPEG/TIFF for post processing file? They are 2 different things.
-
The question is are we looking for the best we can get out of camera or are we discussing the best exposure for a RAW or JPEG/TIFF for post processing file? They are 2 different things.
What? This is LuLa, so we should only discuss RAW!!
On a serious note, the distinction is important, but I would suggest to use raw only if you plan to post process.
-
I used to point camera at my palm which I always had with me unlike a grey card
That is a handy trick that has served me well for many years. Is that technique even taught these days?
-
On a serious note, the distinction is important, but I would suggest to use raw only if you plan to post process.
Impossible to do otherwise for the RAW data must be converted to be useful.
I am assuming the original poster is looking for "Out of the Camera" results as it makes no sense to get too excited about absolute exposure with a raw file. Sure, we all want to do as little work as possible, but with a RAW file there will be multiple "Good" exposures depending on your needs. But an 8bit JPEG has a lot less range to it and makes proper exposure more critical so the highlights don't get blown.
-
Impossible to do otherwise for the RAW data must be converted to be useful.
I am assuming the original poster is looking for "Out of the Camera" results as it makes no sense to get too excited about absolute exposure with a raw file. Sure, we all want to do as little work as possible, but with a RAW file there will be multiple "Good" exposures depending on your needs. But an 8bit JPEG has a lot less range to it and makes proper exposure more critical so the highlights don't get blown.
Well of course I want quality 'out of the camera results' from a top end DSLR, that's why I bought it. Are you suggesting that one should not expect decent well exposed images from a flagship camera? I really haven't the time to be messing about with RAW, the job just doesn't pay enough for that to be honest.
Now if I may also refer back to the original post I might mention that I met up with another photographer today who does editorial work, in fact he is now an editor himself, and he too said that AE on DSLRs is "brutal" and a "waste of time". Like the rest of us he simply doesn't bother with it and does it all manually nowadays. He noted as well that he's actually bought a point and shoot for non commercial work as that gives him a far more reliable exposure.
So that's four of us poor lost souls, we really are in a terrible state.
Anyway, here's a pretty picture to take our minds off such vexations.
-
There I was standing in the middle of field covering a major classic tractor event for a couple of magazines. It was an overcast day that threatened rain although it was the middle of summer and yet, despite the multitude of settings I tried to obtain a reasonable exposure, nothing seemed to be working. I turned to a fellow writer who I know is also very fussy about his cameras and images, he too was struggling while a third colleague also confessed that only a fraction of his pictures were useable due to poor exposure. Thinking about it afterwards I decided to try manual and rely on the good old histogram and since that happy moment around 90% of my pictures are now 'keepers' (how I hate that word!). Using flash is going to be a problem as I can't see anyway of selecting an intensity setting on my flash head and adjusting aperture or ISO to achieve the desired result, but for all other purposes taking a few test shots to get the right exposure seems to work just fine. Just for the record I was using a Nikon and the others Canon and to further rub salt into the wound many people were getting better exposures on their smart phones!
I've attached a few taken using manual exposure.
Sorry Justinr, but this is a no-brainer... There is nothing "wrong" with auto exposure that can't be corrected in the same way you "corrected" the exposure using manual and the histogram. Auto exposure does not mean correct exposure anymore than manual exposure does. Auto (not Program) simply means you only need to change either shutter speed or aperture, not both, whereas with manual, you are free to change both or either.
Auto is not some magic bullet; nor is manual - both require thought by the photographer for exposures to be correct. With auto, you put the thought into exposure compensation based on your histogram. In manual, you do the same thing, just directly with the shutter speed or aperture.
-
Sorry Justinr, but this is a no-brainer... There is nothing "wrong" with auto exposure that can't be corrected in the same way you "corrected" the exposure using manual and the histogram. Auto exposure does not mean correct exposure anymore than manual exposure does. Auto (not Program) simply means you only need to change either shutter speed or aperture, not both, whereas with manual, you are free to change both or either.
Auto is not some magic bullet; nor is manual - both require thought by the photographer for exposures to be correct. With auto, you put the thought into exposure compensation based on your histogram. In manual, you do the same thing, just directly with the shutter speed or aperture.
Err no, but I've got a days work ahead so we'll argue the toss some other time.
-
Well of course I want quality 'out of the camera results' from a top end DSLR, that's why I bought it. Are you suggesting that one should not expect decent well exposed images from a flagship camera? I really haven't the time to be messing about with RAW, the job just doesn't pay enough for that to be honest.
There are times for Auto and times for Manual. Key is to know when and how to use each. Also, there are mutiple metering modes and one must pick the appropriate mode. You will get a different exposure with each one!
Every Nikon has about 7 profiles that determine how the image is rendered. They all revolve around a consistent exposure, but they will give totally different results. That is another factor that affects the out of camera experience. No profile is usually correct for all images, though a custom calibration would be most usable if you have one made.
-
Metering your palm is fine if it is in the same light as your subject. Otherwise it is detrimental.
Why would you even think to do otherwise?
-
Well of course I want quality 'out of the camera results' from a top end DSLR, that's why I bought it. Are you suggesting that one should not expect decent well exposed images from a flagship camera? I really haven't the time to be messing about with RAW, the job just doesn't pay enough for that to be honest.
If you think shooting raw takes up more time, then you obviously do not know how to use modern software. I find jpeg slower if anything, because it's much harder to fix difficult shots. Mixed colour balance or high dynamic range images for example, which are common problems.
-
You don't know how to use AE!
Yes I do!
No you don't!
Yes I do!
No you don't!
Yes I do! (http://www.montypython.net/scripts/argument.php)
Lads lads lads.
A small incident in the press tent made me laugh yesterday when I was talking to a fellow, the details needn't bother us here but his cameras were firmly set to manual.
-
If you think shooting raw takes up more time, then you obviously do not know how to use modern software. I find jpeg slower if anything, because it's much harder to fix difficult shots. Mixed colour balance or high dynamic range images for example, which are common problems.
Horses for courses. If I shoot "reportage" type of things, think quick things to throw up on Facebook or Instagram for my employer, JPEG is just fine and has a fairly quick turnaround time. If I am doing any kind of editing or difficult situations, then I would tend towards RAW.
That said, anything I shoot for myself is almost exclusively RAW.
But, shooting RAW doesn't make up for understanding how your exposure system functions, to understand when to trust or when to override it.
-
Horses for courses. If I shoot "reportage" type of things, think quick things to throw up on Facebook or Instagram for my employer, JPEG is just fine and has a fairly quick turnaround time. If I am doing any kind of editing or difficult situations, then I would tend towards RAW.
That said, anything I shoot for myself is almost exclusively RAW.
But, shooting RAW doesn't make up for understanding how your exposure system functions, to understand when to trust or when to override it.
That's easy, just don't trust it at all, you know where you stand then.
BTW, isn't one of the major points of AE not needing to understand exposure? There was a time when being to set exposure without even looking at a meter was considered the mark of a proper photographer, and now you ain't even a crap snapper unless you can turn the AE on!
-
If you think shooting raw takes up more time, then you obviously do not know how to use modern software. I find jpeg slower if anything, because it's much harder to fix difficult shots. Mixed colour balance or high dynamic range images for example, which are common problems.
You are indeed a tremendously clever chap and the the lollipop will be with you shortly.
-
Ah! That does explain all your posts on this topic.
No Issac, It means that I have fed up with the self aggrandizing buffoonery of those who would go round trying to be clever and delight in trying to put others down.
-
No Issac, It means that I have fed up with the self aggrandizing buffoonery of those who would go round trying to be clever and delight in trying to put others down.
Those who answer your "Why is auto exposure so useless?" with a straightforward -- "It isn't" -- and those who actually have the temerity to try to understand and help with whatever difficulty it is you have been complaining about so loudly?
I started-off with curiosity about the situation you apparently experienced (and as someone who uses MF all the time, some sympathy) but now afaict Colorado David was correct (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=103293.msg850066#msg850066).
-
Those who answer your "Why is auto exposure so useless?" with a straightforward -- "It isn't" -- and those who actually have the temerity to try to understand and help with whatever difficulty it is you have been complaining about so loudly?
I started-off with curiosity about the situation you apparently experienced (and as someone who uses MF all the time, some sympathy) but now afaict Colorado David was correct (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=103293.msg850066#msg850066).
Well it certainly didn't appear that way, perhaps you need to work on your style, perhaps I do, but anyway, the constant allusion to me not knowing what I'm doing or I am somehow ignorant of the very basic facts of photography begins to really annoy after a while. If you want to see whether I might have just the teeniest weeniest idea about what I'm doing my website is shown below, I take it you have a gallery of work somewhere we can view?
-
For those of you with a tinfoil hat to hand I've just had this mad idea about the camera manufacturers fixing their software so that the cameras won't work as well with third party lenses. I know that such an idea as big multinational corporations cheating in such way is utterly ridiculous, as the chap down at the VW garage was saying just a week or so ago, but......
Just a thought.
-
I feel like you expect a perfectly exposed picture when you have a scene with too many stops between highlights and shadows. The issue here is not in auto exposure, but in the limitations of the sensor.
-
The real issue is a closed mind. :(
-
I feel like you expect a perfectly exposed picture when you have a scene with too many stops between highlights and shadows. The issue here is not in auto exposure, but in the limitations of the sensor.
No. I just what consistently exposed images, not half of them over or under done to the extent that they are not recoverable, as do several of my colleagues.
It can be done with point and shoot, so why not dSLR's?
-
The real issue is a closed mind. :(
Indeed, and wouldn't it be fantastic if folk were actually brave enough to consider the fact that cameras may not be quite so incredibly faultless we are constantly told!
-
Indeed, and wouldn't it be fantastic if folk were actually brave enough to consider the fact that cameras may not be quite so incredibly faultless we are constantly told!
I think Stamper is right, nobody here ever claimed AE to be faultless.
-
I think Stamper is right, nobody here ever claimed AE to be faultless.
Oh I see. But what's that got to do with closed minds?
-
It can be done with point and shoot, so why not dSLR's?
I don't know which kind of magic point and shoot you have that takes perfect exposures every single time.
There are differences between metering through an external sensor (like in SLR designs) and metering straight from the image sensor (like mirrorless, p&s, phones, etc). The latter can give you more consistent results because you can pass the whole image through your software and pick the best settings, while using a 1000 or 2000 color pixel sensor isn't exactly the same thing. But there are limitations even to that, like pointing your phone at a beautiful sunset with mountains in shade and end up with a blown out sky and silhouetted mountains because it has less dynamic range than a Vidicon tube from the 1960s.
AE has never been and never will be a perfect system. It's good enough for most situations, but it's not the be all end all of exposure. It should be up to the user to know when it can be used effectively and when it doesn't cut it, just like when it's the right time to use a hammer or when a screwdriver is better.
-
I don't know which kind of magic point and shoot you have that takes perfect exposures every single time.
There are differences between metering through an external sensor (like in SLR designs) and metering straight from the image sensor (like mirrorless, p&s, phones, etc). The latter can give you more consistent results because you can pass the whole image through your software and pick the best settings, while using a 1000 or 2000 color pixel sensor isn't exactly the same thing. But there are limitations even to that, like pointing your phone at a beautiful sunset with mountains in shade and end up with a blown out sky and silhouetted mountains because it has less dynamic range than a Vidicon tube from the 1960s.
AE has never been and never will be a perfect system. It's good enough for most situations, but it's not the be all end all of exposure. It should be up to the user to know when it can be used effectively and when it doesn't cut it, just like when it's the right time to use a hammer or when a screwdriver is better.
Sigh!
Which end of the egg should I be sucking first?
At least we can agree that AE is less than perfect.
Can we agree that part of that lack of perfection is inconsistency?
-
At least we can agree that AE is less than perfect.
Yes we can. Not a single post in this long thread disputes that point.
Can we agree that part of that lack of perfection is inconsistency?
No. Many measurement systems can display a high degree of consistency while being imperfect. That said, I suspect the even the best AE systems available today are neither perfect nor consistent. But these flaws do not make them useless.
The usefullness of AE, like any tool, depends on the skill of the user.
-
Yes we can. Not a single post in this long thread disputes that point.
No. Many measurement systems can display a high degree of consistency while being imperfect. That said, I suspect the even the best AE systems available today are neither perfect nor consistent. But these flaws do not make them useless.
The usefullness of AE, like any tool, depends on the skill of the user.
1. If AE is less than perfect then it is giving incorrect results. If the degree of error varies then it is inconsistent and cannot be satisfactorily compensated for without adjustment to each frame. If you are having to adjust each frame, or batch of frames, with exposure compensation then you are, to all intents and purposes, shooting manually anyway.
2. If AE is less than perfect then there is a scale pf imperfection from 99% right (ie acceptable) to 100% wrong. At what point on that scale does the rate of error become so significant as to render it too ineffective to be of practical use? If it is of no use, ie the percentage of frames that are not exposed within an acceptable range becomes too great, then it is 'useless' in that situation.
Now I don't know what sort of photography you do but for my area I have to be quick, and reliability of exposure is critical. I, and several others who do the same sort of editorial work, find that AE is simply not consistent or effective enough to be used and we have all reverted to manual. Is this acceptable on top end cameras? Maybe you think it is, I happen not to, if that makes me a crap photographer in the eyes of those who have time to faff around with with exposure compensation, 101 metering modes or whatever takes their fancy then so be it, some of us have a job to do and simply cut out the middleman. The histogram and screen are our meters and funnily enough we get the results, shameless, unskilled snappers that we are.
-
Does it have images that show autoexposure is useless ?
?
-
?
You started a discussion asking "Why is auto exposure so useless?".
If your website has photographs which are your examples of auto exposure being useless, we should look at your website to see what you mean; otherwise you don't seem to be doing anything more than trying to drive traffic to your website.
-
BTW, isn't one of the major points of AE not needing to understand exposure?
Ah! That does explain all your posts on this topic.
;D That made me laugh out loud.
Nail. Head Hit.
-
I don't know which kind of magic point and shoot you have that takes perfect exposures every single time.
I have to say that GoPros always really impress me with their ability to get a good exposure.
-
Raw files, plus auto exposure and exposure compensation. I'm happy!
Cheers,
-
I have to say that GoPros always really impress me with their ability to get a good exposure.
I've been very impressed as well, their engineers even managed to make smooth exposure adjustments in real time which you often can't spot in a video.
By the way, someone can explain to me why shooting tractors is so much harder than shooting sports?
-
You started a discussion asking "Why is auto exposure so useless?".
If your website has photographs which are your examples of auto exposure being useless, we should look at your website to see what you mean; otherwise you don't seem to be doing anything more than trying to drive traffic to your website.
Isaac.
Just what do you think the purpose of a commercial website is? Do you honestly think that any potential customer gives a flying fig about the usefulness or otherwise of AE?
-
Ah! That does explain all your posts on this topic.
;D That made me laugh out loud.
Nail. Head Hit.
Sigh!
In your desperate attempts at superiority you missed the basic point, but never mind, we all know how clever you are because you keep telling us.
-
Raw files, plus auto exposure and exposure compensation. I'm happy!
Cheers,
Excellent news!
-
I've been very impressed as well, their engineers even managed to make smooth exposure adjustments in real time which you often can't spot in a video.
By the way, someone can explain to me why shooting tractors is so much harder than shooting sports?
Good question, sports shots never seemed to pose the same problems, but I haven't done any with the D3 so it wouldn't really be fair to comment beyond that, other than to remind ourselves that the camera can carry 30,000 reference shots to compare your frame with and so set the exposure, perhaps sports feature more strongly in that collection than machinery?
Here's one that made it as a two page spread for a major vintage magazine over here, all manual exposure, I guess you'll have something shot with AE that's featured somewhere you'd like to show us.
Edit: Correct image now attached.
-
I guess you'll have something shot with AE that's featured somewhere you'd like to show us.
Actually yes. Program mode, matrix metering, -1EV to preserve highlights. It was used as a book cover (http://www.lafeltrinelli.it/libri/melone-marcella/e-pericoloso-sporgersi/9788891058812).
-
Actually yes. Program mode, matrix metering, -1EV to preserve highlights. It was used as a book cover (http://www.lafeltrinelli.it/libri/melone-marcella/e-pericoloso-sporgersi/9788891058812).
Excellent news! Sunsets will no doubt feature in the cameras bank of reference images as well.
-
Here's one that made it as a two page spread for a major vintage magazine over here, all manual exposure, I guess you'll have something shot with AE that's featured somewhere you'd like to show us.
Showing more shots with Manual exposure doesn't prove AE is useless. It can only prove Manual exposure is good as well.
I actually have nothing against Manual exposure and use it sometimes myself, but 95% of my shots is with AE.
Cover of the Dutch Magazine "Prikkels"
Shot in Aperture Priority AE mode.
-
Showing more shots with Manual exposure doesn't prove AE is useless. It can only prove Manual exposure is good as well.
I actually have nothing against Manual exposure and use it sometimes myself, but 95% of my shots is with AE.
Cover of the Dutch Magazine "Prikkels"
Shot in Aperture Priority AE mode.
Of course it doesn't, but it does indicate that I do have some idea of what this photography lark may be all about. There are a few on here who are under the impression that I only started yesterday and base their contempt upon that proposition. If it works for you then fine, but kindly accept it doesn't work for everybody or in all situations.
-
Of course it doesn't, but it does indicate that I do have some idea of what this photography lark may be all about. There are a few on here who are under the impression that I only started yesterday and base their contempt upon that proposition. If it works for you then fine, but kindly accept it doesn't work for everybody or in all situations.
But if it works for others pls. kindly accept it's not useless. It might be useless for you, but that doesn't mean it's true as a general statement.
Btw, did you notice that in the tractor picture you posted the clouds are blown out as well as some of the red channels on the top of the tractor?
-
But if it works for others pls. kindly accept it's not useless. It might be useless for you, but that doesn't mean it's true as a general statement.
Btw, did you notice that in the tractor picture you posted the clouds are blown out as well as some of the red channels on the top of the tractor?
But I have done in a previous post, indeed in the OP I noted the circumstances in which it had no use.
They are not totally blown, there still some texture in the sky, certainly on my screen and the magazine. But the engine and mechanical's are clearly shown and that's what's important. You may have seen a post of mine in the '2 stops under landscape' thread where I clearly state that sometimes you just have accept a white blanket for the sky as much as you would wish for an alternative. This is Ireland after all.
-
This is Ireland after all.
Ireland or not, shooting RAW and exposing for the sky not to blow out, still gives you about 5 stops worth of shadow detail to dig out in the conversion. Even the engine might be there.
OT: used to drive one of those at my godfather's farm in the early sixties, starting when heavy enough to press the clutch down standing on it...
-
Ireland or not, shooting RAW and exposing for the sky not to blow out, still gives you about 5 stops worth of shadow detail to dig out in the conversion. Even the engine might be there.
OT: used to drive one of those at my godfather's farm in the early sixties, starting when heavy enough to press the clutch down standing on it...
If the photograph was about the sky then I would have exposed for the sky, or used a filter, but in this case I didn't want any drama to detract from the machine, not that there was much there on the day, the sky would just have been a darker mix of greys. I used a graduated filter on the one attached in a similar situation but I'm not sure that it does the tractor any favours TBH.
MF have actually reintroduced the 35 into their range for the African market, they'll tell you that it is exactly the same as the older model but dig a little deeper and you'll find that it has a new direct injection head and one or two other updates. But still, it's good to see that simplicity still has its place!
-
I agree the readers of that magazine are probably more interested to check that the right fuel pump is installed and not so much in a blown out (or dramatic) sky.
In your second picture indeed the dark clouds add nothing to the tractor and might even be distracting. Also the grad filter didn't help prevent all blow-outs, the bit of white sky between the exhaust and the cabin still shows a solid 255, 255, 255. Shooting raw and pulling the highlights gently would probably have brought out a bit of white/bright cloud texture.
-
I agree the readers of that magazine are probably more interested to check that the right fuel pump is installed and not so much in a blown out (or dramatic) sky.
In your second picture indeed the dark clouds add nothing to the tractor and might even be distracting. Also the grad filter didn't help prevent all blow-outs, the bit of white sky between the exhaust and the cabin still shows a solid 255, 255, 255. Shooting raw and pulling the highlights gently would probably have brought out a bit of white/bright cloud texture.
The grad filter was there to darken the sky, not the tractor, there are bound to be small areas which escape unless the cab was the same height as the bonnet.
That photo was used by the importers on some of their advertising material and it all looked a bit glum anyway. Throw in violations caused by the printing process and it all becomes rather academic. Does there need to be a reading in every last pixel? If anything the shot is underexposed rather than over exposed, a compromise was reached although no doubt I am the only one that has ever done such a wicked thing in photography.
-
Does there need to be a reading in every last pixel? If anything the shot is underexposed rather than over exposed, a compromise was reached although no doubt I am the only one that has ever done such a wicked thing in photography.
I think that depends on the use. In this picture it's not a problem in my mind, just an observation. However in a landscape shot I usually like it better when I don't have larger areas at 255/255/255 and get as much texture in the clouds as possible. Still some smaller strands of 255/255/255 don't hurt and you certainly need to watch that whole sky/clouds doesn't become too grey since that's even worse compared to a few areas of pure white.
-
I think that depends on the use. In this picture it's not a problem in my mind, just an observation. However in a landscape shot I usually like it better when I don't have larger areas at 255/255/255 and get as much texture in the clouds as possible. Still some smaller strands of 255/255/255 don't hurt and you certainly need to watch that whole sky/clouds doesn't become too grey since that's even worse compared to a few areas of pure white.
Well that's pretty much my position as well, again if you refer to the '2 stops under landscape' thread I think that is what I suggest. Commercial photography is creating an image suitable for its intended use, which might not be the same as one that meets the critical demands of Lula posters, as strange as that may seem.
-
So why are you pushing people to look at your website when that has no relevance to "Why is auto exposure so useless?"
Bogus (http://www.montypython.net/scripts/argument.php) - what you have not done is provide any example photographs showing there were "circumstances in which it had no use".
Because I'm a scheming oligarch bent on world domination.
It's the eating of babies that does it y'know.
-
Why is auto exposure so useless?
Because I'm a scheming oligarch bent on world domination.
It's the eating of babies that does it y'know.
This about sums it up for this thread.
-
Pardon me for reviving this old and contentious thread, but one thing has come to my attention recently that might additionally explain matrix/evaluative metering inconsistencies.
Although it was indeed briefly mentioned in the initial Wikipedia article I referenced to on page 4 (where the main "culprit," was a bank of "30,000 scenes"), I've come across a diagram that explains visually how focusing points might contribute to differences in exposure of the same scene. In other words, matrix/evaluative metering shifts exposure emphasis based on the selected focusing point. The illustration comes from this Canon link. (http://learn.usa.canon.com/resources/photos/articles/photographing_snow/Metering-Zones.shtml)
While I was aware of such a function (one of my Canons had a menu option to link AE point to AF point) and I was using it actively, it only recently dawned on me that it might have contributed to the issues Justin was facing. As much as this function is predicated on the assumption that where you focus is where your main point of interest is, thus the overall exposure should be based on that too, there are situations where this may not be necessarily so. In other words, although the whole scene is the same, two (or more) subsequent exposures may not be, depending on where you focus.
-
Another note about auto exposure is that it's designed like for a film camera. This may be changing now (I'm not following the latest so well), but it has been so for a long time.
When the raw image is converted to a jpeg there's a fixed contrast curve applied and auto exposure is trying to put midtones in the middle of that contrast curve so you get a good looking jpeg. This means that in terms of optimal raw exposure it will under-expose in certain conditions, certainly in low contrast conditions.
-
Nikon Matrix metering takes into consideration color hue and saturation as well. If you have the same subject under the same light, but one is red and the other is blue, you will get different results.
-
There is supposedly 30,000 images in the camera that is referenced when you press the shutter and the camera chooses one of them. What I don't understand is if you have a setting of +1 EV or a setting of -1 EV are there any images that correspond to any of the two settings?
-
There is supposedly 30,000 images in the camera that is referenced when you press the shutter and the camera chooses one of them. What I don't understand is if you have a setting of +1 EV or a setting of -1 EV are there any images that correspond to any of the two settings?
Slight misunderstanding here: there are no 30000 images in the camera to choose from, the multi matrix exposure algorithms were developed by analyzing 30000 sample photographs, then coded on the exposure meter.
If you have exposure compensation set, the camera simply calculates the exposure as usual, then applies the correction as set.
-
Slight misunderstanding here: there are no 30000 images in the camera to choose from, the multi matrix exposure algorithms were developed by analyzing 30000 sample photographs, then coded on the exposure meter.
If you have exposure compensation set, the camera simply calculates the exposure as usual, then applies the correction as set.
The Nikon site indicates that there is 30,000 images on board?
Quote
comparing what is sees against an onboard database of over 30,000 images
unquote
https://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/13774/~/what-is-the-difference-between-spot,-center-weighted-and-matrix-metering%3F
-
There is supposedly 30,000 images in the camera
may be 30,000 datasets from matrix metering sensor, not images from the regular sensor itself.
-
From the same link you posted:
What is the database of over 30,000 images?
Over the years Nikon has studied the color, area of coverage, focus distance, contrast, size and shape of shadows and highlights and exposure characteristics of over 30,000 actual photographic images and incorporated this data as a reference source for the expert exposure system that is the 3D Color Matrix Meter.
It's not a database containing actual images, it contains data extrapolated from those images that can be compared with that the metering sensor sees to find the closest best settings.
-
comparing what is sees against an onboard database of over 30,000 images for unsurpassed exposure accuracy,
unquote
It's not a database containing actual images, it contains data extrapolated from those images that can be compared with that the metering sensor sees to find the closest best settings.
The statement on the Nikon site seems pretty unambiguous to me?
-
(http://i845.photobucket.com/albums/ab14/Andrea_Minganti/nikon-matrix_zpslrmuiqpj.jpg)
-
It looks as if we will have to agree to disagree about this? The bottom line is that the camera consults a database of information that personally I don't trust and prefer center weighted meter
-
It looks as if we will have to agree to disagree about this? The bottom line is that the camera consults a database of information that personally I don't trust and prefer center weighted meter
Not sure what camera(s) you use, but my first question would be do you calibrate each camera when you first get it? That is, do you use a meter you trust or at least an "exposure standard" that you want and then calibrate to either of those. Most of the prior discussions assume the meter is actually accurate to begin with. It has gotten better over the years, but I've had new cameras 1/3 to 1/2 stop off out of the box before.
Everyone has preferences of what exposure is "correct" for a given circumstance. I use all 3 metering modes in my Nikons at different times depending on conditions and also use a Sekonic incident meter. Even then, an accurate exposure may not be the one I want.
Bottom line: Because of the subjectivity and sensor response differences, only when and if one could program in their own preferences would "auto" be more likely to match your expectations.
-
may be 30,000 datasets from matrix metering sensor, not images from the regular sensor itself.
This interpretation is IMHO closest to what's really going on.
Nikon's wording does not leave too much room for interpretation, and the way I read it is that the camera stores 30k of datasets for 1005 R, G, and B sensors (for the purpose of metering, only brightness is taken into account) along with distance information available for [some of] them (availability should depend on focus point coverage), so analyzing this whole database, in terms of processing power needs, should, in worst-case scenario, be similar to analyzing a single 30k * 1,005 == 30Mp image.
This should be doable with some concurrent processing in ASIC, and lots of shortcuts (ruling out some datasets early).
-
Saying that they "incorporated this data as a reference source for the expert exposure system" doesn't even mean there is a an onboard database, it means that the logic in the onboard system has algorithms based on data from those 30k photos which from an engineering standpoint makes a lot more sense than an actual onboard database of images.
I think a big part of modern photography is knowing the kind of conditions that make AE useful and what conditions make it unreliable. There are also a lot of degrees between those to extremes where AE will get you consistently over or underexposed and that is where compensation is handy.
-
Saying that they "incorporated this data as a reference source for the expert exposure system"
This is not what it says.
The link provided above (https://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/13774/~/what-is-the-difference-between-spot,-center-weighted-and-matrix-metering%3F) (official Nikon support's info) has it as
comparing what is sees against an onboard database of over 30,000 images
-
Again this is the wording.
an onboard database of over 30,000 images for unsurpassed exposure accuracy
A poor choice of wording???
-
It is worth noting that whatever it says, it's a translation from Japanese.
-
A poor choice of wording???
Or a marketing blurb.
Frankly... things like this matrix metering are usually done using simple neural networks. Sound complicated, but it isn't. The network would be trained with those 30k images, feeding data to those 1,005 inputs, and "telling" the network what correct exposure for each input set should be. This sets coefficients of network's internal nodes (computational layer(s)). Then, when you feed actual data from those 1,005 sensors, you get best guess at exposure. Implementation of such network itself is trivial.
-
This is not what it says.
The link provided above (https://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/13774/~/what-is-the-difference-between-spot,-center-weighted-and-matrix-metering%3F) (official Nikon support's info) has it as
I was referring to the wording in that screenshot.
I'm a software engineer and while we may never know for sure if they could extrapolate that data from the images into a set of algorithms that may be the best approach from an engineering standpoint. They might have a database of image data in there but I bet if they could figure out how to accomplish the task without it that would be more efficient (which in engineering often means better, especially on small devices).
Another thing I have learned in this business is the marketing department's statements regarding engineering aren't always accurate, but may be (someone's idea of) the best way to present a concept to end users.
-
Frankly you don't seem to know how matrix metering is actually implemented for those cameras.
That's a little harsh, don't you think? He is just giving an example of how the data could be computed. That is all he is doing. Nothing he said contradicts anything else in other posts.
-
Someone off his meds today?
-
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? The difference between including 30,000 images or including the data sets of 30,000 images is beginning to get a little tedious. Maybe I'm just cranky today. Shoot raw, expose the best you can, and do a good job of post.
-
Does Zorki5 seem to know how matrix metering is actually implemented for those cameras?
If you are asking about any level of certainty, then I'm afraid even Canon engineers responsible for similar systems in their cameras may not give you an answer that would satisfy you.
BTW, it's OK to ask any questions, but I'd appreciate it if next time you do it directly.
He is just speculating wildly. That is all he is doing.
That is 50% correct. I am indeed speculating/guessing, but I wouldn't say I'm doing it wildly. I am giving you an educated guess.
I have a US patent in image processing, I designed and implemented entire graphical subsystem for proprietary operating system (sold in early 2000th in the US as PDA FW), designed and implemented graphics formats, compression algorithms, libraries, you name it. Took Grand Prix of an international programming contest in 1993. Chances are you, Isaac, are using map or navigation software, graphics subsystem of which one of my teams helped to develop. Believe me, I can go on and on.
I find the subject of this thread very interesting, if not fascinating, and don't mind diving into tech details a bit. If this sounds like gibberish or out of place here, I apologize, but can't help. And I'd say that, with all my speculations, I am on topic in this thread, and you with your remarks are not.
If you think it's a waste of time, again, I can't blame you, but please note that this is exactly how I feel when someone spends more than 5 minutes on the topic of subtleties of color management.
We could blether on about simulated annealing and genetic algorithms and fuzzy logic to as little effect.
You know what, that's an interesting proposition... ;)
-
Another thing I have learned in this business is the marketing department's statements regarding engineering aren't always accurate, but may be (someone's idea of) the best way to present a concept to end users.
Would agree.
That's what I meant when I said "marketing blurb".
-
Isaac, you can be quite annoying at times, but this time you've outdone yourself :(
-
I look forward to you sharing what you know, rather than speculating about what you don't know.
To be that certain, you must have the image files for the photos that caused Justin to complain. Please show them to us.
And now I guess I'm supposed to ask you whether you know I have those images, or whether you are speculating about whether I have those images, and how hypocritical is that that you accuse me whereas you yourself <blah> <blah> <blah> and then we're supposed to start throwing toys at each other... <sigh>
You know, Isaac, I'm here on this forum for two things: to learn a bit about photography, and to have some fun. And I don't even know what comes first. If you'll ever have something interesting to share, I'm all ears. But as to fun... My definition of fun has changed dramatically since I was 5, so this exchange no longer qualifies.
Cheers.
-
And now I guess I'm supposed to ask you whether you know I have those images…
No, the remark was facetious. Justin long-ago stated that he had deleted the images and was consequently unable to demonstrate what he was complaining about.
And I'd say that, with all my speculations, I am on topic in this thread, and you with your remarks are not.
None of us know what Justin was complaining about, we are all in the dark.