I would not say that it is completely useless I can e used to understand how the light you are shooting in and how it relates to how the sensor stores that data.
Take in day light if you are metering on something white most of the time you only have to worry about the green channel. It will also give you a better representation as to how the red channel relates to the other 2. If you are shooting say something red with very little green in the scene you may want to push your exposure to the right a little more. It really is understanding how your camera reacts to what light you are shooting at and how far to the right you want to push it
-
-
Maybe not a separate meter, but spot metering mode in the camera is pretty compelling. Dial in +3EV at the gitgo, then in the session swing the spot to the very brightest part of the scene, lock exposure, then frame the composition and shoot. Best ETTR technique I've seen...
I've been using my camera's (Z 6) highlight-weighted matrix metering to avoid blowing highlights, but it usually leaves a stop or so of headroom. I'm going to give Iliah's technique a try...
-
Yep dial in +3 to compensate for using the wrong mode in the first place is an option for sure, until you need to dial in something else for the other times it's wrong.
-
Why is it wrong? It's a camera control you learn to operate under a particular set of conditions. In other other conditions, you change it as necessary. That's called knowing your equipment and it's a part of being a photographer and understanding lighting.
Rich
-
A very simple test you can do is take in image under controlled lighting, set you exposure to what you think your cameras histogram will provide the best exposure. then use your camera in body processing but use different setting to produce a jpg and then review the histogram and how they vary.
Next do the very same but with radically different WB and follow again the in camera histogram you will see that now there will be clipping and then no clipping depending on the WB selected. The 1,000,000 question is how can you have clipping with the same exposure but different WB, how can you rely on the histogram of the camera when there is so much variation.You still have not answered what is the baseline exposure that tells your converter how to place the raw file in the tonal range of the outgoing tiff or jpg image?
Here is a hint this is a built in height light headroom that varies from camera model to manufacture, without knowing this there is no way for you to tell what is clipped and what is not. Some cameras this can be as high as 1.5 stop so the raw converter is lightening the image by more than a stop without you knowing it.If you don't know what is happening with the BLE then how are you going to know your highlight headroom and your clipping point
The BLE is basically like a built in speeding ticket headroom put in by a car manufacture so that you can avoid speeding tickets.
If you rely on the speedometer of the car it tells you that you are going 100kmh but the real speed you are traveling at is 1/2 that.
Now someone with an independent way of measuring your speed comes along and lets you know truly how fast you are going then you can get there in less time or travel further for the same amount of time RD is no different -
Said another way, place the important highlights on Zone VIII.
-
Is that the techniques you used for the image for which you posted the raw histogram -- the one that showed you left a stop on the table? By the way, I recommend leaving something on the table. If I leave half a stop, I'm happy.
-
Because you simply don't need to in most situations! Again and again on these forums I'm seeing simple tasks re-invented with complicated solutions that appeal to theorists and that are simply laughable to actual photographers.
-
I don't understand your consternation. Spot metering is designed to put a specific place in the scene at middle gray, so pointing it at a highlight then dialing in the +3EV to put that spot at saturation is simply an application of the provided mechanics to keep data in the high end from going over the saturation rubicon. Nothing "wrong" with that.
-
There are all kinds of photographers, and all kinds of subjects, and all kinds of uses for the final work. Many of those do not demand, and do not reward, speed in setting up the captures.
-
It's a lot simpler to learn your evaluative or matrix metering and adjust where necessary. Sort metering is OK if you want to faff about and tinker. More and more I'm seeing this forum is populated by theorists not photographers.
-
[/quote]
Because you simply don't need to in most situations! Again and again on these forums I'm seeing simple tasks re-invented with complicated solutions that appeal to theorists and that are simply laughable to actual photographers.
[/quote]Hmmm . . . I'm an actual photographer. I'm pretty pragmatic. No one has ever (mis)identified me as a theorist! And I like the method.
Rich
-
Yes agreed, but the premise on these forums is geared to theory whilst setting up shots at leisure. What it lacks, to the tune of 100%, is any reality to photographers who actually work for a living or need to be geared up for the "decisive moment". So, this is a theory site for gear heads. A photography forum it is not!
-
Lately, I've been doing what I'll call "engineering photography". Pictures of components and assemblies of a vintage railcar, to be used in crafting replacements some time from now. They (mostly) don't give a crap about white balance, but they're very concerned that objects can be discerned. In difficult lighting, I have to expose creatively to preserve highlights for that reason. Oh, some of the images are for determination of color for painting, those need careful determination of white balance and also depend on not blowing highlights so good RGB measurements can be had.
Yep, each use case in photography has its particular considerations.
-
Knowing how a camera works is something that many photographers like to figure out, knowing how a camera works can put that cameras performance into the bracket for a cameras that can cost 2 and 3 times more.
Take the OP understanding what the raw file is doing anyone with a 1.5 cropped camera can duplicate the very image quality he is seeking.
We know this because the very raw histogram he provided show he is underexposing the image one stop the very difference you will see from cropped to FF -
That's because they were never 'simple tasks'. Choosing the optimal exposure for your shot has never been simple, which is why there is so much mystique and discussion about it. Finding an exposure that will do, depending on what your standards are, is much simpler.
-
Yes they are simple tasks! No, it's not about "your standards". It's about getting the job done consistently for your clients and/or yourself with minimum of fuss. That means being an artist first and foremost. But it also means learning your tools TO A MEANINGFUL LEVEL to get the shot. It DOES NOT mean needing a degree in nuclear physics to press the shutter.
Unfortunately this forum is already showing a decided bias towards theory folk, without a photograph to illustrate their musings.
It's already become a bit too tedious, frankly. Continue like this and this forum will die.
-
Like 78% of statistics are
I've seen plenty of photographers, particularly product and studio workers, and also people working in mixed light outdoors, spend a good portion of an hour trying to set the exposure, something that they could do much more quickly of they understood raw histograms and how to use RD. Truth is, most professionals I know were either self-taught or learned their trade in an art school, where 'theory' tends to mean semiotics, which isn't a whole load of use working out your exposure.
No-one ever said that's what it meant. Plenty of professional photographers are successful without ever really knowing how to optimise exposure. Or for that matter, knowing anything about semiotics.
