|
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
"John H." wrote in message
... On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 01:23:57 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H." wrote in message . .. On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 00:37:43 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:43:05 -0500, John H. wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:24:48 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:26:40 -0500, John H. wrote: I shoot in what the D200 calls "jpg fine". Usually this hasn't been a problem. I didn't do any processing, other than cropping the sides. Not sure what you mean by 'color space'. I am going to change the sharpness setting, if I can find it. Basic primer - color space is the mathematical space in which color is expressed by numbers, the adding and substraction of to obtain shade. Put simply, this process is called gamut. There is a more detailed explanation if you are interested There are base three schemas used in defining color: RGB (which is the same method used in human site), but density (shading/combining to obtain other colors) is limited to about 30%of what is called Lab Color Space which is based on the CIE Lab1931color space. It is designated on your camera as sRGB Adobe space is called aRGB or sometimes Adobe (in the color space on your camera's menu) and has a wider gamut representing 50% of the 1931 color space. The third is Adobe's Wide Gamut space, but frankly it sucks and you probably don't have it on your camera anyway. There are other types of color spaces depending on the needs of the graphics environment, but these are the most commonly accepted in the world of digital cameras. What happens in processing is that the processor sometimes will be set to sRGB and if you take the image in aRGB, it makes the translation and you might not even be aware of it. Could be the reverse. Might not be that at all, but it's worth looking into. When I put the card in the card reader, Adobe Elements opens to download the pictures from the card. Once the pictures are downloaded, I close Adobe and use IrfanView to view them, make small fixes, and crop, if necessary. Up to that point, I'm thinking Adobe has had no impact on the pictures. Sometimes I'll open a picture in Adobe and adjust color, contrast, etc, but not often. Never mind. I'll go back to my room. -- John H Do you have access to any photography books that predate the digital era? Well, I've got a library within a few blocks. -- John H You have to learn to take pictures which are 99% correct when you click the shutter, and forget that there's software, the modern equivalent of the darkroom. Shut of ALL focus and exposure automation, and never mind the bad eyes excuse. Alfred Eisenstadt took nice sharp pictures with a manual focus camera until he was much older than you. See if you can find books like this: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...21221846&itm=4 |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"John H." wrote in message ... On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 01:23:57 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 00:37:43 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:43:05 -0500, John H. wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:24:48 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:26:40 -0500, John H. wrote: I shoot in what the D200 calls "jpg fine". Usually this hasn't been a problem. I didn't do any processing, other than cropping the sides. Not sure what you mean by 'color space'. I am going to change the sharpness setting, if I can find it. Basic primer - color space is the mathematical space in which color is expressed by numbers, the adding and substraction of to obtain shade. Put simply, this process is called gamut. There is a more detailed explanation if you are interested There are base three schemas used in defining color: RGB (which is the same method used in human site), but density (shading/combining to obtain other colors) is limited to about 30%of what is called Lab Color Space which is based on the CIE Lab1931color space. It is designated on your camera as sRGB Adobe space is called aRGB or sometimes Adobe (in the color space on your camera's menu) and has a wider gamut representing 50% of the 1931 color space. The third is Adobe's Wide Gamut space, but frankly it sucks and you probably don't have it on your camera anyway. There are other types of color spaces depending on the needs of the graphics environment, but these are the most commonly accepted in the world of digital cameras. What happens in processing is that the processor sometimes will be set to sRGB and if you take the image in aRGB, it makes the translation and you might not even be aware of it. Could be the reverse. Might not be that at all, but it's worth looking into. When I put the card in the card reader, Adobe Elements opens to download the pictures from the card. Once the pictures are downloaded, I close Adobe and use IrfanView to view them, make small fixes, and crop, if necessary. Up to that point, I'm thinking Adobe has had no impact on the pictures. Sometimes I'll open a picture in Adobe and adjust color, contrast, etc, but not often. Never mind. I'll go back to my room. -- John H Do you have access to any photography books that predate the digital era? Well, I've got a library within a few blocks. -- John H You have to learn to take pictures which are 99% correct when you click the shutter, and forget that there's software, the modern equivalent of the darkroom. Shut of ALL focus and exposure automation, and never mind the bad eyes excuse. Alfred Eisenstadt took nice sharp pictures with a manual focus camera until he was much older than you. See if you can find books like this: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...21221846&itm=4 Bingo. |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
"Dan" wrote in message ... John H. wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 12:28:27 -0400, "Don White" wrote: "Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote in message ... You wife must be a real beauty to pass along such good genes. You saying John's genes aren't so good? I get 'em at LLBean. They're good, believe me! You do know you're replying to a moron, right? Stupid is..as stupid says! |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
"HK" wrote in message . .. John H. wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:24:48 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: When I put the card in the card reader, Adobe Elements opens to download the pictures from the card. Once the pictures are downloaded, I close Adobe and use IrfanView to view them, make small fixes, and crop, if necessary. Up to that point, I'm thinking Adobe has had no impact on the pictures. Sometimes I'll open a picture in Adobe and adjust color, contrast, etc, but not often. You haven't read the manual that comes with your D200? Perhaps you need a camera more suitable to your level of intellectual curiosity. http://tinyurl.com/2vnovu Dangerous for him. he'd be sticking his finger into the bulb holder. |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 03:02:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: You have to learn to take pictures which are 99% correct when you click the shutter, and forget that there's software, the modern equivalent of the darkroom. Shut of ALL focus and exposure automation, and never mind the bad eyes excuse. Alfred Eisenstadt took nice sharp pictures with a manual focus camera until he was much older than you. I disagree with that approach. In my opinon, you start with the automagic components and see what the camera is using as a base line for most of the images you take. Once you get a feel for how the camera looks at the world, then you start experimenting with the manual functions bracketing the auto features base settings. You have to have a feel for it first. Admittedly, John is using a hammer to drive a stick pin approach when he'd probably be better off with a really nice point-and-shoot, but he has it, so coaching him through the proess is the better way to go. |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 07:30:31 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 03:02:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: You have to learn to take pictures which are 99% correct when you click the shutter, and forget that there's software, the modern equivalent of the darkroom. Shut of ALL focus and exposure automation, and never mind the bad eyes excuse. Alfred Eisenstadt took nice sharp pictures with a manual focus camera until he was much older than you. I disagree with that approach. In my opinon, you start with the automagic components and see what the camera is using as a base line for most of the images you take. Once you get a feel for how the camera looks at the world, then you start experimenting with the manual functions bracketing the auto features base settings. You have to have a feel for it first. Admittedly, John is using a hammer to drive a stick pin approach when he'd probably be better off with a really nice point-and-shoot, but he has it, so coaching him through the proess is the better way to go. I agree. I've done my 35mm time. I've done my darkrooom time. And now I want to play with my toy. I'm the first to admit, however, that I have a lot to learn about my new toy. It is much different from the Canon FTQL with which I grew up. So, patience is the key. Today I am going to experiment with NEF (RAW) + JPEG Fine, and see if I can tell a difference. Supposedly, this camera will store the picture in *both* formats at the same time. That should be interesting. -- John H |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
John H. wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 07:30:31 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 03:02:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: You have to learn to take pictures which are 99% correct when you click the shutter, and forget that there's software, the modern equivalent of the darkroom. Shut of ALL focus and exposure automation, and never mind the bad eyes excuse. Alfred Eisenstadt took nice sharp pictures with a manual focus camera until he was much older than you. I disagree with that approach. In my opinon, you start with the automagic components and see what the camera is using as a base line for most of the images you take. Once you get a feel for how the camera looks at the world, then you start experimenting with the manual functions bracketing the auto features base settings. You have to have a feel for it first. Admittedly, John is using a hammer to drive a stick pin approach when he'd probably be better off with a really nice point-and-shoot, but he has it, so coaching him through the proess is the better way to go. I agree. I've done my 35mm time. I've done my darkrooom time. And now I want to play with my toy. I'm the first to admit, however, that I have a lot to learn about my new toy. It is much different from the Canon FTQL with which I grew up. So, patience is the key. Today I am going to experiment with NEF (RAW) + JPEG Fine, and see if I can tell a difference. Supposedly, this camera will store the picture in *both* formats at the same time. That should be interesting. JohnH, The advantage of RAW is it stores ALL of the digital information uncompressed, which will allow you to process the photo, and not lose any info. JPG will process the data in camera, and will store the digital picture in a compressed format, that does have a tendency to degrade with additional processing. Straight out of the camera, jpg will probably look better, because the camera's computer has already processed the digital image. Here is a "fair and balanced" look at the pros and cons of both formats: http://www.jmg-galleries.com/article...ht_for_me.html |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
... On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 03:02:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: You have to learn to take pictures which are 99% correct when you click the shutter, and forget that there's software, the modern equivalent of the darkroom. Shut of ALL focus and exposure automation, and never mind the bad eyes excuse. Alfred Eisenstadt took nice sharp pictures with a manual focus camera until he was much older than you. I disagree with that approach. In my opinon, you start with the automagic components and see what the camera is using as a base line for most of the images you take. Once you get a feel for how the camera looks at the world, then you start experimenting with the manual functions bracketing the auto features base settings. You have to have a feel for it first. Admittedly, John is using a hammer to drive a stick pin approach when he'd probably be better off with a really nice point-and-shoot, but he has it, so coaching him through the proess is the better way to go. OK, but one needs to understand what light meters can and cannot do. One thing they can't do is know what you're photographing. An interesting exercise is to evenly light 3 different flat objects: One black, one grey, one white. Fill the viewfinder with each object and take a picture, letting the camera choose the exposure. Of, if in manual mode, "obey" the exposure meter. The results should raise questions in the user's mind immediately. |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 03:02:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: You have to learn to take pictures which are 99% correct when you click the shutter, and forget that there's software, the modern equivalent of the darkroom. Shut of ALL focus and exposure automation, and never mind the bad eyes excuse. Alfred Eisenstadt took nice sharp pictures with a manual focus camera until he was much older than you. I disagree with that approach. In my opinon, you start with the automagic components and see what the camera is using as a base line for most of the images you take. Once you get a feel for how the camera looks at the world, then you start experimenting with the manual functions bracketing the auto features base settings. You have to have a feel for it first. Admittedly, John is using a hammer to drive a stick pin approach when he'd probably be better off with a really nice point-and-shoot, but he has it, so coaching him through the proess is the better way to go. OK, but one needs to understand what light meters can and cannot do. One thing they can't do is know what you're photographing. An interesting exercise is to evenly light 3 different flat objects: One black, one grey, one white. Fill the viewfinder with each object and take a picture, letting the camera choose the exposure. Of, if in manual mode, "obey" the exposure meter. The results should raise questions in the user's mind immediately. I don't see how you can take decent indoor portrait shots without a good flash meter or difficult outdoor shots without a light meter. There are some combo units that do the job. |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
HK wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 03:02:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: You have to learn to take pictures which are 99% correct when you click the shutter, and forget that there's software, the modern equivalent of the darkroom. Shut of ALL focus and exposure automation, and never mind the bad eyes excuse. Alfred Eisenstadt took nice sharp pictures with a manual focus camera until he was much older than you. I disagree with that approach. In my opinon, you start with the automagic components and see what the camera is using as a base line for most of the images you take. Once you get a feel for how the camera looks at the world, then you start experimenting with the manual functions bracketing the auto features base settings. You have to have a feel for it first. Admittedly, John is using a hammer to drive a stick pin approach when he'd probably be better off with a really nice point-and-shoot, but he has it, so coaching him through the proess is the better way to go. OK, but one needs to understand what light meters can and cannot do. One thing they can't do is know what you're photographing. An interesting exercise is to evenly light 3 different flat objects: One black, one grey, one white. Fill the viewfinder with each object and take a picture, letting the camera choose the exposure. Of, if in manual mode, "obey" the exposure meter. The results should raise questions in the user's mind immediately. I don't see how you can take decent indoor portrait shots without a good flash meter or difficult outdoor shots without a light meter. There are some combo units that do the job. Harry, You seem to know a lot about photography, but all I have seen you post are really crappy snapshots. I know I take some really crappy photos, but I am just learning. Why don't you share some of your better photos where you have used a good flash meter or light meter. Since you have said that you really use your point and shot for almost all of your current photos, does your point and shoot allow you to manually adjust your settings to take advantage of the additional metering info? I am looking for a point and shoot, just to carry in my pocket, but have never thought about carrying a flash and light meter along with my P&S. Do you find the P&S easy to manually adjust? |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
"HK" wrote in message
. .. JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 03:02:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: You have to learn to take pictures which are 99% correct when you click the shutter, and forget that there's software, the modern equivalent of the darkroom. Shut of ALL focus and exposure automation, and never mind the bad eyes excuse. Alfred Eisenstadt took nice sharp pictures with a manual focus camera until he was much older than you. I disagree with that approach. In my opinon, you start with the automagic components and see what the camera is using as a base line for most of the images you take. Once you get a feel for how the camera looks at the world, then you start experimenting with the manual functions bracketing the auto features base settings. You have to have a feel for it first. Admittedly, John is using a hammer to drive a stick pin approach when he'd probably be better off with a really nice point-and-shoot, but he has it, so coaching him through the proess is the better way to go. OK, but one needs to understand what light meters can and cannot do. One thing they can't do is know what you're photographing. An interesting exercise is to evenly light 3 different flat objects: One black, one grey, one white. Fill the viewfinder with each object and take a picture, letting the camera choose the exposure. Of, if in manual mode, "obey" the exposure meter. The results should raise questions in the user's mind immediately. I don't see how you can take decent indoor portrait shots without a good flash meter or difficult outdoor shots without a light meter. There are some combo units that do the job. It's unlikely that the vast majority of people will buy a flash meter. But, since flash is usually the dominant light source for indoor pictures, a few test shots will often solve the problem. With digital, you see the results right away. With film, you just have to know the characteristics of the film you're using. There's a guy around here who does a lot of band pictures with flash, and his shots are gorgeous. He uses some sort of high end Canon camera. He shuts off all automation and tweaks the manual settings to an extent that disagrees completely with what the camera says is right. Outdoors, a separate meter is equally unlikely for most users. A camera with a spot metering option is helpful. For photographing people, using your own hand as the meter target is a good trick for setting exposure, assuming it can be metered in the same light as the subject. But, once that's done, you have to have a way to tell the auto exposure thing to leave your settings alone. If the color of your hand doesn't closely match the key subject, then you have to make adjustments based on your knowledge of grey scales. If the light's not changing quickly and constantly, one adjustment should be all you need. As far as John's problem with manual focus, I wonder if his camera's split prism isn't up to par. Or, maybe it hasn't got one at all. Even when I was 20, I ran into occasional situations where focusing would've been difficult without that tool. It's there for a reason, not just for people with bad eyes. It's fast, too. http://www.normankoren.com/zonesystem.html http://www.kodak.com/cluster/global/...f9/index.shtml http://www.normankoren.com/digital_tonality.html |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote: JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 03:02:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: You have to learn to take pictures which are 99% correct when you click the shutter, and forget that there's software, the modern equivalent of the darkroom. Shut of ALL focus and exposure automation, and never mind the bad eyes excuse. Alfred Eisenstadt took nice sharp pictures with a manual focus camera until he was much older than you. I disagree with that approach. In my opinon, you start with the automagic components and see what the camera is using as a base line for most of the images you take. Once you get a feel for how the camera looks at the world, then you start experimenting with the manual functions bracketing the auto features base settings. You have to have a feel for it first. Admittedly, John is using a hammer to drive a stick pin approach when he'd probably be better off with a really nice point-and-shoot, but he has it, so coaching him through the proess is the better way to go. OK, but one needs to understand what light meters can and cannot do. One thing they can't do is know what you're photographing. An interesting exercise is to evenly light 3 different flat objects: One black, one grey, one white. Fill the viewfinder with each object and take a picture, letting the camera choose the exposure. Of, if in manual mode, "obey" the exposure meter. The results should raise questions in the user's mind immediately. I don't see how you can take decent indoor portrait shots without a good flash meter or difficult outdoor shots without a light meter. There are some combo units that do the job. Harry, You seem to know a lot about photography, but all I have seen you post are really crappy snapshots. I know I take some really crappy photos, but I am just learning. Here's your answer: I don't post my professional work in usenet, either my writing or my photography. I use |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 08:47:31 -0500, HK wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 03:02:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: You have to learn to take pictures which are 99% correct when you click the shutter, and forget that there's software, the modern equivalent of the darkroom. Shut of ALL focus and exposure automation, and never mind the bad eyes excuse. Alfred Eisenstadt took nice sharp pictures with a manual focus camera until he was much older than you. I disagree with that approach. In my opinon, you start with the automagic components and see what the camera is using as a base line for most of the images you take. Once you get a feel for how the camera looks at the world, then you start experimenting with the manual functions bracketing the auto features base settings. You have to have a feel for it first. Admittedly, John is using a hammer to drive a stick pin approach when he'd probably be better off with a really nice point-and-shoot, but he has it, so coaching him through the proess is the better way to go. OK, but one needs to understand what light meters can and cannot do. One thing they can't do is know what you're photographing. An interesting exercise is to evenly light 3 different flat objects: One black, one grey, one white. Fill the viewfinder with each object and take a picture, letting the camera choose the exposure. Of, if in manual mode, "obey" the exposure meter. The results should raise questions in the user's mind immediately. I don't see how you can take decent indoor portrait shots without a good flash meter or difficult outdoor shots without a light meter. There are some combo units that do the job. Indoor: http://tinyurl.com/38736z Outdoor: http://tinyurl.com/yu575t Easy. -- John H |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HK" wrote in message . .. JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 03:02:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: You have to learn to take pictures which are 99% correct when you click the shutter, and forget that there's software, the modern equivalent of the darkroom. Shut of ALL focus and exposure automation, and never mind the bad eyes excuse. Alfred Eisenstadt took nice sharp pictures with a manual focus camera until he was much older than you. I disagree with that approach. In my opinon, you start with the automagic components and see what the camera is using as a base line for most of the images you take. Once you get a feel for how the camera looks at the world, then you start experimenting with the manual functions bracketing the auto features base settings. You have to have a feel for it first. Admittedly, John is using a hammer to drive a stick pin approach when he'd probably be better off with a really nice point-and-shoot, but he has it, so coaching him through the proess is the better way to go. OK, but one needs to understand what light meters can and cannot do. One thing they can't do is know what you're photographing. An interesting exercise is to evenly light 3 different flat objects: One black, one grey, one white. Fill the viewfinder with each object and take a picture, letting the camera choose the exposure. Of, if in manual mode, "obey" the exposure meter. The results should raise questions in the user's mind immediately. I don't see how you can take decent indoor portrait shots without a good flash meter or difficult outdoor shots without a light meter. There are some combo units that do the job. It's unlikely that the vast majority of people will buy a flash meter. But, since flash is usually the dominant light source for indoor pictures, a few test shots will often solve the problem. With digital, you see the results right away. With film, you just have to know the characteristics of the film you're using. There's a guy around here who does a lot of band pictures with flash, and his shots are gorgeous. He uses some sort of high end Canon camera. He shuts off all automation and tweaks the manual settings to an extent that disagrees completely with what the camera says is right. Outdoors, a separate meter is equally unlikely for most users. A camera with a spot metering option is helpful. For photographing people, using your own hand as the meter target is a good trick for setting exposure, assuming it can be metered in the same light as the subject. But, once that's done, you have to have a way to tell the auto exposure thing to leave your settings alone. If the color of your hand doesn't closely match the key subject, then you have to make adjustments based on your knowledge of grey scales. If the light's not changing quickly and constantly, one adjustment should be all you need. As far as John's problem with manual focus, I wonder if his camera's split prism isn't up to par. Or, maybe it hasn't got one at all. Even when I was 20, I ran into occasional situations where focusing would've been difficult without that tool. It's there for a reason, not just for people with bad eyes. It's fast, too. http://www.normankoren.com/zonesystem.html http://www.kodak.com/cluster/global/...f9/index.shtml http://www.normankoren.com/digital_tonality.html I don't know what camera Herring is using these days, but if it is a digital nikon "slr," then it doesn't have a split prism. It takes a lot of practice to properly focus one of these new digital slrs manually. Even on pre-digital SLRs, though, once you got beyond a certain focal length, maybe 105 mm, the damned split prism would black out on one side, so I simply went to a plain focusing screen. Life was certainly easier and simpler in the days of TriX, PlusX, KodaChrome II and Kodacolor! |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
John H. wrote:
Oh. It was a snapshot. Then why worry about it? I expect my snapshots to have a bit of quality. You know, like the owls. JohnH, I am not as experienced a photographer as Harry, and don't use an additional flash meter and light meter, but am working on more effectively using the on camera metering options. You have the option of using a matrix, center weighted or spot metering, at the flick of a switch. I took a photo class run by a professional photographer ((http://www.nikoniansacademy.com/winstonHall.html) who told me you can actually use the in camera light meter the same way one would use a separate light meter, by using the AE-L (auto-exposure lock button) located on the back of the camera. You take the light reading of your subject, lock the exposure, than go back and compose the shot. Again, I am a real rookie who has never used a separate light meter, and am only basing my comments on a professional photographer recommendation who owned and used a Nikon D200 in his business, so take my comments for what they are worth. |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
John H. wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 08:47:31 -0500, HK wrote: JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 03:02:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: You have to learn to take pictures which are 99% correct when you click the shutter, and forget that there's software, the modern equivalent of the darkroom. Shut of ALL focus and exposure automation, and never mind the bad eyes excuse. Alfred Eisenstadt took nice sharp pictures with a manual focus camera until he was much older than you. I disagree with that approach. In my opinon, you start with the automagic components and see what the camera is using as a base line for most of the images you take. Once you get a feel for how the camera looks at the world, then you start experimenting with the manual functions bracketing the auto features base settings. You have to have a feel for it first. Admittedly, John is using a hammer to drive a stick pin approach when he'd probably be better off with a really nice point-and-shoot, but he has it, so coaching him through the proess is the better way to go. OK, but one needs to understand what light meters can and cannot do. One thing they can't do is know what you're photographing. An interesting exercise is to evenly light 3 different flat objects: One black, one grey, one white. Fill the viewfinder with each object and take a picture, letting the camera choose the exposure. Of, if in manual mode, "obey" the exposure meter. The results should raise questions in the user's mind immediately. I don't see how you can take decent indoor portrait shots without a good flash meter or difficult outdoor shots without a light meter. There are some combo units that do the job. Indoor: http://tinyurl.com/38736z Outdoor: http://tinyurl.com/yu575t Easy. Very nice snapshots, John, but not what I was discussing. |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
John H. wrote: Oh. It was a snapshot. Then why worry about it? I expect my snapshots to have a bit of quality. You know, like the owls. JohnH, I am not as experienced a photographer as Harry, and don't use an additional flash meter and light meter, but am working on more effectively using the on camera metering options. You have the option of using a matrix, center weighted or spot metering, at the flick of a switch. I took a photo class run by a professional photographer ((http://www.nikoniansacademy.com/winstonHall.html) who told me you can actually use the in camera light meter the same way one would use a separate light meter, by using the AE-L (auto-exposure lock button) located on the back of the camera. You take the light reading of your subject, lock the exposure, than go back and compose the shot. Again, I am a real rookie who has never used a separate light meter, and am only basing my comments on a professional photographer recommendation who owned and used a Nikon D200 in his business, so take my comments for what they are worth. I meant to include this link for a simple explanation of the zone system. http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tut...a-metering.htm I really need to read this often, to refresh my memory. |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:31:44 -0500, HK wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "HK" wrote in message . .. JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 03:02:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: You have to learn to take pictures which are 99% correct when you click the shutter, and forget that there's software, the modern equivalent of the darkroom. Shut of ALL focus and exposure automation, and never mind the bad eyes excuse. Alfred Eisenstadt took nice sharp pictures with a manual focus camera until he was much older than you. I disagree with that approach. In my opinon, you start with the automagic components and see what the camera is using as a base line for most of the images you take. Once you get a feel for how the camera looks at the world, then you start experimenting with the manual functions bracketing the auto features base settings. You have to have a feel for it first. Admittedly, John is using a hammer to drive a stick pin approach when he'd probably be better off with a really nice point-and-shoot, but he has it, so coaching him through the proess is the better way to go. OK, but one needs to understand what light meters can and cannot do. One thing they can't do is know what you're photographing. An interesting exercise is to evenly light 3 different flat objects: One black, one grey, one white. Fill the viewfinder with each object and take a picture, letting the camera choose the exposure. Of, if in manual mode, "obey" the exposure meter. The results should raise questions in the user's mind immediately. I don't see how you can take decent indoor portrait shots without a good flash meter or difficult outdoor shots without a light meter. There are some combo units that do the job. It's unlikely that the vast majority of people will buy a flash meter. But, since flash is usually the dominant light source for indoor pictures, a few test shots will often solve the problem. With digital, you see the results right away. With film, you just have to know the characteristics of the film you're using. There's a guy around here who does a lot of band pictures with flash, and his shots are gorgeous. He uses some sort of high end Canon camera. He shuts off all automation and tweaks the manual settings to an extent that disagrees completely with what the camera says is right. Outdoors, a separate meter is equally unlikely for most users. A camera with a spot metering option is helpful. For photographing people, using your own hand as the meter target is a good trick for setting exposure, assuming it can be metered in the same light as the subject. But, once that's done, you have to have a way to tell the auto exposure thing to leave your settings alone. If the color of your hand doesn't closely match the key subject, then you have to make adjustments based on your knowledge of grey scales. If the light's not changing quickly and constantly, one adjustment should be all you need. As far as John's problem with manual focus, I wonder if his camera's split prism isn't up to par. Or, maybe it hasn't got one at all. Even when I was 20, I ran into occasional situations where focusing would've been difficult without that tool. It's there for a reason, not just for people with bad eyes. It's fast, too. http://www.normankoren.com/zonesystem.html http://www.kodak.com/cluster/global/...f9/index.shtml http://www.normankoren.com/digital_tonality.html I don't know what camera Herring is using these days, but if it is a digital nikon "slr," then it doesn't have a split prism. It takes a lot of practice to properly focus one of these new digital slrs manually. Even on pre-digital SLRs, though, once you got beyond a certain focal length, maybe 105 mm, the damned split prism would black out on one side, so I simply went to a plain focusing screen. Life was certainly easier and simpler in the days of TriX, PlusX, KodaChrome II and Kodacolor! Harry, I'm using the D200. That's the one you said wasn't worth the cost when you had your D70, but then you bought the D200 - remember? -- John H |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
HK wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "HK" wrote in message . .. JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 03:02:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: You have to learn to take pictures which are 99% correct when you click the shutter, and forget that there's software, the modern equivalent of the darkroom. Shut of ALL focus and exposure automation, and never mind the bad eyes excuse. Alfred Eisenstadt took nice sharp pictures with a manual focus camera until he was much older than you. I disagree with that approach. In my opinon, you start with the automagic components and see what the camera is using as a base line for most of the images you take. Once you get a feel for how the camera looks at the world, then you start experimenting with the manual functions bracketing the auto features base settings. You have to have a feel for it first. Admittedly, John is using a hammer to drive a stick pin approach when he'd probably be better off with a really nice point-and-shoot, but he has it, so coaching him through the proess is the better way to go. OK, but one needs to understand what light meters can and cannot do. One thing they can't do is know what you're photographing. An interesting exercise is to evenly light 3 different flat objects: One black, one grey, one white. Fill the viewfinder with each object and take a picture, letting the camera choose the exposure. Of, if in manual mode, "obey" the exposure meter. The results should raise questions in the user's mind immediately. I don't see how you can take decent indoor portrait shots without a good flash meter or difficult outdoor shots without a light meter. There are some combo units that do the job. It's unlikely that the vast majority of people will buy a flash meter. But, since flash is usually the dominant light source for indoor pictures, a few test shots will often solve the problem. With digital, you see the results right away. With film, you just have to know the characteristics of the film you're using. There's a guy around here who does a lot of band pictures with flash, and his shots are gorgeous. He uses some sort of high end Canon camera. He shuts off all automation and tweaks the manual settings to an extent that disagrees completely with what the camera says is right. Outdoors, a separate meter is equally unlikely for most users. A camera with a spot metering option is helpful. For photographing people, using your own hand as the meter target is a good trick for setting exposure, assuming it can be metered in the same light as the subject. But, once that's done, you have to have a way to tell the auto exposure thing to leave your settings alone. If the color of your hand doesn't closely match the key subject, then you have to make adjustments based on your knowledge of grey scales. If the light's not changing quickly and constantly, one adjustment should be all you need. As far as John's problem with manual focus, I wonder if his camera's split prism isn't up to par. Or, maybe it hasn't got one at all. Even when I was 20, I ran into occasional situations where focusing would've been difficult without that tool. It's there for a reason, not just for people with bad eyes. It's fast, too. http://www.normankoren.com/zonesystem.html http://www.kodak.com/cluster/global/...f9/index.shtml http://www.normankoren.com/digital_tonality.html I don't know what camera Herring is using these days, but if it is a digital nikon "slr," then it doesn't have a split prism. It takes a lot of practice to properly focus one of these new digital slrs manually. Even on pre-digital SLRs, though, once you got beyond a certain focal length, maybe 105 mm, the damned split prism would black out on one side, so I simply went to a plain focusing screen. Actually it is not as hard to manually focus as one would think with the Nikon D200. If you manually focus on the subject, a light on the far left in the camera viewfinder will come on when you are focus, then you can compose your shot. |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:33:16 -0500, HK wrote:
John H. wrote: On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 08:47:31 -0500, HK wrote: JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 03:02:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: You have to learn to take pictures which are 99% correct when you click the shutter, and forget that there's software, the modern equivalent of the darkroom. Shut of ALL focus and exposure automation, and never mind the bad eyes excuse. Alfred Eisenstadt took nice sharp pictures with a manual focus camera until he was much older than you. I disagree with that approach. In my opinon, you start with the automagic components and see what the camera is using as a base line for most of the images you take. Once you get a feel for how the camera looks at the world, then you start experimenting with the manual functions bracketing the auto features base settings. You have to have a feel for it first. Admittedly, John is using a hammer to drive a stick pin approach when he'd probably be better off with a really nice point-and-shoot, but he has it, so coaching him through the proess is the better way to go. OK, but one needs to understand what light meters can and cannot do. One thing they can't do is know what you're photographing. An interesting exercise is to evenly light 3 different flat objects: One black, one grey, one white. Fill the viewfinder with each object and take a picture, letting the camera choose the exposure. Of, if in manual mode, "obey" the exposure meter. The results should raise questions in the user's mind immediately. I don't see how you can take decent indoor portrait shots without a good flash meter or difficult outdoor shots without a light meter. There are some combo units that do the job. Indoor: http://tinyurl.com/38736z Outdoor: http://tinyurl.com/yu575t Easy. Very nice snapshots, John, but not what I was discussing. I'm sure you would have used floodlights, light meters, reflective umbrellas, and a nice secular backdrop, and got it all in about 12 seconds. -- John H |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
John H. wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:31:44 -0500, HK wrote: JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "HK" wrote in message . .. JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 03:02:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: You have to learn to take pictures which are 99% correct when you click the shutter, and forget that there's software, the modern equivalent of the darkroom. Shut of ALL focus and exposure automation, and never mind the bad eyes excuse. Alfred Eisenstadt took nice sharp pictures with a manual focus camera until he was much older than you. I disagree with that approach. In my opinon, you start with the automagic components and see what the camera is using as a base line for most of the images you take. Once you get a feel for how the camera looks at the world, then you start experimenting with the manual functions bracketing the auto features base settings. You have to have a feel for it first. Admittedly, John is using a hammer to drive a stick pin approach when he'd probably be better off with a really nice point-and-shoot, but he has it, so coaching him through the proess is the better way to go. OK, but one needs to understand what light meters can and cannot do. One thing they can't do is know what you're photographing. An interesting exercise is to evenly light 3 different flat objects: One black, one grey, one white. Fill the viewfinder with each object and take a picture, letting the camera choose the exposure. Of, if in manual mode, "obey" the exposure meter. The results should raise questions in the user's mind immediately. I don't see how you can take decent indoor portrait shots without a good flash meter or difficult outdoor shots without a light meter. There are some combo units that do the job. It's unlikely that the vast majority of people will buy a flash meter. But, since flash is usually the dominant light source for indoor pictures, a few test shots will often solve the problem. With digital, you see the results right away. With film, you just have to know the characteristics of the film you're using. There's a guy around here who does a lot of band pictures with flash, and his shots are gorgeous. He uses some sort of high end Canon camera. He shuts off all automation and tweaks the manual settings to an extent that disagrees completely with what the camera says is right. Outdoors, a separate meter is equally unlikely for most users. A camera with a spot metering option is helpful. For photographing people, using your own hand as the meter target is a good trick for setting exposure, assuming it can be metered in the same light as the subject. But, once that's done, you have to have a way to tell the auto exposure thing to leave your settings alone. If the color of your hand doesn't closely match the key subject, then you have to make adjustments based on your knowledge of grey scales. If the light's not changing quickly and constantly, one adjustment should be all you need. As far as John's problem with manual focus, I wonder if his camera's split prism isn't up to par. Or, maybe it hasn't got one at all. Even when I was 20, I ran into occasional situations where focusing would've been difficult without that tool. It's there for a reason, not just for people with bad eyes. It's fast, too. http://www.normankoren.com/zonesystem.html http://www.kodak.com/cluster/global/...f9/index.shtml http://www.normankoren.com/digital_tonality.html I don't know what camera Herring is using these days, but if it is a digital nikon "slr," then it doesn't have a split prism. It takes a lot of practice to properly focus one of these new digital slrs manually. Even on pre-digital SLRs, though, once you got beyond a certain focal length, maybe 105 mm, the damned split prism would black out on one side, so I simply went to a plain focusing screen. Life was certainly easier and simpler in the days of TriX, PlusX, KodaChrome II and Kodacolor! Harry, I'm using the D200. That's the one you said wasn't worth the cost when you had your D70, but then you bought the D200 - remember? Harry, Still doesn't think the D200 is worthwhile, according to Harry, he prefers his P&S and uses it most of the time. Since he uses his separate light meter, I am sure he uses a tripod with his P&S. |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
John H. wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:31:44 -0500, HK wrote: JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "HK" wrote in message . .. JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 03:02:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: You have to learn to take pictures which are 99% correct when you click the shutter, and forget that there's software, the modern equivalent of the darkroom. Shut of ALL focus and exposure automation, and never mind the bad eyes excuse. Alfred Eisenstadt took nice sharp pictures with a manual focus camera until he was much older than you. I disagree with that approach. In my opinon, you start with the automagic components and see what the camera is using as a base line for most of the images you take. Once you get a feel for how the camera looks at the world, then you start experimenting with the manual functions bracketing the auto features base settings. You have to have a feel for it first. Admittedly, John is using a hammer to drive a stick pin approach when he'd probably be better off with a really nice point-and-shoot, but he has it, so coaching him through the proess is the better way to go. OK, but one needs to understand what light meters can and cannot do. One thing they can't do is know what you're photographing. An interesting exercise is to evenly light 3 different flat objects: One black, one grey, one white. Fill the viewfinder with each object and take a picture, letting the camera choose the exposure. Of, if in manual mode, "obey" the exposure meter. The results should raise questions in the user's mind immediately. I don't see how you can take decent indoor portrait shots without a good flash meter or difficult outdoor shots without a light meter. There are some combo units that do the job. It's unlikely that the vast majority of people will buy a flash meter. But, since flash is usually the dominant light source for indoor pictures, a few test shots will often solve the problem. With digital, you see the results right away. With film, you just have to know the characteristics of the film you're using. There's a guy around here who does a lot of band pictures with flash, and his shots are gorgeous. He uses some sort of high end Canon camera. He shuts off all automation and tweaks the manual settings to an extent that disagrees completely with what the camera says is right. Outdoors, a separate meter is equally unlikely for most users. A camera with a spot metering option is helpful. For photographing people, using your own hand as the meter target is a good trick for setting exposure, assuming it can be metered in the same light as the subject. But, once that's done, you have to have a way to tell the auto exposure thing to leave your settings alone. If the color of your hand doesn't closely match the key subject, then you have to make adjustments based on your knowledge of grey scales. If the light's not changing quickly and constantly, one adjustment should be all you need. As far as John's problem with manual focus, I wonder if his camera's split prism isn't up to par. Or, maybe it hasn't got one at all. Even when I was 20, I ran into occasional situations where focusing would've been difficult without that tool. It's there for a reason, not just for people with bad eyes. It's fast, too. http://www.normankoren.com/zonesystem.html http://www.kodak.com/cluster/global/...f9/index.shtml http://www.normankoren.com/digital_tonality.html I don't know what camera Herring is using these days, but if it is a digital nikon "slr," then it doesn't have a split prism. It takes a lot of practice to properly focus one of these new digital slrs manually. Even on pre-digital SLRs, though, once you got beyond a certain focal length, maybe 105 mm, the damned split prism would black out on one side, so I simply went to a plain focusing screen. Life was certainly easier and simpler in the days of TriX, PlusX, KodaChrome II and Kodacolor! Harry, I'm using the D200. That's the one you said wasn't worth the cost when you had your D70, but then you bought the D200 - remember? It's not my job to keep track of your stuff, John, or what you are using at any given moment. |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
John H. wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:33:16 -0500, HK wrote: John H. wrote: On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 08:47:31 -0500, HK wrote: JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 03:02:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: You have to learn to take pictures which are 99% correct when you click the shutter, and forget that there's software, the modern equivalent of the darkroom. Shut of ALL focus and exposure automation, and never mind the bad eyes excuse. Alfred Eisenstadt took nice sharp pictures with a manual focus camera until he was much older than you. I disagree with that approach. In my opinon, you start with the automagic components and see what the camera is using as a base line for most of the images you take. Once you get a feel for how the camera looks at the world, then you start experimenting with the manual functions bracketing the auto features base settings. You have to have a feel for it first. Admittedly, John is using a hammer to drive a stick pin approach when he'd probably be better off with a really nice point-and-shoot, but he has it, so coaching him through the proess is the better way to go. OK, but one needs to understand what light meters can and cannot do. One thing they can't do is know what you're photographing. An interesting exercise is to evenly light 3 different flat objects: One black, one grey, one white. Fill the viewfinder with each object and take a picture, letting the camera choose the exposure. Of, if in manual mode, "obey" the exposure meter. The results should raise questions in the user's mind immediately. I don't see how you can take decent indoor portrait shots without a good flash meter or difficult outdoor shots without a light meter. There are some combo units that do the job. Indoor: http://tinyurl.com/38736z Outdoor: http://tinyurl.com/yu575t Easy. Very nice snapshots, John, but not what I was discussing. I'm sure you would have used floodlights, light meters, reflective umbrellas, and a nice secular backdrop, and got it all in about 12 seconds. As I stated, they're both very nice snapshots. I appreciate the difficulty in getting a bunch of rugrats to sit still for anything. If the picture were critical, I would have used a fixed focal length wide angle lens on the port shot, and used as high an f-stop as possible to keep more of the scene in focus. It falls off there in the background rather sharply. But as a snapshot, it is a very nice photo. Mellow out. |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:08:00 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
[email protected] wrote: HK wrote: JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 03:02:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: You have to learn to take pictures which are 99% correct when you click the shutter, and forget that there's software, the modern equivalent of the darkroom. Shut of ALL focus and exposure automation, and never mind the bad eyes excuse. Alfred Eisenstadt took nice sharp pictures with a manual focus camera until he was much older than you. I disagree with that approach. In my opinon, you start with the automagic components and see what the camera is using as a base line for most of the images you take. Once you get a feel for how the camera looks at the world, then you start experimenting with the manual functions bracketing the auto features base settings. You have to have a feel for it first. Admittedly, John is using a hammer to drive a stick pin approach when he'd probably be better off with a really nice point-and-shoot, but he has it, so coaching him through the proess is the better way to go. OK, but one needs to understand what light meters can and cannot do. One thing they can't do is know what you're photographing. An interesting exercise is to evenly light 3 different flat objects: One black, one grey, one white. Fill the viewfinder with each object and take a picture, letting the camera choose the exposure. Of, if in manual mode, "obey" the exposure meter. The results should raise questions in the user's mind immediately. I don't see how you can take decent indoor portrait shots without a good flash meter or difficult outdoor shots without a light meter. There are some combo units that do the job. Harry, You seem to know a lot about photography, but all I have seen you post are really crappy snapshots. I know I take some really crappy photos, but I am just learning. Why don't you share some of your better photos where you have used a good flash meter or light meter. Since you have said that you really use your point and shot for almost all of your current photos, does your point and shoot allow you to manually adjust your settings to take advantage of the additional metering info? I am looking for a point and shoot, just to carry in my pocket, but have never thought about carrying a flash and light meter along with my P&S. Do you find the P&S easy to manually adjust? I thought the picture of the HP printer with the WalMart coupon was a fine example of the photography Harry is discussing. -- John H |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
"John H." wrote in message
... On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:33:16 -0500, HK wrote: John H. wrote: On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 08:47:31 -0500, HK wrote: JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 03:02:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: You have to learn to take pictures which are 99% correct when you click the shutter, and forget that there's software, the modern equivalent of the darkroom. Shut of ALL focus and exposure automation, and never mind the bad eyes excuse. Alfred Eisenstadt took nice sharp pictures with a manual focus camera until he was much older than you. I disagree with that approach. In my opinon, you start with the automagic components and see what the camera is using as a base line for most of the images you take. Once you get a feel for how the camera looks at the world, then you start experimenting with the manual functions bracketing the auto features base settings. You have to have a feel for it first. Admittedly, John is using a hammer to drive a stick pin approach when he'd probably be better off with a really nice point-and-shoot, but he has it, so coaching him through the proess is the better way to go. OK, but one needs to understand what light meters can and cannot do. One thing they can't do is know what you're photographing. An interesting exercise is to evenly light 3 different flat objects: One black, one grey, one white. Fill the viewfinder with each object and take a picture, letting the camera choose the exposure. Of, if in manual mode, "obey" the exposure meter. The results should raise questions in the user's mind immediately. I don't see how you can take decent indoor portrait shots without a good flash meter or difficult outdoor shots without a light meter. There are some combo units that do the job. Indoor: http://tinyurl.com/38736z Outdoor: http://tinyurl.com/yu575t Easy. Very nice snapshots, John, but not what I was discussing. I'm sure you would have used floodlights, light meters, reflective umbrellas, and a nice secular backdrop, and got it all in about 12 seconds. -- John H John, he said "difficult outdoor shots". Yours was a nice picture, but there nothing about it that would've challenged the abilities of the camera. That's what he meant. |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
John H. wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:08:00 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote: HK wrote: JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 03:02:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: You have to learn to take pictures which are 99% correct when you click the shutter, and forget that there's software, the modern equivalent of the darkroom. Shut of ALL focus and exposure automation, and never mind the bad eyes excuse. Alfred Eisenstadt took nice sharp pictures with a manual focus camera until he was much older than you. I disagree with that approach. In my opinon, you start with the automagic components and see what the camera is using as a base line for most of the images you take. Once you get a feel for how the camera looks at the world, then you start experimenting with the manual functions bracketing the auto features base settings. You have to have a feel for it first. Admittedly, John is using a hammer to drive a stick pin approach when he'd probably be better off with a really nice point-and-shoot, but he has it, so coaching him through the proess is the better way to go. OK, but one needs to understand what light meters can and cannot do. One thing they can't do is know what you're photographing. An interesting exercise is to evenly light 3 different flat objects: One black, one grey, one white. Fill the viewfinder with each object and take a picture, letting the camera choose the exposure. Of, if in manual mode, "obey" the exposure meter. The results should raise questions in the user's mind immediately. I don't see how you can take decent indoor portrait shots without a good flash meter or difficult outdoor shots without a light meter. There are some combo units that do the job. Harry, You seem to know a lot about photography, but all I have seen you post are really crappy snapshots. I know I take some really crappy photos, but I am just learning. Why don't you share some of your better photos where you have used a good flash meter or light meter. Since you have said that you really use your point and shot for almost all of your current photos, does your point and shoot allow you to manually adjust your settings to take advantage of the additional metering info? I am looking for a point and shoot, just to carry in my pocket, but have never thought about carrying a flash and light meter along with my P&S. Do you find the P&S easy to manually adjust? I thought the picture of the HP printer with the WalMart coupon was a fine example of the photography Harry is discussing. It was nice, but not as nice as the one of his boat going to sleep. |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:43:16 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
[email protected] wrote: Reginald P. Smithers III wrote: John H. wrote: Oh. It was a snapshot. Then why worry about it? I expect my snapshots to have a bit of quality. You know, like the owls. JohnH, I am not as experienced a photographer as Harry, and don't use an additional flash meter and light meter, but am working on more effectively using the on camera metering options. You have the option of using a matrix, center weighted or spot metering, at the flick of a switch. I took a photo class run by a professional photographer ((http://www.nikoniansacademy.com/winstonHall.html) who told me you can actually use the in camera light meter the same way one would use a separate light meter, by using the AE-L (auto-exposure lock button) located on the back of the camera. You take the light reading of your subject, lock the exposure, than go back and compose the shot. Again, I am a real rookie who has never used a separate light meter, and am only basing my comments on a professional photographer recommendation who owned and used a Nikon D200 in his business, so take my comments for what they are worth. I meant to include this link for a simple explanation of the zone system. http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tut...a-metering.htm I really need to read this often, to refresh my memory. ]Very informative, thanks. -- John H |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:46:42 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
[email protected] wrote: HK wrote: JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "HK" wrote in message . .. JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 03:02:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: You have to learn to take pictures which are 99% correct when you click the shutter, and forget that there's software, the modern equivalent of the darkroom. Shut of ALL focus and exposure automation, and never mind the bad eyes excuse. Alfred Eisenstadt took nice sharp pictures with a manual focus camera until he was much older than you. I disagree with that approach. In my opinon, you start with the automagic components and see what the camera is using as a base line for most of the images you take. Once you get a feel for how the camera looks at the world, then you start experimenting with the manual functions bracketing the auto features base settings. You have to have a feel for it first. Admittedly, John is using a hammer to drive a stick pin approach when he'd probably be better off with a really nice point-and-shoot, but he has it, so coaching him through the proess is the better way to go. OK, but one needs to understand what light meters can and cannot do. One thing they can't do is know what you're photographing. An interesting exercise is to evenly light 3 different flat objects: One black, one grey, one white. Fill the viewfinder with each object and take a picture, letting the camera choose the exposure. Of, if in manual mode, "obey" the exposure meter. The results should raise questions in the user's mind immediately. I don't see how you can take decent indoor portrait shots without a good flash meter or difficult outdoor shots without a light meter. There are some combo units that do the job. It's unlikely that the vast majority of people will buy a flash meter. But, since flash is usually the dominant light source for indoor pictures, a few test shots will often solve the problem. With digital, you see the results right away. With film, you just have to know the characteristics of the film you're using. There's a guy around here who does a lot of band pictures with flash, and his shots are gorgeous. He uses some sort of high end Canon camera. He shuts off all automation and tweaks the manual settings to an extent that disagrees completely with what the camera says is right. Outdoors, a separate meter is equally unlikely for most users. A camera with a spot metering option is helpful. For photographing people, using your own hand as the meter target is a good trick for setting exposure, assuming it can be metered in the same light as the subject. But, once that's done, you have to have a way to tell the auto exposure thing to leave your settings alone. If the color of your hand doesn't closely match the key subject, then you have to make adjustments based on your knowledge of grey scales. If the light's not changing quickly and constantly, one adjustment should be all you need. As far as John's problem with manual focus, I wonder if his camera's split prism isn't up to par. Or, maybe it hasn't got one at all. Even when I was 20, I ran into occasional situations where focusing would've been difficult without that tool. It's there for a reason, not just for people with bad eyes. It's fast, too. http://www.normankoren.com/zonesystem.html http://www.kodak.com/cluster/global/...f9/index.shtml http://www.normankoren.com/digital_tonality.html I don't know what camera Herring is using these days, but if it is a digital nikon "slr," then it doesn't have a split prism. It takes a lot of practice to properly focus one of these new digital slrs manually. Even on pre-digital SLRs, though, once you got beyond a certain focal length, maybe 105 mm, the damned split prism would black out on one side, so I simply went to a plain focusing screen. Actually it is not as hard to manually focus as one would think with the Nikon D200. If you manually focus on the subject, a light on the far left in the camera viewfinder will come on when you are focus, then you can compose your shot. By golly, you're right! -- John H |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 11:45:15 -0500, John H.
wrote: On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:43:16 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote: Reginald P. Smithers III wrote: John H. wrote: Oh. It was a snapshot. Then why worry about it? I expect my snapshots to have a bit of quality. You know, like the owls. JohnH, I am not as experienced a photographer as Harry, and don't use an additional flash meter and light meter, but am working on more effectively using the on camera metering options. You have the option of using a matrix, center weighted or spot metering, at the flick of a switch. I took a photo class run by a professional photographer ((http://www.nikoniansacademy.com/winstonHall.html) who told me you can actually use the in camera light meter the same way one would use a separate light meter, by using the AE-L (auto-exposure lock button) located on the back of the camera. You take the light reading of your subject, lock the exposure, than go back and compose the shot. Again, I am a real rookie who has never used a separate light meter, and am only basing my comments on a professional photographer recommendation who owned and used a Nikon D200 in his business, so take my comments for what they are worth. I meant to include this link for a simple explanation of the zone system. http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tut...a-metering.htm I really need to read this often, to refresh my memory. ]Very informative, thanks. Just keep in mind that the zone system is only a guide based on gray scale B&W and does not necessarily translate to color given a number of reasons. Having said that, if you pay attention to it closely and keep the concept in the back of your mind when capturing images, it will only improve your composing and editing skills. |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:08:25 -0500, John H.
wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:24:44 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote: John H. wrote: This picture was taken from about six feet away. In looking at the EXIF data, I noticed that the 'sharpness' was set at 'soft'. I've got to check into that. Maybe that's part of my problem. All I have to say is "Duuuuhhhhhh". ;) I appreciate your suggestions. Give me a break! I spent 30 years with a Canon FTQL. I didn't have to be a damn IT professional to take a picture. That image isn't over sharpened - it's strictly a result of the flash light wandering all over the place. One thing to keep in mind, is that professional photographers, including outdoors/nature/action types, very rarely use an undiffused flash. This is a flash difusser. http://tinyurl.com/2yhj8u The other piece of gear that will help you "learn" and give almost instant results is the use of neutral density filters. http://tinyurl.com/ytrzw2 |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
... On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:08:25 -0500, John H. wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:24:44 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote: John H. wrote: This picture was taken from about six feet away. In looking at the EXIF data, I noticed that the 'sharpness' was set at 'soft'. I've got to check into that. Maybe that's part of my problem. All I have to say is "Duuuuhhhhhh". ;) I appreciate your suggestions. Give me a break! I spent 30 years with a Canon FTQL. I didn't have to be a damn IT professional to take a picture. That image isn't over sharpened - it's strictly a result of the flash light wandering all over the place. One thing to keep in mind, is that professional photographers, including outdoors/nature/action types, very rarely use an undiffused flash. This is a flash difusser. http://tinyurl.com/2yhj8u The other piece of gear that will help you "learn" and give almost instant results is the use of neutral density filters. http://tinyurl.com/ytrzw2 Why ND filters? |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:57:48 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote in message ... John H. wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:24:44 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote: John H. wrote: This picture was taken from about six feet away. In looking at the EXIF data, I noticed that the 'sharpness' was set at 'soft'. I've got to check into that. Maybe that's part of my problem. All I have to say is "Duuuuhhhhhh". ;) I appreciate your suggestions. Give me a break! I spent 30 years with a Canon FTQL. I didn't have to be a damn IT professional to take a picture. LOL, JohnH, I am teasing you. If you look at my photos, I have a tendency to over sharpen them. Then stop over sharpening them. It's a nasty effect. Nobody likes the results. Nobody. Not true. Most of the time, you can't tell if an image has been sharpened or not. A lot of digital images have been "sharpened" if only because the camera shot in RAW and post processed. A a lot of new digital photographers make their mistake, is in believing that sharpening fixes focus issues. That's not true. The technical definition of sharpness is less than transparent. Sharpness is determined by two factors: resolution and acutance. Resolution is sharpness - as in resolving fine detail - as measured in line pairs per millimeter LP/mm. The more LP/mm that a lens can resolve, the greater the resolution of the lens resulting in varying levels of detail. Resolution is determined by the camera and lens. What we are really talking about is acutance - the contrast of adjacent pixels. The eye/brain interface interpret light pixels lying next to dark pixels as an edge. The quicker the transition the sharper edges. So if it is a rapid decrease, it's sharp. A not rapid decrease, it's fuzzy. Sharpness has nothing to do with resolution or detail. It has everything to do with contrast along edges. So in reality, sharpening has to do with acuteness and not with resolution. With John's image, he had the masking filter on - whcih is fine, but that's what caused a lot of the problems with the flash - as you can see in the image of his Grandson. Shooting in RAW takes out the masking filter which increases acuteness - I guarantee that image would have been much better if shot in RAW and processed out to .jpg. |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:00:07 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
[email protected] wrote: JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote in message ... John H. wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:24:44 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote: John H. wrote: This picture was taken from about six feet away. In looking at the EXIF data, I noticed that the 'sharpness' was set at 'soft'. I've got to check into that. Maybe that's part of my problem. All I have to say is "Duuuuhhhhhh". ;) I appreciate your suggestions. Give me a break! I spent 30 years with a Canon FTQL. I didn't have to be a damn IT professional to take a picture. LOL, JohnH, I am teasing you. If you look at my photos, I have a tendency to over sharpen them. Then stop over sharpening them. It's a nasty effect. Nobody likes the results. Nobody. You are absolutely correct. Since you told me in such a forceful manner, I will. Doug is wrong on this. See my reply to him about it. |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
... On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:57:48 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote in message ... John H. wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:24:44 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote: John H. wrote: This picture was taken from about six feet away. In looking at the EXIF data, I noticed that the 'sharpness' was set at 'soft'. I've got to check into that. Maybe that's part of my problem. All I have to say is "Duuuuhhhhhh". ;) I appreciate your suggestions. Give me a break! I spent 30 years with a Canon FTQL. I didn't have to be a damn IT professional to take a picture. LOL, JohnH, I am teasing you. If you look at my photos, I have a tendency to over sharpen them. Then stop over sharpening them. It's a nasty effect. Nobody likes the results. Nobody. Not true. Most of the time, you can't tell if an image has been sharpened or not. A lot of digital images have been "sharpened" if only because the camera shot in RAW and post processed. A a lot of new digital photographers make their mistake, is in believing that sharpening fixes focus issues. That's not true. The technical definition of sharpness is less than transparent. Sharpness is determined by two factors: resolution and acutance. Resolution is sharpness - as in resolving fine detail - as measured in line pairs per millimeter LP/mm. The more LP/mm that a lens can resolve, the greater the resolution of the lens resulting in varying levels of detail. Resolution is determined by the camera and lens. What we are really talking about is acutance - the contrast of adjacent pixels. The eye/brain interface interpret light pixels lying next to dark pixels as an edge. The quicker the transition the sharper edges. So if it is a rapid decrease, it's sharp. A not rapid decrease, it's fuzzy. Sharpness has nothing to do with resolution or detail. It has everything to do with contrast along edges. So in reality, sharpening has to do with acuteness and not with resolution. With John's image, he had the masking filter on - whcih is fine, but that's what caused a lot of the problems with the flash - as you can see in the image of his Grandson. Shooting in RAW takes out the masking filter which increases acuteness - I guarantee that image would have been much better if shot in RAW and processed out to .jpg. Maybe the only ones I've noticed were sharpened excessively using software in the computer. The edges look absurdly fake, and they're definitely objectionable. |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:08:58 -0500, HK wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote in message ... John H. wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:24:44 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote: John H. wrote: This picture was taken from about six feet away. In looking at the EXIF data, I noticed that the 'sharpness' was set at 'soft'. I've got to check into that. Maybe that's part of my problem. All I have to say is "Duuuuhhhhhh". ;) I appreciate your suggestions. Give me a break! I spent 30 years with a Canon FTQL. I didn't have to be a damn IT professional to take a picture. LOL, JohnH, I am teasing you. If you look at my photos, I have a tendency to over sharpen them. Then stop over sharpening them. It's a nasty effect. Nobody likes the results. Nobody. Most photoshopped photos look photoshopped. I can see touching up a sky a bit or getting rid of redeye or other simple stuff in an image, but most of the rest of it seems to produce clichés, especially in the hands of amateurs. The less you mess with a decent photo, the more pleasing it will be. Hmmmm... Just for giggles, is this image Photoshopped? http://www.swsports.org/Photography/...Abstract01.jpg |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 04:29:56 -0500, John H.
wrote: On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 07:30:31 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 03:02:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: You have to learn to take pictures which are 99% correct when you click the shutter, and forget that there's software, the modern equivalent of the darkroom. Shut of ALL focus and exposure automation, and never mind the bad eyes excuse. Alfred Eisenstadt took nice sharp pictures with a manual focus camera until he was much older than you. I disagree with that approach. In my opinon, you start with the automagic components and see what the camera is using as a base line for most of the images you take. Once you get a feel for how the camera looks at the world, then you start experimenting with the manual functions bracketing the auto features base settings. You have to have a feel for it first. Admittedly, John is using a hammer to drive a stick pin approach when he'd probably be better off with a really nice point-and-shoot, but he has it, so coaching him through the proess is the better way to go. I agree. I've done my 35mm time. I've done my darkrooom time. And now I want to play with my toy. I'm the first to admit, however, that I have a lot to learn about my new toy. It is much different from the Canon FTQL with which I grew up. So, patience is the key. Today I am going to experiment with NEF (RAW) + JPEG Fine, and see if I can tell a difference. Supposedly, this camera will store the picture in *both* formats at the same time. That should be interesting. There is not a lot of difference between the old film days and digital. What happens in a lot of cases, is that people don't realize that the camera does a lot of post processing unless you shoot in RAW which is basically the uncompressed, unedited raw data. Terminology difference? Yes. Practical difference? No. It's just learning a new language. |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 08:47:31 -0500, HK wrote:
I don't see how you can take decent indoor portrait shots without a good flash meter or difficult outdoor shots without a light meter. There are some combo units that do the job. Digital cameras can be used as a light meter using the AEL feature which they all have. AEL is Auto Exposure - Light and you can use it exactly like a light meter and in almost the same fashion. I've tested my Oly's and my Hasselblad against my Sekonic L-558R and the cameras agree 90% of the time. The other ten percent, it's minor variations. |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 14:09:57 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: It's unlikely that the vast majority of people will buy a flash meter. But, since flash is usually the dominant light source for indoor pictures, a few test shots will often solve the problem. With digital, you see the results right away. Unfortunately, it's not a good guage of what the image is. Most LCD displays are too small to give you even a remote idea of what the image is going to look like once it's pulled out of the camera. |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:46:11 -0500, John H.
wrote: Life was certainly easier and simpler in the days of TriX, PlusX, KodaChrome II and Kodacolor! What? No way. |
Playing with a Macro Extension Lens...
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 22:47:34 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: Maybe the only ones I've noticed were sharpened excessively using software in the computer. The edges look absurdly fake, and they're definitely objectionable. Couldn't agree with you more. The camera sharpens and due to not completely understanding what sharpness does, folks sharpen more. RAW baby, it's the only way to go. :) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:57 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com