As Gavin Hoey said, amazing. Thanks for posting.
I thought Vello was its own brand, not B&H private label. I have the IR Remote Control for Canon. Vello provides no documentation other than read the camera manual. For my Canon 60D, I have to set the camera to self-timer. Confusing? Yes, but that is how it is.
This is a very emotional thread. I can add to that emotion but whatever I would say would be nothing compared to what the Survivors and Liberators have said.
Let me turn to the photographic question. Variations of this question appear often here. Someone is shooting an event, a wedding, whatever and asks what lens or settings should be used. Many offer well-meaning advice. Here is mine.
How you shoot, that is your personal photographic style, what you shoot, how close you get, the lighting, the crowds and anything else you can imagine dictate what equipment to bring. Since you cannot answer this in advance with certainty, cover all bases. To be specific, bring both your lenses and, if you can, a tripod or monopod. Estimate how much memory you will need for your entire trip and then buy twice as much. I also recommend a backpack or vest not just for your gear but lunch and incidentals. Better to carry too much than too little.
Go in peace and return in peace.
Searcher, good answer, wrong question. Thanks for your suggestion.
The problem is that the edits show in Quick Collection but the destination folder is empty. When I go to copy from Quick to destination, I get an error message saying the files already exist.
I fixed the problem by moving from Quick to a temporary folder and syncing, copying and a few other now-forgotten steps. Very roundabout.
Mogul wrote:
I certainly hope nobody takes your advice to discard a properly working supplemental meter. That would be the height of poor judgment. You have used meters for forty years and you still don't understand how using an incident meter or 1° spot reflective meter on several parts of your scene can help you balance exposure so as to adequately expose shadows and avoid excessive exposure of highlights. Your camera's built-in meter is not necessarily better, just more convenient. Maybe fifteen or twenty years more with traditional tools will mellow your perspective.
Yes, I usually rely on my camera meter (in all three modes), but there are times when the spot meter will not give me the information I want or when spot metering with the camera is too slow. That's when the Sekonic meter comes out. Some pictures are a compromise, to be corrected in post production. I use all the tools at hand, from a high tech electronic rangefinder to an old Gossen Sixticolor Color Temperature Meter. It's not a member of turning the clock back; it's a matter of understanding that some older technologies are still quite effective. Or maybe you're not aware that some very old technology is as effective today as it was hundreds of years ago.
I certainly hope nobody takes your advice to disca... (
show quote)
Thank you for your well-reasoned response. Whether hand-held or built-in, incident or reflective, or whatever else, metering is as much art as science. And you are right, I do not understand all nuances after 50 years. In fact, I still find it frustrating at times.
I do know that how you meter a scene often gives one, two, even three stops difference. This was true for film and is still true for digital. In the end, you will take the picture with a unique combination of aperture, shutter and ISO and you can get there by many different paths.
There is no gold standard to metering.As I said earlier, I opt for a fast, convenient method and consult the histogram. Or as a former President advised, "Trust, but verify."
marcomarks wrote:
In Library, just highlight them all in the film strip along the bottom of the screen by clicking on the first one, hold Shift down, and click on the last one. Put your mouse on any one of the group and drag the whole batch to the right destination folder and let go. They all move there.
I tried that already. Tells me the files already exist. They exist physically in the destination folder only but are cataloged two different places and sets of information. Puzzling.
rpavich wrote:
I think people aren't as aware of the amount of "adjusting" that they really do...(shoot, chimp, adjust, shoot again, chimp, adjust, shoot, accept...later on in Lightroom add 1/2 stop) :)
Incident meter = pop...set camera....shoot away....
I agree on people underestimating the amount of adjusting or more likely, groping in the dark. In my world, I shoot, look at the histogram, adjust if necessary and then shoot, shoot, shoot.... In post-processing, a minor adjustment and I am done.
Do you really want me to believe what you say about setting the camera and shooting away? Are you saying that based upon your meter reading, you set the camera manually and then never adjust aperture or shutter again during that session? That is what you imply. Is that what you mean?
shopnascar wrote:
I think I like using the lightmeter because it makes me feel more in control. Whether or not that is true seems to be at the heart of this very cogent and evocative discussion....
I have always been in control whether it was film with a hand-held or built-in meter or digital with a built-in meter with a histogram. That is why I find this conversation so perplexing to me. Sounds more like vinyl recordings versus digital, paper books versus electronic and other examples. I get very articulate subjective answers to my questions but no objective ones. I prefer the objective so I can improve my methods.
Thanks for the conversation.
rpavich wrote:
I don't know why people keep saying this...this is incorrect. (unless you are speaking of the camera's meter, then it's true...since the camera's meter swings wildly depending on the tonality of what's actually IN the frame AT THAT MOMENT...a person really doesn't know WHAT the exposure is until they chimp and decide on the jpg on the lcd.
If you mean that a person has to keep popping an incident meter...then it's not true...not sure which you meant.
The built-in evaluative or average settings reduce those swings. Not an ideal solution but a step in the right direction. With a reflective meter, you can stand near or far from the subject, point it to the foreground, subject, or background. Even pup on a spot attachment. With the incident meter, you can measure where you stand or where the subject is. These are only a few of the more obvious variables.
I no longer know what exposure means. If you expose for the shadows, you may very well lose the highlights. Similarly, if you expose for the highlights. In general, most people want everything from shadows to highlights most of the time. The histogram helps to determine that. With the lightmeter, you judge what is on the screen. If you view it on the back of the camera, that may not be the same image you view on your monitor or later when you print. Eliminate that possible error by using the histogram.
And what happens later in post-processing may be all together different. The value of the histogram is that you capture as much information as possible and you can decide later to do with it what you want. If you do not have all those data, then you cannot use it later and reconstructing it may be difficult.
Stopnascar, thanks for the lucid response. What we have here is the basis of a discussion.
I used lightmeters for years and knew then as I know today that I got any reading I wanted depending upon where you point them, incident versus reflected, spot versus average versus evaluative. However, I believe the histogram gives the most objective measure of exposure.
As a practical matter, viewing the histogram after the shot takes no more time than using the hand-held meter before the shot. That being the case for me, I would rather use the histogram. Furthermore, you have to meter every shot. With the histogram, you apply the same compensation to all pictures though the actual exposure may change. All this is true for similar lighting.
As for the gray card, you really needed a densitometer to use the card properly. I do not think the gray card serves any useful purpose in today's digital photography. I cannot figure out a role for it. Please correct me if I am wrong about this.
Let me rephrase my earlier response.
What does a hand-held lightmeter do that your built-in meter and histogram do not do?
How do you use the lightmeter information along with the camera's information?
Why is a hand-held reading more "accurate" than the camera's?
Do you accept the meter's reading as the "truth" and not "adjust" it as you see fit?
Please be specific.
My advice: throw the meter away. Your camera has a better system already built in. Learn to use it and adjust your exposures with the histogram.
I used such light meters for forty years evolving into the current DSLR approach. There is a good reason why this happened. Do not try to turn the clock back.
I need help on getting edits into the right folder. Here is what I did. I imported the photos from the camera into the destination folder, developed them and assigned keywords as I usually do.
But I did something unusual without knowing it because that destination contains only the unedited files with keywords. The edited ones are in the Previous Import catalog. In trying to sync them with the destination folder, I added the edits to the Quick Collection but cannot find a way to get them into the destination folder.
How do I get those edits in Quick Collection into the destination folder?
Thanks for the help.
gemlenz wrote:
So the expodisc adjusts the color balance too?
I am using white balance and color balance interchangeably and that may be wrong. Someone should clarify this point. Expodisc refers to white balance.
gemlenz wrote:
I have white lens caps and have used them to set custom balance, and I also have a grey card. When I use the lens caps it's a problem getting the cap close to the subject lighting. The grey card works, but it's a pain sometimes and I don't always have it.
I do not know what kinds of lens caps you have but I will caution you that not all "white" plastic is truly white. Expodisc is. In fact, each unit ships with its actual calibration. Regarding convenience, the Expodisc is a lot better than a gray card. In all respect to the many fine photographers who still use them, they are antiquated. Furthermore, I think you still have to sample it in post-processing to adjust the color balance. Not so with Expodisc.
The same comment applies to those people who use coffee filters, Kleenex and anything else handy that looks "white".
Let me know if you have any more questions.