SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Post one...., I bet anyone can match it or surpass it!
Buzz-words don't make the picture, photographers do!
What a bunch of marketing BS and malarky!!!
SS

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

It looks like you used { instead of [ to change the appearance of your text.

Gpa-15 Loc: Tinton Falls, NJ

[quote=jerryc41]It looks like you used { instead of [ to change the appearance of your text.[/quote]
------------------
Hi 'JerryC41'... Must put this aside till I get back from services. Takes me a bit longer to put on my 'crow-walker' leg brace. Charcot disease disintegrates the bones in your foot. --- I'll check out your post more carefully then; ...ok?

tonygee

If you are talking film photography, you can either learn the "zone system" as practiced by Ansel Adams, or alternatively, just use an off-camera incident light meter and set the exposure manually. Digital photography? I don't know if a whole lot of subtlety in-camera is really possible.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Sorry, but your QUEST is utterly hopeless and impossible.

First, you need to realize that EVERY shot you ever took with your OM 4Ti WAS post-processed! Not by you, probably, but by someone you paid to process the film. The difference today, with digital, is that most of us do our own post-processing. I suppose you could pay someone to do it for you. I know some pros who do that. But it adds a lot to the cost of shooting.

Next, I have yet to see a digital capture that wouldn't benefit from at least SOME post-processing. IMO, there's no such thing as "straight from the camera".

Plus for the type of photography you're asking about - architectural interiors - the KEY to success doing that today with digital imaging is in the post-processing, which makes it far faster and easier than it EVER was with film!

Back in the days of film, to do a proper and natural looking interior shot required about $25,000 to $30,000 worth of lighting equipment, meters, etc.... plus a van to haul it around in. It took anywhere from an hour to 10 hours to set up one shot, arranging the lighting so that it looks "natural". The larger and more complex the space, the more time and gear was needed to set up. The actual shooting with film only took a few seconds (then it was off to the PROCESSOR for post-processing!)... the real work was in the setup to prep for the shot.

Now with digital we still may need to do some lighting setup, but it's a whole lot less complicated and more automated. It can even be done with relatively compact flashes today... or perhaps even only by available light. Now we can simply take multiple captures using different exposures for interior and exterior views.... even with different white balance if needed... then strip the images together into a single image in PP. It might even be possible to use "High Dynamic Range" software to automatically combine the images. But even doing it manually is s far, far faster and easier than was ever possible shooting interiors with film!

So, give up. You're just doing yourself a disservice by refusing to do post-processing!

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

"Live Composite" appears to be Olympus' term for in-camera, multiple-exposure, HDR processing.... which is exactly what I recommended doing in post-processing, in my previous response. I just used different terminology.

I'd still do it in post, not in-camera... in case I wanted to redo differently or make some tweaks to the process. If done in-camera, that might not be possible.

wotsmith Loc: Nashville TN

Ansel Adams post processed in the dark room, I post process in a computer. Why are you against post processing????? You better than Ansel Adams???