What the reviewers don't view...

Discussion in 'Australia Photography' started by Focus, May 22, 2008.

  1. Focus

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    Hey, if any of you disgruntled Canon users want to dump your gear, send it
    to me! I'd love to see what I could do with it...

    I can't dispute the over-exposed metering, since my A720 does it as well.
    But, I've taken notes, adjusted my approach, and I've gotten some good
    results with it. I'm guessing I could do the same with the more expensive
    models as well...

    Good Luck,
    Dudley Hanks, May 27, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. Focus

    Noons Guest

    Dudley Hanks wrote,on my timestamp of 27/05/2008 12:21 PM:
    make sure the light is hitting the palm
    at same angle as it does your real subject.
    works a treat.
    Noons, May 27, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. Focus

    I love Focus Guest

    How dare you!!! Focus is the top dog in nl.foto!! He's a
    proffesional photographer!! And he has a masters degree in
    I love Focus, May 27, 2008
  4. Focus

    ben brugman Guest

    I said there was 2/3 stop difference. And although said I liked one
    of the pictures better, I did not draw any conclusion on under- or

    So I went into my 'database' of pictures, to see what variation there is in
    correct exposed pictures.
    Last year was on Crete, sunny all the time and I must admit that most
    are pretty close to the sunny 16 rule. (f16 1/100 on 100iso or equivalent).
    (Actually from a stop under the 16 rule up to the 16 rule for most
    (The difference is still more than a stop between fairly similar pictures
    and more
    than 2 stops over all (sunny) pictures).

    But going to were I live in the Nederlands, this doesn't work anymore. Here
    a sunny day there is on average less light, but the variations are far
    So the sunny 16 rule does not work anymore. I get 3 to 4 stops of variation
    depending on a lot of variables on sunny days.
    (And most days are not sunny here, so the rule can not be applied at all on

    So I am happy that my matrix metering takes care of these types of

    And I know that an expercienced fotographer can estimate the amount of light
    because of his experience in similar situations. But this is very limited,
    that's why
    most use the electronics of their camera or a handheld lightmeter.

    My own experience is with slides which were critical and the camera
    that light varies far more than I would estimate. Between noon and not to
    before sunset, we (at least I) normally do not notice that the difference in
    is huge.
    Watching a movie in a theatre, of a dessert, I experience that as a lot of
    light, allthough
    in reality, it is a very weak light compared to the outdoor sunshine, so I
    can be very
    easely fooled, where my matrix meter can not.

    But I do not think that the camera of the OP falls into this category, yes
    there is
    variation, but even with that variation the results are only off by 1/3 of a
    Going to manual results will be more off. (At least they would for the
    I have taken in the past year).

    This is overstated (at least for the camera's I have worked with), although
    metering system is fast I have never experienced fast changing settings with
    shimmering water, normally the matrix matering is very stable.
    Yes you can adjust, but that was not the point of the OP. If the picture is
    taken of something non repeatable, you would like to get the exposure right.
    And far all actions that can not be retaken, I depend on the matrix
    If I have more time, I might revert to spotmetering, or just judging the
    histogram, or I might even use bracketing. But in time critical situations,
    depend on matrix metering.

    Yes it was possible. But when the lightmeters arrived the results improved.
    I have never worked with a serious camera without a light meter. The first
    lightmeters I used with were beter than no light meter. The matrix
    is a huge improvement over het first build in lightmeters.

    For analysing a scene I use the lightmeter, because I do not trust my eyes.
    Without lightmeter I would not be able to produce consistent slides in the
    'old' days.

    ben brugman, May 27, 2008
  5. Focus

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    Well, Ben, I only flog a dead horse for so long, so I'll just say the

    By your own admission, most of your pics are only off, at worst, a stop or
    two from the results the sunny 16 rule would produce. My contention all
    along has been that, by using the sunny 16 rule as a backup for buggy
    meters, only one or two test shots would have to be taken in a given
    situation before a good shot could predictably be taken. Your photos back
    me up.

    You seem to think I am advocating that people use the rule all of the time,
    which I am not. I only advocate the use of the rule if you encounter a
    lighting situation that messes up your meter so bad you can't get a good
    shot. I would tend to think that most photographers will never encounter a
    lighting situation so strange that their camera's meter will be useless. At
    worst, given a camera with a proven buggy meter, maybe 5% of the shots taken
    might need to fall back on the rule. The remainder could be taken with the
    aid of electronics.

    Now, if you want to continue posting messages that corroborate what I am
    saying, by all means, keep it up. But, eventually I reach a point where I
    tire of writing the same thing with only a regurgitation of the same answer
    as a response.

    So, good luck with your life, Ben, and I hope your pics all are good.

    Take Care,
    Dudley Hanks, May 28, 2008
  6. Focus

    Mr.T Guest

    Of course it can, the "sunny f16 rule" says use f11 for bright-cloudy/slight
    overcast, f8 for overcast/shade, f5.6 for heavy overcast/dull etc.

    Only works if you have at least one stop of exposure latitude though. Even
    then a bit of experience helps.

    Mr.T, May 28, 2008
  7. They were not taken from the same position(!). IIRC Focus said
    (admitted?) later he shot from a moving ship, which, if moving
    at a good clip, could produce the observed shift in perspective
    within ~3 seconds.

    I did note that EXIF-data is quite trivial to fake, though,
    and suggested that when misleading about "the same position",
    everything had to be in doubt.

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 28, 2008
  8. You have shown that you often try the path of least resistance
    and jedi-truths (it's true --- if you look from a very specific
    position. Like "the scenery moves, the ship is motionless".).

    So yes, I don't put faking EXIF data beyond you. Nor do I believe
    you'd be unable to turn down the exposure slider in your software
    --- for one pic. The world has seen many people force facts to
    their story and silence disbelievers and doubters.
    Please go learn how to use your camera.
    Nope, it does it much better. It just doesn't do as _you_
    think it should --- which is your fault.
    Then you will part from it for EUR 5 + P&P. It's worthless.
    Funny you didn't know that before you bought the camera.
    Yes, Focus problems are included in the price with any camera
    you touch.

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 28, 2008
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.