I am going back to RAW & manual.

[Black Pearl]

Now here you have it ladies and gentlemen, he has the level of control he needs in a way he likes it. Which is pretty much the idea that started this thread.

I suppose at the end of the day that is all that matters and no one here would agree otherwise.


I think the discussion has evolved and become both interesting and informative because of the reasoning behind peoples approaches and I think to a degree some misunderstandings (miss conceptions might be a better way of putting it) around the levels of control you have with various modes on our cameras.

[JBW]

In the automated modes did you set the ISO manually or are you running on auto-ISO?

The reason I ask (and the reason you got some of the responses from me and others on this thread) is that what you are saying simply is not correct. Everything else does not move; depending on how you have set up your camera one or two parameters move, no more. Not only that they have to move.

To get the "correcct" exposure; you need to balance off three things, ISO, shutter speed and aperture. It doesn't matter whether you shoot 100% manual or in one of the automated modes. Adjust one of these, and one or both of the others have to move to keep the exposure correct. In my case, I generally shoot with a fixed ISO (I set it as low as I can to maximize image quality; dynamic range and colour depth decreases whenever you increase ISO and noise increases as ISO increases).

So if you shoot like I do and fix the ISO, every time I stop down 1 full stop, my camera has to double the shutter speed to keep the exposure triangle in balance. It doesn't matter if you do this by letting the camera calculate the new shutter speed or you set it manually, the two results must be identical to ensure that the exposure does not change.

The other thing that is critical is that you need a good exposure so that you can build a good image in post production with the maximum amount of useable data. To use an analogy of building a house. The foundation must be able to support the house. No matter how well the house is built, if the foundation is not good, the house will have problems. Think of the raw data as the foundation of your image. You can do a lot of things in PP, but the data in the file you are using needs to be as good as you can make it.

Okay if I understand this properly it doesn't matter if I shoot in manual or A.P. because i will need the same settings to get the proper exposure.

You are also saying that i should go for proper exposure and mood creation in PP because I will end up with a better product?

So my idea of shooting dark will produce a shot of lesser quality than shooting right and adjusting in pp?

Okay now comes a question:

What is exposure compensation used for. I am guessing using it to darken a shot is not it's primary function?

[george013]

Okay if I understand this properly it doesn't matter if I shoot in manual or A.P. because i will need the same settings to get the proper exposure.

You are also saying that i should go for proper exposure and mood creation in PP because I will end up with a better product?

So my idea of shooting dark will produce a shot of lesser quality than shooting right and adjusting in pp?

Okay now comes a question:

What is exposure compensation used for. I am guessing using it to darken a shot is not it's primary function?

Brian,

Maybe it will get clear if you describe what actions you take. You pick up the camera, set the mode to M. And than? Tell us. It might sound childish but there is some misunderstanding from here.

George

[Manfred M]

Okay if I understand this properly it doesn't matter if I shoot in manual or A.P. because i will need the same settings to get the proper exposure.

Exactly right.

You are also saying that i should go for proper exposure and mood creation in PP because I will end up with a better product?

Correct. For the dark moody shots you like, exposing correctly and then dialing things back in post will create less noise than if you underexpose. Underexposure is one of the main sources of digital noise.

So my idea of shooting dark will produce a shot of lesser quality than shooting right and adjusting in pp?

Exactly right, for the reasons noted above.

Okay now comes a question:

What is exposure compensation used for. I am guessing using it to darken a shot is not it's primary function?

In camera light meters are reflective light meters, so they really don't measure the light falling on the subject (which is what we really want to know to set our exposure) but rather the light reflected from the subject. In order to estimate what the incident light reading is, the camera manufacturers have come up with a solution that works most of the time. They use a "middle gray" value, 18% as what the camera's light meter measures to. As long as your scene is reasonably close to average, the camera gets a pretty decent result.

Lets get you to try an experiment. Put your camera on a tripod and put a 100% pure white target on a wall and set your camera to one of the automated modes and frame the image so you get nothing other than the white target in the picture and take that shot. Now replace that white target with a 100% black target and repeat the shot.

Download and look at both images on your computer. You might be surprised, but both shots should be virtually identical. If you look at the histogram of both shots, you should see a single line in the centre of the histogram. Why do we get this strange result? Because your camera's light meter assumes that the scene was an average one (middle gray) and calculated the exposure based on that assumption. By the way if you shoot a middle gray sample, the same way you did the black and white ones, you will get the same image / histogram. (By the way I've done this to demonstrate exactly this during a camera club lecture on exposure. It surprised quite a few people).

I think you will have to admit, from an image quality standpoint, you would be very disappointed with those results, and this is where exposure compensation comes in. It lets you override the camera's coupled light meter and lets you get the correct exposure. If you are shooting in manual mode you effectively do the same thing by increasing or decreasing the exposure by changing the shutter speed, aperture value or ISO value. Unfortunately, there is no set rule of thumb here as how much you need to dial in. A combination of experience and trial and error (bracketing), lets you get the best exposure by reading what is going on with your histogram.

Where does this happen in real life? We'll think back to your days in Northern BC and those lovely snowy scenes. They totally fool the light meter. The same with birds in flight against the bright sky. Both these conditions are going to require a stop or two of +ve exposure compensation.

On the flip side, go out and take a picture at night. It will come out a lot brighter than you would expect, so here you need to dial in -ve exposure compensation.

I hope this helps clarify things.

[davidedric]

Lets get you to try an experiment. Put your camera on a tripod and put a 100% pure white target on a wall and set your camera to one of the automated modes and frame the image so you get nothing other than the white target in the picture and take that shot. Now replace that white target with a 100% black target and repeat the shot.

Well, I had to go and try it! Not quite identical, I think because of illumination from the side, but definitely the same shade of grey!

Cheers, DAve

[Black Pearl]

Interestingly the Fuji X-T1 produced two quite different resulting shots. The white paper shot needed about 1 stop added in Lightroom to make it white while the black sheet needed nearly 3 stops to get it black.

I suppose if its aiming for 18% grey then you'd expect it to lighten a dark subject more than it would darken a light one?

[davidedric]

Interesting.

Mine was taken with a Panasonic G7 on P and manual focus. In Lightroom, both black and white needed around three stops, judged as when the histogram reaches the edge. Beyond that, I think someone's going to get into gammas and things, so I'll bail out now

Dave

[george013]

Interestingly the Fuji X-T1 produced two quite different resulting shots. The white paper shot needed about 1 stop added in Lightroom to make it white while the black sheet needed nearly 3 stops to get it black.

I suppose if its aiming for 18% grey then you'd expect it to lighten a dark subject more than it would darken a light one?

Try to do it with spot metering if you didn't. And check EV compensation.

George

[Black Pearl]

Try to do it with spot metering if you didn't. And check EV compensation.

George

I will but when the things I was shooting were completely uniform I don't see how the metering mode would change the exposure - as to EV - it is set with a geet big dial on the top of my camera and it was definitely on zero :-)

[george013]

I will but when the things I was shooting were completely uniform I don't see how the metering mode would change the exposure - as to EV - it is set with a geet big dial on the top of my camera and it was definitely on zero :-)

There might be more variables that could explain your result. Nikon by example interpretes the measuring of the lightmeter in matrix, different settings in the in-camera converter, callibration of the lightmeter, can go from an assumed reflection between 12% and 20%.
The main lesson is that the lightmeter measures a certain value and translates that to a camera setting, A,S. so that that value is placed somewhere in the middle of the histogram.

George

[Adzman808]

What an interesting thread, with so many differing opinions.

I did start to skim read, so apologies for any obvious duplication that I might make that's been covered already.

Personally I like aperture priority mode. You might too, you might not. You shouldn't care what I like and I don't care what you like. It's all about the pictures.

The only thing that really reduces your camera's ability to take the best shot it can is the ISO setting.

OBVISOUSLY you sometimes can't use base iso, and noise is generally preferable to lost shadow detail, so sometimes you have to crank it up.

But ideally I leave my cameras on base ISO. Base ISO gives you the max dynamic range and the most detail.

I like aperture mode, because this controls the depth of field. Your camera might think that F2 and 1/1000 is the same as F4 as 1/250 but it's really not

Now if you use your camera in any sort of auto mode, you're relying on the light meter in the camera

If you put your camera in full M mode and look at the histogram, or the blinky highlights in the EVF you're relying on the light meter in the camera

If you ignore the light meter in the camera and use an external handheld lightmeter, then you're relying on that instead.

If you simply squint a bit, take off your hat to feel the strength of the sun on your head, then set the camera how years of experience has taught you then fair play, THATS manual mode

Like a previous poster, I too own a Fuji camera (2 in fact) and a LX100 that has a shutter dial with full stop speeds.

PERSONALLY I SOMETIMES find this a bit annoying, because it means that if I use the shutter dial in anything other than auto, I then have to use the a different dial if I want a 1/3 stop of SS. So tend to use the shutter in auto and the EC dial to fine tweak exspoure.

So that's my preferred setting, manual ISO manual aperture, auto shutter.

Your mileage may vary, but there's no right or wrong.

It's what works best for you.

Again IMO, it's always worth shooting a high quality jpeg with your RAW. Why? The histogram, the image you chimp, that's all jpeg. Turn jpeg off all together? Nope can't be done, your camera always embeds a jpeg in the raw, so that the LCD, lightroom et el, has something to preview.

In fact some people who care not about their jpegs, actually set up a jpeg profile to get the best of their RAW! WTF you ask? Well RAW has a lot more potential dynamic range than a jpeg (if the DR is there in the shot to begin with) if you set a jpeg profile with really open shadows, really opened highlights, and sharpening and noise reduction on a low setting, then for sure you'll get a crap contrastless soft jpeg, but you'll also get a better clue from the histogram of where the SNR points are and a better clue of how sharp your shot will be after post.

So, IMO don't turn your jpegs off, make them work for you.

[Shadowman]

Hi one and all,

For the past week or so I have been experimenting with my cameras settings. I must admit that the auto settings available with JPEG allowed me to shoot some nice shots.

But they were not my shots. so I am back to manual and RAW. The shots won't be as consistent, possibly not even as good, but they will be mine.
Brian

I almost always do shoot manual unless I'm pressed for time and only jpeg when experimenting with camera features or running low on card space.

[Shadowman]

When I first started shooting raw, I would work on getting the images to look like my SOOC jegs (I still shoot raw + jpeg pretty well 100% of the time). As I got better at shooting raw, I would take the shots a step or two beyond what the jpegs looked like.

As I have said many times, my photographic skills are not good enough yet to shoot just jpeg, unless I am shooting in the studio and can control my light.

As for shooting on manual, there are times where I will do that, but these are very specific shots, like panos or shooting with studio flash. It also depends on what you mean by manual; manually setting the ISO, shutter speed and aperture, manually focusing?

The first time I saw RAW format in action, the image displayed on the LCD was so ugly that I never bothered to turn in on again until years later.

[george013]

The first time I saw RAW format in action, the image displayed on the LCD was so ugly that I never bothered to turn in on again until years later.

And still didn't learn that a RAW-file is not a picture?

George

[JBW]

Exactly right.

In camera light meters are reflective light meters, so they really don't measure the light falling on the subject (which is what we really want to know to set our exposure) but rather the light reflected from the subject. In order to estimate what the incident light reading is, the camera manufacturers have come up with a solution that works most of the time. They use a "middle gray" value, 18% as what the camera's light meter measures to. As long as your scene is reasonably close to average, the camera gets a pretty decent result.


I hope this helps clarify things.

It really does. Thanks for taking the time.

[xpatUSA]

Originally Posted by Shadowman
The first time I saw RAW format in action, the image displayed on the LCD was so ugly that I never bothered to turn in on again until years later.

And still didn't learn that a RAW-file is not a picture?

George

George was doing so well up 'til now . .

Here is a "RAW-file" straight from my camera's sensor outputs to a PNG, no conversion, no color space, no editing, just down-sized for posting:



Is it a picture or not, George?

[JBW]

George was doing so well up 'til now . .

Here is a "RAW-file" straight from my camera's sensor outputs to a PNG, no conversion, no color space, no editing, just down-sized for posting:



Is it a picture or not, George?

I'm not George but the definitions of 'picture' that I an find tell me you posted a picture.
' a painting or drawing.
"draw a picture of a tree"
synonyms: painting, drawing, sketch, oil painting, watercolor, print, canvas, portrait, portrayal, illustration, artwork, depiction, likeness, representation, image, icon, miniature, landscape; More
fresco, mural, wall painting;
informaloil
"pictures in an art gallery"
a photograph.
"we were warned not to take pictures"
synonyms: photograph, photo, snap, snapshot, shot, print, slide, transparency, exposure, still, enlargement
"we were told not to take pictures"
a portrait.
"have her picture painted"
archaic
a person or thing resembling another closely.
"she is the very picture of her mother"
synonyms: personification, embodiment, epitome, essence, quintessence, perfect example, soul, model
"the picture of health"
an impression of something formed from an account or description.
"a full picture of the disaster had not yet emerged"
synonyms: concept, idea, impression, view, (mental) image, vision, visualization, notion
"do you have a picture of what your ideal home might look like?"
an image on a television screen.
a movie.
"it took five honors, including best picture"
synonyms: movie, film, motion picture, feature film; More
director's cut;
informalflick;
datedmoving picture
"a picture starring Robert de Niro"
the movies.
plural noun: the pictures
"I'm going to the pictures with my buddies"

verb
verb: picture; 3rd person present: pictures; past tense: pictured; past participle: pictured; gerund or present participle: picturing

1.
represent (someone or something) in a photograph or picture.
"he is pictured with party guests"
synonyms: photograph, take a photograph/photo of, snap, shoot, film More
"he was pictured with his guests"
paint, draw, sketch, depict, delineate, portray, show, illustrate
"in the drawing they were pictured against a snowy background"
describe (someone or something) in a certain way.
"the markets in London and New York are usually pictured in contrasting terms"
form a mental image of.
"she pictured Benjamin waiting"
synonyms: visualize, see in one's mind's eye, conjure up a picture/image of, imagine, see, evoke
"Anne still pictured Richard as he had been"

Origin
late Middle English: from Latin pictura, from pict- ‘painted’ (from the verb pingere ).'

[xpatUSA]

I'm not George but the definitions of 'picture' that I can find tell me you posted a picture:

'a painting or drawing.'
"draw a picture of a tree"
synonyms: painting, drawing, sketch, oil painting, watercolor, print, canvas, portrait, portrayal, illustration, artwork, depiction, likeness, representation, image, icon, miniature, landscape; More
fresco, mural, wall painting;
in formal oil
"pictures in an art gallery"
a photograph.
"we were warned not to take pictures"
synonyms: photograph, photo, snap, snapshot, shot, print, slide, transparency, exposure, still, enlargement
"we were told not to take pictures"
a portrait.
"have her picture painted"
archaic
a person or thing resembling another closely.
"she is the very picture of her mother"
synonyms: personification, embodiment, epitome, essence, quintessence, perfect example, soul, model
"the picture of health"
an impression of something formed from an account or description.
"a full picture of the disaster had not yet emerged"
synonyms: concept, idea, impression, view, (mental) image, vision, visualization, notion
"do you have a picture of what your ideal home might look like?"
an image on a television screen.
a movie.
"it took five honors, including best picture"
synonyms: movie, film, motion picture, feature film; More
director's cut;
informalflick;
datedmoving picture
"a picture starring Robert de Niro"
the movies.
plural noun: the pictures
"I'm going to the pictures with my buddies"

verb
verb: picture; 3rd person present: pictures; past tense: pictured; past participle: pictured; gerund or present participle: picturing

1.
represent (someone or something) in a photograph or picture.
"he is pictured with party guests"
synonyms: photograph, take a photograph/photo of, snap, shoot, film More
"he was pictured with his guests"
paint, draw, sketch, depict, delineate, portray, show, illustrate
"in the drawing they were pictured against a snowy background"
describe (someone or something) in a certain way.
"the markets in London and New York are usually pictured in contrasting terms"
form a mental image of.
"she pictured Benjamin waiting"
synonyms: visualize, see in one's mind's eye, conjure up a picture/image of, imagine, see, evoke
"Anne still pictured Richard as he had been"

Origin
late Middle English: from Latin pictura, from pict- ‘painted’ (from the verb pingere ).'

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, Brian - but, in this case, just a hundred or so did it

[george013]

George was doing so well up 'til now . .

Here is a "RAW-file" straight from my camera's sensor outputs to a PNG, no conversion, no color space, no editing, just down-sized for posting:



Is it a picture or not, George?

You may explain that to me. Brian has a Nikon with a Bayern based sensor with R,G, and B sensels. A picture, digital, has a RGB pixel. Pay attention to the comma's.

Brian,
Glad you're still reading and are able to write or copy so many words, about a hundred as Ted counted.
Show me a RAW picture.

George

[JBW]

You may explain that to me. Brian has a Nikon with a Bayern based sensor with R,G, and B sensels. A picture, digital, has a RGB pixel. Pay attention to the comma's.

Brian,
Glad you're still reading and are able to write or copy so many words, about a hundred as Ted counted.
Show me a RAW picture.

George

If I was being cheeky I could post a shot of some RAW hamburger. But on a slightly more serious note any collection of photons on whatever surface you care to name that can be used to represent an object without or without pp can reasonably be called a picture. Whether it is the Hubble or my fujifilm makes no difference. they both collect photons, organize them and then recreate them. When my Sony shows me a Raw file on my LCD it is showing me a picture.