Sorting out why they disagree is how science progresses. You have to do experiments and make observations and tests to find out which was wrong, or if both were wrong.
Don
June 15, 2023
68
-
-
Before the "why" we need the "how". I haven't seen an explicit list of the points of disagreement.
-
I prefer "brightness" of the scene (which is the source of light for the exposure), and "lightness" for a displayed image (on monitor, paper or whatever).
Don Cox
-
Yes, that's what I was suggesting.
-
The problem with science is that they were always both wrong. The issue is which is least wrong, or alternatively unwrong enough to be useful.
-
It's really quite simple (for me, YMMV). If I have no flash then I meter one way; if I have a flash and the scene calls for flash-fill then I meter another way:
Of course, without flash-fill it is a good idea not to have your subject placed in front of a bright window.
-
I dont regard that a fill flash, fill flash is used to fill in the shadows on say a portrait. you have totally exposed the subject with flash.
unless the background was the subject. and filled the colour checker. -
www.sony.com/electronics/support/articles/00017305
The entire subject can be in the shadows, and thus need to be illuminated with flash. Anyway, the above example is proof of principle. Here is an example that matches your narrower definition of flash-fill:
Notice that the exposures are different, but checking the white patch on both shows the illumination of the green channel to be the same. The explanation is that the flash added illumination to the white patch and to match the non-flash shot the shutter speed was increased by a third of a stop.
-
you just dont get it. so end of discussion.
-
I see, your reaction when you can't explain away what is evident is to be dismissive. To summarize, you wrote that applying flash-fill doesn't change the exposure and I showed that it can. As you say, end of discussion.
-
Personally, I couldn't care less what your definition of fill flash is. All I see is much more nicely exposed shadow areas in my subject matter when I add a bit of light via off camera flash. Call it what you like. A brighter exposure. Fill flash. Whatever. All I see is a nicer picture when I look at the back of my camera. I call it the great small sensor dynamic range equalizer, or shadow noise eliminator.
-
portrait shooting using fill flash 101 set your camera exposure comp to -1.0 set your flash exposure comp to +1.0 so is this
defining and equal exposure ? -
Yes, much of what you write and apparently practice is "101."
Then without fill flash you would set the exposure compensation at the same?
-
I posted this on my other thread.
Discuss Exposure ? out of camera jpegs for test images.
Does fill flash/ flash (call it what you like) change exposure, that is the discussion
for the nerds. godox 685s 1/16th power 2 feet from subject now calculate the lux/sec (what ever you want to call it) that is useful for the capture of the image.
-
The penny has dropped ,i have explained it on the other thread i started on scene luminesce and exposure.
