What happened here? (Page 3): Chase, Did you follow the quote from Nikon USA? It may be possible that between the first exposure and second exposure the meter found something else to...

Armadillo Loc: Ventura, CA

chase4 wrote:

Thanks Michael - I did use center weighted matrix metering. chase

Chase,

Did you follow the quote from Nikon USA? It may be possible that between the first exposure and second exposure the meter found something else to meter the light on. When you try something like this again try metering once on the subject and lock the exosure for that and the next exposure.

Michael G

chase4 Loc: Punta Corona, California

Armadillo wrote:

Chase,

Did you follow the quote from Nikon USA? It may be possible that between the first exposure and second exposure the meter found something else to meter the light on. When you try something like this again try metering once on the subject and lock the exosure for that and the next exposure.

Michael G

Thanks Michael, I locked both the focus and exposure prior to taking both shots. chase

robertpq Loc: Oregon

It looks like a "BRACKET" mode. Were you, perhaps, bracketing just prior to taking this shot and it gave you a residual bracket shot as in F2 0.6?

Fred Harwood Loc: Sheffield, Mass.

chase4 wrote:

Here are the two screen shots from Picasa and the only difference is in the two histograms. When I recomposed, I locked in both the focus and exposure. chase

The second shot file is 2.5 megs larger, if that means something.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Fred Harwood wrote:

The second shot file is 2.5 megs larger, if that means something.

Good catch but that is due t the compression of the highlights that are overwhelming.

cambriaman Loc: Central CA Coast

Guessing - Could there be a lag in the exposure (slow aperture adjustment)?
Possible scenario: You set it up, get the focus (manually?) correct, choose the Ch mode, press the shutter button, the first pic is taken and 1/6 of a second later the second picture is taken. If the aperture iris was the slightest bit "sticky", in the first exposure the aperture would be going from wide open to the commanded aperture (the EXIF data shows commanded value) but it didn't get all the way stopped down before the shutter opened. Then, 1/6th second later the shutter opens again and the aperture has reached the commanded size and the image is correctly exposed.

Valenta Loc: Top of NZ

ISO way too high!

chase4 Loc: Punta Corona, California

cambriaman wrote:

Guessing - Could there be a lag in the exposure (s... (show quote)

Thanks for looking and you comments, yes, that seems like a possibility to me (the "sticky" idea). Cambria is a pretty place, wish I lived there. chase

chase4 Loc: Punta Corona, California

Valenta wrote:

ISO way too high!

The intent of the high ISO was to catch the surfers/waves in action. The shot of the shack was just to record the history of the reconstruction. Thanks for looking Valenta. chase

davefales Loc: Virginia

Computer adventure.

whitewolfowner

Shoot in raw. I don't understand owning a D610 and not shooting in raw. If they were shot in raw, it wouldn't make any difference because you could adjust them easily in software.

chase4 Loc: Punta Corona, California

whitewolfowner wrote:

Shoot in raw. I don't understand owning a D610 and not shooting in raw. If they were shot in raw, it wouldn't make any difference because you could adjust them easily in software.

Thanks whitewolf for taking a look and your offered advice about shooting RAW (I think I well understand that concept), I'm just an old guy from the film days and take digital snapshots and photos to record memories and other things that interest me. I try to get it right SOOC and don't have or care about or use any advanced PP programs, I'm not going to enter my photos in any serious competition or try to sell them. I'll leave that to others that shoot RAW and strive for their ideas of perfection or the folks that do photography for a living (I'm retired). Also, I have many FX primes and hence I have the D610, but I also have a few DX bodies that the primes work well on too.
Cheers, chase

whitewolfowner

Going to the next step will be well worth it for you. Just as in film, the shot as it comes from the camera is not meant to be the final print; it needs to be adjusted and fixed. It was done for you in the printing process at the lab in film (very few were any good at it), but in digital, unless you send them off to a lab to fix, you can do itself at home on the computer. And being retired, you may find you enjoy that part as much or more than the shooting part. You have no idea the ability you have for great shots with the D610; the way you are shooting right now, you are not getting 10% of what the camera is capable of doing. I'm sure there is a place in your community that you can go to learn to use lightroom or some other software for post processing if you are not real good at picking it up yourself. And believe it or not, some of the best photos are done by guys like you that just took up the hobby, got into working it and found they were very good at it.

Sprocket Loc: Upstate New York

Did you have your eye to the view finder for one shot and then move your head away for the second shot?
I am wondering if enough light entered the back of the camera through the eyepiece to cause the difference.

I don't even know if it would cause a difference. Just trying to think of a logical explanation.

chase4 Loc: Punta Corona, California

Sprocket wrote:

Did you have your eye to the view finder for one shot and then move your head away for the second shot?
I am wondering if enough light entered the back of the camera through the eyepiece to cause the difference.

I don't even know if it would cause a difference. Just trying to think of a logical explanation.

Good suggestion for the difference however I had my eye on the viewfinder for both shot that were about 1/6th of a second apart.
Thanks for looking and your comment. chase