Exposure Does it have to be Rocket Science?
May 4, 2016 12:53:12 #
If you are a photographer you have chosen to live in a box named 3:1--which is (about) the limits of light and dark the media can communicate--looking a what you are taking before you push the button will do wonders to keeping you in the box. As for PP, a camera and the human eye don't see things the same way--it is 100% necessary to PP if you want your image to look like what you saw--shooting in JPEG approximates that--but RAW and do it yourself is much better--this past weekend I watched a "photographer" shooting a couple against windows with no flash--and no measuring of the light reflecting off the subject and using manual-OMG
Stan
Stan
Stan
Stan
May 4, 2016 13:12:46 #
billwassmann wrote:
Not that there is anything wrong with all of the new processes, there is a mind set amongst many of us old guys. The owner of an old camera store recently said it best. Methuselah here. I have been at this craft for 74 years so I don't agree with photographers using manufacturer's gimmicks to "improve" their photos. Learn composition and lighting and you will make good photos. Almost all the "creative" photos I have seen are not, in my opinion.
"We are Purists".
May 4, 2016 13:35:48 #
jenny wrote:
* * * * *
...one must claim to engage in both RAW and JPEG, both digital and film, both color and B&W on this forum, to avoid being attacked as foolish by "the other side"
:)
...one must claim to engage in both RAW and JPEG, both digital and film, both color and B&W on this forum, to avoid being attacked as foolish by "the other side"
:)
Nah, it's okay to be one-sided. I do use both raw and JPEG workflows, and work in both color and B&W. I gave up film long ago (2005). But if you like film, or film and digital, knock yourself out and enjoy it.
May 4, 2016 13:43:59 #
jenny wrote:
... Once I argued with my dear Dad about this bit of Emerson wisdom ...
Isn't it amazing how much smarter our parents become the older we get.
May 4, 2016 13:47:21 #
Uuglypher wrote:
... Argue otherwise as you will ...
Not going to argue with you any more. Your needle is stuck in the same groove - repeat repeat repeat.
Come back when you learn something new.
May 4, 2016 14:07:12 #
jenny wrote:
.
It appears, however, that one must claim to engage in both RAW and JPEG, both digital and film, both color and B&W on this forum, to avoid being attacked as foolish by "the other side"
:)
It appears, however, that one must claim to engage in both RAW and JPEG, both digital and film, both color and B&W on this forum, to avoid being attacked as foolish by "the other side"
:)
Hi, Jenny,
I disagree. When folks make statements about the varieties of 'tography they have practiced, I think it is to provide some insight into the perspectives they bring to a matter under consideration. It obviously doesn't necessarily have any significant bearing on the validity of opinions expressed!
When it come right down to it, we are all on...or should be on...the same side ...the side of the paper on which the image is printed. :>)
I recall dinner table ...er...discussions... when, during my boyhood, we lived in Brighton ( A suburb of Rochester) between my paternal grandfather (a long-experienced glass plate photographer) and my dad (who worked for Eastman) on how the "sheet film" and "roll film" phase "wouldn't last". Perspectives and perceptions vary greatly, and have great influence on opinions, but, of themselves, seem to have damned little to do with facts and the inexorable progression of technology. For example, the fond nostalgia for the essentials of film photography and attraction to some of the similar aspects of JPEG image file production is understandable. But it doesn't (or shouldn't) negate appreciation of raw image data capture with appropriate exposure (assuring maximum exposure without highlight detail clipping) and it's resulting amazing potential as regards range of creative potential that renders the raw image file a very different photographic medium than ever before encountered.
And it's not really "new", it's potentials having been recognized and touted for at least twelve years.
Dave :-)
May 4, 2016 14:57:21 #
suntouched wrote:
Scotty- I hope you are ready to duck for deep cover on this posting :)
My opinion is if the image is not composed well and not interesting then "perfection" of the technical aspects doesn't matter much because no one will look at it for more than a fleeting nano second.
My opinion is if the image is not composed well and not interesting then "perfection" of the technical aspects doesn't matter much because no one will look at it for more than a fleeting nano second.
So very true. Just today I got back from hiking in the woods and doing some photo shots, geocaching too of course. A couple of them were just fine as far as exposure, but, the photos were just boring. I thought the subject matter would be worth while but it wasn't so into the digital trash can they went. Sometimes the phrase, "You had to be there", means a lot in photography.
May 4, 2016 16:37:20 #
Well, maybe exposure is troublesome because how much of lights and darks is open to discussion.
We are not born knowing where the objective boundaries are and I'm still learning. Same goes for the aesthetics. For example, flare can work well in some few cases.
I saw a case where lifting shadow revealed centuries-old text that nobody knew about.
I have a sofa dated under the upholstery, in pencil on pine, to Nov. 10, 1847. Signatures are present but faint and unreadable. Exposure is part of the puzzle of how to read this; however, not now, as I'd have to compromise the upholstery to image it.
So even if you know how to expose, you still have to know good from better from best.
We are not born knowing where the objective boundaries are and I'm still learning. Same goes for the aesthetics. For example, flare can work well in some few cases.
I saw a case where lifting shadow revealed centuries-old text that nobody knew about.
I have a sofa dated under the upholstery, in pencil on pine, to Nov. 10, 1847. Signatures are present but faint and unreadable. Exposure is part of the puzzle of how to read this; however, not now, as I'd have to compromise the upholstery to image it.
So even if you know how to expose, you still have to know good from better from best.
BebuLamar wrote:
Exposure is simple and certainly not rocket science. That's including all the stuff we talked about here all are quite simple. What I am surprised is that why so many people still have problems with it.
May 4, 2016 16:42:28 #
"a very different photographic medium " -- thanks for this insight.
Uuglypher wrote:
Hi, Jenny, br I disagree. When folks make stateme... (show quote)
May 4, 2016 16:46:41 #
May 4, 2016 17:41:50 #
Computer designed lenses and cameras.
Sensors that exceed most films.
Composition by cropping.
Super fast frame rates for peak moments.
Resolution rivaling medium or even large formats.
Focusing aids and computerized exposure analysis.
Raw files for maximum adjustments.
Software that can make silk purses out of a sow's ear in the right hands.
Is it really us or the technology that creates the images? Are we just a trigger to set it in motion.
Sensors that exceed most films.
Composition by cropping.
Super fast frame rates for peak moments.
Resolution rivaling medium or even large formats.
Focusing aids and computerized exposure analysis.
Raw files for maximum adjustments.
Software that can make silk purses out of a sow's ear in the right hands.
Is it really us or the technology that creates the images? Are we just a trigger to set it in motion.
May 4, 2016 17:44:24 #
May 4, 2016 17:52:45 #
mikegreenwald
Loc: Illinois
Edia wrote:
This is a chicken and the egg type endeavor. Is it the final image that is important or is it the tools and methods used to achieve that image?
To me, the final image and the emotional reaction to that image by the viewer that is more important.
To me, the final image and the emotional reaction to that image by the viewer that is more important.
I Agree!!!
May 4, 2016 18:25:45 #
joer wrote:
Computer designed lenses and cameras. br br Senso... (show quote)
As hard as that is to accept it is difficult to refute.
We did not design the lenses, sensors, cameras or camera software, post processing software, etc. We did not even create the film, ink paper or developers.
Our influence over sharpness, resolution and other finer points of the image is greatly dependent on how much we can spend on our hardware.
We can only select the location, vantage point and focal length, etc. We might arrange a still life or control the artificial lighting. Only we can decide what to do with the image after it is captured. Our role is getting less significant.
Sound depressing? Don't let id get you down. It's a situation we all face. We just need to apply some creativity and original thinking to make something worthwhile.
May 4, 2016 18:32:52 #
TheDman
Loc: USA
selmslie wrote:
We can only select the location, vantage point and focal length, etc. We might arrange a still life or control the artificial lighting. Only we can decide what to do with the image after it is captured. Our role is getting less significant.
We can only select the location, vantage point and focal length, etc. We might arrange a still life or control the artificial lighting. Only we can decide what to do with the image after it is captured. Our role is getting less significant.
His does that make us any more or less significant than we've ever been?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.