The Edit has begun

[Donald]

Well, that's my adventure to Yosemite and the Eastern Sierra over.

What a wonderful, wonderful trip. Such landscape scenery. Such wonderful people. So long as my memory holds out, it will remain vivid and joyful in my thoughts.

A reflection on the act of photography:-

It was full-on photography for over 3 weeks. My cameras have never worked so hard. And that is what they became - workhorses. I've also never been so grateful for all the time spent when I first got them just getting to know them and spending the time I did learning to operate them in the dark, so that I don't have to remove my eye from the viewfinder to be able to accurately and quickly change all manner of functions, not just aperture and shutter speed, but focus points, ISO speed, metering mode, etc. etc. When you have the moon suddenly appear and you see a shot that you never envisaged, you want to know that you know your gear well enough to be able to get the shot ... and I did.

The Canon 5DS, 7DMkII and the Panasonic Lumix DMC LX100 each a role in the photo capturing process. The 5DS was my primary landscape capture camera. I have it programmed so that one of the 3 mode options on the dial (as well as Tv, Av, P, M, B, etc) is set for Mirror Lock-Up (I know not all cameras have these additional programmable options on the dial). That's how I operated it exclusively. On a tripod with a cable release. Any hand-held shots were with the 7DMkII or the Lumix. 95% of my shooting was done at f16 with shutter speeds mainly ranging from 1/4 to 1/30th. Occasionally we got up to the breakneck speed of 1/60th. Life (shooting) was taken very slowly and deliberately. For example, for my shot of Tenaya Lake from the south-west shore (which hopefully you'll see later), I spent about 6 hours at the location. The camera was set up for the shot and I just watched the light and the clouds and occasionally took a photo as lighting changed. But it was a beautiful 6 hours, photos or not.

What was the most useful bit of gear? Just before I went to the US I had bought some studio lighting. I also bought a Sekonic L-758DR light meter. Again, I did a lot of work before I went learning how to use that in an outdoor environment. That proved to be a fantastically useful tool. I used it all the time. I know our camera meters are good, but the light meter absolutely nails it every time. I would now class it as indispensible. I have a profile for each camera saved in the light meter, so it knows the precise dynamic range of my 5DS and 7DMKII. I never used my GNDs at all on the trip, whereas all the advise is that you definitely need GNDs to shoot in Yosemite.

The other point is that you could hear all these 'togs around you firing off 3, 5, 7 frames (bracketing), when all I needed was one.

Such intense exposure to photography (I've never had 3 weeks full-on photography before) has been a tremendous learning experience. And, yes, I do think I am a better photographer as a result. I may not produce better images, but my hit rate (for good pictures) will, I believe, be higher. You don't come away from an experience like that without having absorbed some fundamental lessons in crafting a good photograph from a scene in front of you.

So after that, I better produce some decent images.

Well, the editing process is now underway. I said before I left that if I came home with a dozen (12) RAW files that I could turn into images that would stop people in their tracks, I'd be very happy. Yes, I clicked the shutter a lot of times, but I'm looking to impose the highest standards upon myself and only what I consider to be the very best will ever make it to final processing.

But to get the ball rolling and to satisfy good friends who always berate me for not producing enough colour work, I did a very quick edit on this as I was working my way through the files.

Sunset on Half Dome: From Olmsted Point, Yosemite National Park

[Shadowman]

Sounds like it was a dream vacation, can't wait to see more.

[John 2]

Donald, nice to hear that you had such a deeply satisfying time. If this is a starter for 10, walk on. I'm looking forward to the rest.

[Stagecoach]

I also look forward to seeing some more Donald, welcome back.

[mugge]

Welcome back Donald. I am looking forward to some amazing pictures. An external lightmeter in 2016? I will be very interested.
Cheers Ole

[Donald]

An external lightmeter in 2016?

Yep. I found that getting from the point of deciding upon a composition and then metering for that composition, was not only more accurate with the Sekonic, but also much faster (once you get comfortable using it).

[george013]

Yep. I found that getting from the point of deciding upon a composition and then metering for that composition, was not only more accurate with the Sekonic, but also much faster (once you get comfortable using it).

Can you explain why? And how you used it?

George

[Donald]

Can you explain why? And how you used it?

George

Why?
Because you take a reading, know that it is accurate and quickly dial in the appropriate shutter and/or aperture setting. Job done.

How?
There are two primary ways if using it in reflected light mode.

First - Programme the ISO2 button to give a reading 2.5-3 stops (depending on the dynamic range of your camera) below the meter reading. Take the meter reading of the brightest part of the scene (coverage is of a 1% area). Press ISO2 button. This gives you the accurate mid-point reading to which to set your camera.

or

Second - Take a reading of the brightest part of the scene. Put that into memory. Take a reading of the darkest part of the scene. Put that into memory. Press 'Average' to then get the reading that will place these two points at their correct positions at either end of the histogram.

If, of course, you are standing in a location that has the same light falling on it as on the scene you wish to photograph, you merely take an incident light reading.

[george013]

Why?
Because you take a reading, know that it is accurate and quickly dial in the appropriate shutter and/or aperture setting. Job done.

How?
There are two primary ways if using it in reflected light mode.

First - Programme the ISO2 button to give a reading 2.5-3 stops (depending on the dynamic range of your camera) below the meter reading. Take the meter reading of the brightest part of the scene (coverage is of a 1% area). Press ISO2 button. This gives you the accurate mid-point reading to which to set your cameras

or

Second - Take a reading of the brighest part of the scene. Put that into memory. Taker a reading of the darkest part of the scene. Put that into memory. Press 'Average' to then get the reading that will place these two points at there correct positions at either end of the histogram.

If, of course, you are standing in a location that has the same light falling on it as on the scene you wish to photograph, you merely take an incident light reading.

You used it as a reflected meter.
The first looks like spotmetering on the brightest scene with an ev-correction of -2.5 or -3.
The second is a spotmetering of the brightest and darkest scene and averaging the result.

I just wanted to know.

George

[Donald]

You used it as a reflected meter.
The first looks like spotmetering on the brightest scene with an ev-correction of -2.5 or -3.
The second is a spotmetering of the brightest and darkest scene and averaging the result.

I just wanted to know.

George

I used it as both and yes, that is how it is used, as a spotmeter. As I wrote, Incident light reading is possible if the light falling on the place where you are located is the same as the light falling on the scene you intend to photograph.

The key difference with the light meter is that you know are operating accurately within the 0-255 scale, whereas unless you know your own particular camera's pre-programmed settings, you do not know at what points on that scale is is indicating under- or over-exposure. It is not 0 and 255. It could be anywhere between 10 - 25 at one end and 230 - 245 at the other end.

[xpatUSA]

Yep. I found that getting from the point of deciding upon a composition and then metering for that composition, was not only more accurate with the Sekonic, but also much faster (once you get comfortable using it).

It was interesting to read about your experience with the Sekonic. My initial thought was similar to Ole's until I read these:

http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2008/12...ter-lightmeter

http://www.photoreview.com.au/review...dr-light-meter

Especially the part about calibrating to the camera where it was found that the camera metering was incorrect!

A bit like Chuck Norris and the time, sometimes I think that camera base ISOs are whatever the manufacturers say they are.

[Donald]

Especially the part about calibrating to the camera where it was found that the camera metering was incorrect!

I'm not sure it's about being 'incorrect', but I'll bet that the vast majority of people, including some experienced people on here, assume that, for example, the 'blinkies' to indicate over-exposure are shown when pure white of 255 is reached. That is not the case. Cameras are sent out with 'wriggle room/safety margins' built in and the 'white point' could be set on the camera at anywhere from, as I say, 230-245. It is very,very unlikely that it will be set any higher than 245.

So, you have something that is reflecting a value of 245. The blinkies come on. You think you've set up for an over-exposure, so you wind back on the settings. When in fact you MAY not have been over-exposed at all. The point is that you can't be certain. With the light meter you can.

[george013]

I'm not sure it's about being 'incorrect', but I'll bet that the vast majority of people, including some experienced people on here, assume that, for example, the 'blinkies' to indicate over-exposure are shown when pure white of 255 is reached. That is not the case. Cameras are sent out with 'wriggle room/safety margins' built in and the 'white point' could be set on the camera at anywhere from, as I say, 230-245. It is very,very unlikely that it will be set any higher than 245.

So, you have something that is reflecting a value of 245. The blinkies come on. You think you've set up for an over-exposure, so you wind back on the settings. When in fact you MAY not have been over-exposed at all. The point is that you can't be certain. With the light meter you can.

It's easy to compare the blinkies on the lcd-screen of your camera with the blinkies in your editor. In the editor you can change the treshold and determine which treshold is used in the camera, if used.

It's not a scientific law that a lightmeter has to be calibrated for 18% reflection. Differences are normal. It's more that one learns the behaviour of his stuff.

George

[JBW]

The more I look the more I respect your abilities

[Manfred M]

Donald - After all that nice outdoor air, it is time to stay indoors for a while now.

Glass of wine in hand, it's time to start culling those images that do not hit the 5-star rating. That's sometimes obvious and sometimes so subjective, so I find the wine helps... I'm certainly glad that the trip turned out to be what you were hoping for.

With respect to the hand-held light meter versus the histogram / blinkies, don't forget that these are assigned based on the jpeg your camera has generated, so there tends to be at least one stop of "forgiveness" that are courtesy of the compression algorithms built into your DSLR camera. I know my Panasonic gives me a live histogram, but it is so tiny that is is almost useless.

Regardless, I'm glad to see you back safe and sound with no significant injuries caused by the environment you spent photographing over the past four weeks. I find those tree roots are always doing their best to get me to trip me so that I fall flat on my face . I look forward to your postings as you get through your edits!

[ccphoto]

I use my trusty old Pentax Spotmeter, one that I've used for film for at least three decades now and I've set my neutral zone at close to a VI as it compensates my camera's meter pretty well. Shooting digital Zone is a bit different than shooting for film but the end result is much the same.

It might be nice if one or two images you showed folks where you metered for the scene, the meter reading as opposed to the camera's reading (if you have that info) and then what your final exposure numbers were so they might have a clearer idea of how the hand-held meter reads a scene.

That's a lovely location to shoot Half-Dome from and not terribly demanding to get to. My trip was too short in all the places I really liked so am planning a return trip in the spring for three, ten day location shoots in Yellowstone, the Canyonlands area and Zion/Bryce starting low and going high so I can leave and get to Banff before the school kids let out for the summer.

[ccphoto]

I wonder if this image might benefit from opening the shadows a bit in the foreground trees. This is a PS edit with a Super Darks mask and a subsequent dupe HSB mask for some additional color in the green and yellow spectrum. It is also highly possible, on your monitor, your image looks just like my edit given the Internet's inability to properly translate 16 bit to 8 bit blacks and other super darks. And it may be, of course, your vision as you metered it. Either or, it is a lovely image that can stand alone on either merit.



As always, any edit of mine is strictly one person's POV and not in any way meant to be "better" or to disparage another's work.

[Mike Buckley]

Wonderful scene expertly photographed! So glad to learn that the entire process of your trip was so rewarding.

I realize that you haven't completed the editing process of this image, so I'll mention the haze. Normally I would try to eliminate it. However, in this case, the haze helps define the three layers of land and adds a soft quality to the scene. So, I would be very tempted to leave much if not all of the haze as is or I would at least be open-minded to the possibility that removing the haze might not improve the image. I look forward to seeing your image once you have completed the editing process.

[xpatUSA]

I'm not sure it's about being 'incorrect', but I'll bet that the vast majority of people, including some experienced people on here, assume that, for example, the 'blinkies' to indicate over-exposure are shown when pure white of 255 is reached. That is not the case. Cameras are sent out with 'wriggle room/safety margins' built in and the 'white point' could be set on the camera at anywhere from, as I say, 230-245. It is very,very unlikely that it will be set any higher than 245.

So, you have something that is reflecting a value of 245. The blinkies come on. You think you've set up for an over-exposure, so you wind back on the settings. When in fact you MAY not have been over-exposed at all. The point is that you can't be certain. With the light meter you can.

I don't have blinkies, Donald, and I don't use fancy, like evaluative, metering. So I was paraphrasing this gentleman's words from the review:

"Of the three DSLR sensors I profiled, none was successfully calibrated to its own built-in metering system. They couldn't reproduce files with 18% RGB readouts from an 18% gray target, but were off by between 1/3 and 2/3 stops in the Evaluative/Matrix metering modes. Precise exposures require a more refined system."

Being retired, with lots of time, and rarely shooting things in motion, I generally poke around the scene in spot-metering-in-the-center mode, always at base ISO. Keeps life simple for this old man . . .

[John 2]

I'm not qualified to comment on this highly technical discussion but it seems to me that one of the benefits of a good mirrorless camera is that you get what you see and you can modify what you see while your seeing it. Just thought that I would throw that in for some ripples. However, it would be interesting for Donald to comment on whether he compared the output from the Lumix DMC LX100 in terms of its internal lightmeter Vs the Seconic.