2019 P52 - 1st Qtr - Sandy(Skitterbug)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skitterbug

Hi John - Not sure what you mean? I believe in this photo, I metered on the brighter snow and then composed on the kettle? Is that what you are asking? :)

---

Sandy, I've now looked at your photo on my monitor. Contrary to John's comment, my sense is that the original image is slightly underexposed.

When you say you metered on the brighter snow, did you then make an adjustment to what the camera metered? If you did not, then the exposure would have been based on the camera's assumption that the bright snow was in fact a medium grey. And that would explain my sense that much of the photo is slightly underexposed (and hence probably with more noise than is necessary). I've not looked at the image in Lightroom or PS so have no idea what, if any noise, actually exists in the darker areas of the image (such as the kettle).

But as Geoff notes in his post, this is a challenging scene with very bright as well as darker areas. Apart from bracketed exposures, some sort of compromise has to be made in deciding on the original exposure. My personal preference would have been a slightly brighter exposure in order to avoid a risk of noise in the kettle.

Sandy - I think you have done quite well with this image. As others have pointed out, it's a tricky shot. You want to keep the snow looking realistic and manage the white balance. If the snow that the sun is striking is neutral, then the areas in shadow will have a tiny bit of a blue / cyan cast. That is the case here and it works. Darkening snow tends to give it a gray look and brightening it will often lead to a loss of detail, which again does not look good. What you have works, so I would leave it.

I agree with Geoff that less foreground would strengthen the image and cropping back some of the bright background areas is a good idea as well. That would also get the kettle offset from the centre a bit more. Adding a bit more micro-contrast and lifting the shadows in the kettle would bring out the textures a bit better too.

http://i63.tinypic.com/2n1fk44.jpg

Hello - Sorry I've been tardy in my reply. Grandchild's school has been cancelled a few times and he's been with us. It is interesting times when he's here. Fun but busy. Anyway, thank you for all the replies. I appreciate the demonstration of the corrected image. I think the changes and suggestions are spot on!

We have more snow and tomorrow morning if my day is mine, the trees ought to be beautiful. I need to read back through to see about exposure choices.

I still like using manual settings but the camera is puzzling me. I can select the Automatic Exposure Bracketing choices but I have to have the ISO set to AUTO to be able to adjust the Exposure compensation. So if I chose an ISO setting, then I can't increase or decrease the exposure compensation. Apparently, I'm not understanding something.

The way I've been choosing the camera's settings is that I first put in what I think might work. Then I look at the camera's meter in the view finder. From its reading, I'll adjust the camera settings to fine tune the scene. So should I choose settings (ISO, Arperture, speed) so that the meter registers that the scene is brighter than usual? Or should l use Auto ISO and then be able to adjust the Exposure Compensation to +7 or +1.3? Hope the question makes sense. (side note - the 7D MII has its meter in the most unhandy place - grrrr - not along the bottom but down the right side in the view finder's window and it is a pain to see)

Hope everyone had a good week! And thank you for all the info! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skitterbug

I still like using manual settings but the camera is puzzling me. I can select the Automatic Exposure Bracketing choices but I have to have the ISO set to AUTO to be able to adjust the Exposure compensation. So if I chose an ISO setting, then I can't increase or decrease the exposure compensation. Apparently, I'm not understanding something.

---

If you are shooting in manual mode and have a set ISO, exposure compensation makes no sense. You have told the camera that you will be setting the aperture, shutter speed and ISO. The concept of exposure compensation makes no sense when you are shooting 100% manual. If you don't like the exposure, just change one of the three settings you have dialed in.

The moment you allow some degree of automation; whether that is aperture priority, shutter priority or auto-ISO, you are telling the camera that you might need to override the exposure decisions it makes, so exposure compensation makes sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manfred M

If you are shooting in manual mode and have a set ISO, exposure compensation makes no sense. You have told the camera that you will be setting the aperture, shutter speed and ISO. The concept of exposure compensation makes no sense when you are shooting 100% manual. If you don't like the exposure, just change one of the three settings you have dialed in.

The moment you allow some degree of automation; whether that is aperture priority, shutter priority or auto-ISO, you are telling the camera that you might need to override the exposure decisions it makes, so exposure compensation makes sense.

---

Hi Manfred - Typical of me... trying to make something more complicated than I need to. Hubby shakes his head when I am not logical. This would be one of those instances.....

So my best bet when I use manual, is choosing my settings, taking a test shot and look at the histogram at least until I am comfortable with my choices. After that, keeping an eye on the light meter as the day unfolds. Sounds like a plan to me.... any flaws in my consideration of beginning procedures?

I appreciate that you are sharing your time and expertise here! Thank you! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skitterbug

Hi Manfred - Typical of me... trying to make something more complicated than I need to. Hubby shakes his head when I am not logical. This would be one of those instances.....

So my best bet when I use manual, is choosing my settings, taking a test shot and look at the histogram at least until I am comfortable with my choices. After that, keeping an eye on the light meter as the day unfolds. Sounds like a plan to me.... any flaws in my consideration of beginning procedures?

I appreciate that you are sharing your time and expertise here! Thank you! :)

---

If that is your workflow, then yes. You should be checking your metering / histogram any time your lighting changes. This would be whenever you have changed shooting locations or shooting position at the same location, say going from a backlit view to a side lit view of the same subject.

I personally do not advocate shooting in manual mode. After all you paid for all of those automation features on your camera. I rarely use manual mode in outdoor work (shooting panoramas is one exception to this). In the studio, I shoot 100% in manual mode. I know some photographers will disagree with me, especially ones who started of shooting with cameras that only worked in manual mode (like I did).

When doing landscape and street photography, I either shoot aperture priority or shutter priority. I will generally not use auto-ISO, but in situations where I am dealing with rapidly changing light conditions I will definitely use that feature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skitterbug

So my best bet when I use manual, is choosing my settings, taking a test shot and look at the histogram at least until I am comfortable with my choices. After that, keeping an eye on the light meter as the day unfolds. Sounds like a plan to me.... any flaws in my consideration of beginning procedures?

---

When we take account of the camera's metering, "manual" is almost a misnomer, I reckon. George tried to tell us this quite recently but most of us didn't get it at the time. In manual, my viewfinder shows the amount by which the settings are off relative to what the metering is seeing. The range of that display is -3 to +3 EV, outside of which it blinks. So, when we dutifully crank the exposure settings until that display says "0.0" the metering has effectively set the exposure, not us. And when we bias those manual settings for cats in coal mines or sitting on fresh snow, that display changes to show the amount of 'bias'. What I am trying to say is that, by including the in-camera metering, there is effectively no difference from using aperture or shutter priority modes + exposure compensation.

To me "pure" manual would be estimating the exposure based on experience, the lighting and the scene content, then taking the shot.

Less "pure" would be the use of an incident light-meter but still the in-camera metering does get ignored. :D

Not saying you should do any of the above, Sandy, just offering a point of view ...

... after all, there are many ways to skin the aforesaid cat. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xpatUSA

When we take account of the camera's metering, "manual" is almost a misnomer, I reckon. George tried to tell us this quite recently but most of us didn't get it at the time. In manual, my viewfinder shows the amount by which the settings are off relative to what the metering is seeing. The range of that display is -3 to +3 EV, outside of which it blinks. So, when we dutifully crank the exposure settings until that display says "0.0" the metering has effectively set the exposure, not us. And when we bias those manual settings for cats in coal mines or sitting on fresh snow, that display changes to show the amount of 'bias'. What I am trying to say is that, by including the in-camera metering, there is effectively no difference from using aperture or shutter priority modes + exposure compensation.

To me "pure" manual would be estimating the exposure based on experience, the lighting and the scene content, then taking the shot.

Less "pure" would be the use of an incident light-meter but still the in-camera metering does get ignored. :D

Not saying you should do any of the above, Sandy, just offering a point of view ...

---

Hi Ted - I do agree! <LOL> Because so often after I decide on what settings I want to use, I find myself adjusting because the light meter indicates that the result will be either too dark or too light. So if I can believe what it is "telling me", the electronic device is dictating the process. Fortunately, if I so choose, I can override the camera's suggestions and still make my own and be happy/sad about the outcome of hitting the mark or missing it completely.

I'll add that I've learned a lot about how the "triangle" works by experimenting. It also makes me appreciate excellent photo work of others!

By the way, your point of view is always interesting. Thank you for sharing! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manfred M

If that is your workflow, then yes. You should be checking your metering / histogram any time your lighting changes. This would be whenever you have changed shooting locations or shooting position at the same location, say going from a backlit view to a side lit view of the same subject.

I personally do not advocate shooting in manual mode. After all you paid for all of those automation features on your camera. I rarely use manual mode in outdoor work (shooting panoramas is one exception to this). In the studio, I shoot 100% in manual mode. I know some photographers will disagree with me, especially ones who started of shooting with cameras that only worked in manual mode (like I did).

When doing landscape and street photography, I either shoot aperture priority or shutter priority. I will generally not use auto-ISO, but in situations where I am dealing with rapidly changing light conditions I will definitely use that feature.

---

Hi Manfred - as I tried to explain to Ted, the reason I chose to learn to use manual mode was because I wanted to understand how the settings actually influenced each other. I also agree with your view that since I have equipment that can help me refine my photo work, I ought to use it to my best advantage. I've not done much with aperture priority or shutter priority so maybe it is time I learn how useful these modes can be.

I appreciate your reply! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skitterbug

I've not done much with aperture priority or shutter priority so maybe it is time I learn how useful these modes can be.

---

Only in my club's studio would I go wholly manual, because we have adjustable lights and a seperate light meter that can determine the exposure required taking account of the camera's flash sync speed, etc.

In all other scenarios I start with ISO 100 as my default and then usually employ one of the priority modes.

As I mostly do shots of fairly static subjects depth of field is my first priority, then I look at shutter speed to avoid camera shake. If necessary I will finally adjust the ISO.

If motion blur or freezing motion is important, my first priority mode would be shutter speed, followed by aperture and ISO.

I will often ensure that exposure meter shows it is a third or half a stop underexposed (to the left on my camera) to avoid blowing highlights. I don't know if this is sensible or not, but often seems to work.:)

Occasionally I may use the "manual" setting if I have a reasonable idea about what shutter speed and aperture I want to use, but I then select auto ISO. If the ISO comes out unacceptably high I then compromise on one or both of the other sides of the exposure triangle.

That is my thought process - and this is the first time I have actually thought about it!

For me, shooting totally manual without reference to the camera's meter would be asking for trouble.:D.

Sandy, I learned to set aperture, shutter speed on a camera that had no other adjustments. (ISO (then called ASA) could be adjusted only by the type of film put into the camera.) So by trial and error, I (like Manfred and others) developed experience in judging what exposure settings were most likely to work. Eventually I had a hand held exposure meter that got used on occasion.

If time is not of the essence, I now frequently input the aperture, shutter speed and ISO that I'm hoping will work. I then examine what the exposure meter is telling me in the viewfinder. Unless there's something unusual in the scene, I usually then adjust something so that the meter is happy at 0. But if there's something unusual such as a white snow, glittering water, etc., I manually increase (brighten) the exposure so that the snow/water will in fact look bright and not be simply mid-grey. And yes, if you have time, checking the histogram is a good idea in order to see if you should reshoot with different settings.

If time is of the essence, I'm now relying on the camera's automated exposure settings. It took a few years to break the thought that relying on the camera's automated settings was cheating!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rufus

I will often ensure that exposure meter shows it is a third or half a stop underexposed (to the left on my camera) to avoid blowing highlights. I don't know if this is sensible or not, but often seems to work.:)

---

It's actually going the wrong way in getting the best exposure. Underexposure, which is what you are doing, it the most common source of digital noise when shooting with a modern camera. Until quite recently, the general consensus was that doing the opposite, pushing the exposure to the right to just before it clips, gives the cleanest results.

If you have the "blinkies" mode set on your camera and you just start to see them indicating clipped hightlights, you are probably where you should be with the exposure. The histogram and "blinkies" that you see are based on the JPEG image, so there is a good 1 to 1-1/2 stops of "headroom" if you are shooting raw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manfred M

Until quite recently, the general consensus was that doing the opposite, pushing the exposure to the right to just before it clips, gives the cleanest results.

If you have the "blinkies" mode set on your camera and you just start to see them indicating clipped hightlights, you are probably where you should be with the exposure. The histogram and "blinkies" that you see are based on the JPEG image, so there is a good 1 to 1-1/2 stops of "headroom" if you are shooting raw.

---

I had to read that a few times before I realised that you are distinguishing between pushing the exposure to (a) just before it clips and (b) just after it clips.

I do shoot in RAW so I will start using method (b) to see how I fare.

It seems once again I had been going down the wrong track, so your patience is much appreciated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rufus

I had to read that a few times before I realised that you are distinguishing between pushing the exposure to (a) just before it clips and (b) just after it clips.

I do shoot in RAW so I will start using method (b) to see how I fare.

It seems once again I had been going down the wrong track, so your patience is much appreciated.

---

Not quite David - what I was trying to say that even if your camera ("blinkies" or histogram) say there is clipping, the raw data will NOT be clipped because both these functions measure data from a JPEG image, which has a lot less data. If you are shooting JPEG, your image will definitely be clipped. If you are shooting raw, then you are fine and have at least 1 EV of headroom.

I suggest you do a bit of testing to see how your camera performs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manfred M

Not quite David - what I was trying to say that even if your camera ("blinkies" or histogram) say there is clipping, the raw data will NOT be clipped because both these functions measure data from a JPEG image, which has a lot less data. If you are shooting JPEG, your image will definitely be clipped. If you are shooting raw, then you are fine and have at least 1 EV of headroom.

I suggest you do a bit of testing to see how your camera performs.

---

Thank you for the clarification and yes, some testing would definitely be in order.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manfred M

Not quite David - what I was trying to say that even if your camera ("blinkies" or histogram) say there is clipping, the raw data will NOT be clipped because both these functions measure data from a JPEG image, which has a lot less data. If you are shooting JPEG, your image will definitely be clipped. If you are shooting raw, then you are fine and have at least 1 EV of headroom.

---

Some of us here might not understand where that headroom occurs, Manfred, e.g is it at the sensor or at the ADC output or where? Would you be able to clarify the statement or to provide a technical reference?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xpatUSA

Some of us here might not understand where that headroom occurs, Manfred, e.g is it at the sensor or at the ADC output or where? Would you be able to clarify the statement or to provide a technical reference?

---

Experience of many photographers Ted. This seems to be the way this works.

I can only assume that 14-bit -> 8-bit + Lossy Compression are the reason to generate the in-camera JPEG.

I shoot JPEG + raw almost all the time and this is just a fact of life with any camera (Nikon and Panasonic) I have ever used. Canon, Sony, Pentax and Fuji shooters I know have noticed the same. I can't comment on Sigma, as you are the only Sigma shooter I know.

It is interesting to me that the most consistent thing used is the light meter and how we base our settings using it as a reference. I can decide that I want to capture a certain DOF or use a setting for stopping movement but I still have to refer back to that light meter to be sure that I even get an image that is workable. Obviously there is more to think about while trying to capture the image.

Thoughtful discussion! It all helps in my learning process! Thanks! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manfred M

Experience of many photographers Ted. This seems to be the way this works.

I can only assume that 14-bit -> 8-bit + Lossy Compression are the reason to generate the in-camera JPEG.

I shoot JPEG + raw almost all the time and this is just a fact of life with any camera (Nikon and Panasonic) I have ever used. Canon, Sony, Pentax and Fuji shooters I know have noticed the same. I can't comment on Sigma, as you are the only Sigma shooter I know.

---

Thanks, Manfred. I've got a couple of Panasonics - so, on this drizzly day, that would be worth a play; I'm trying out a Takumar M42 24mm on the GH1 which is already set to raw+JPEG - so a bit of bracketing should do it and RawDigger will let me see the raw histogram. I think RawTherapee can do that too.

So, in very simple terms, if a sensor's green pixels clip at say 4095 out of the 12-bit ADC, -1 EV would give raw levels of about 2047 ignoring in-camera trickery before writing to the card, if I understand it correctly.

[edit] And, conversely, a raw exposure just at sensor saturation should be matched by a blown in-camera JPEG - see my test below for that ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xpatUSA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manfred M https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/fo...post-right.png Experience of many photographers Ted. This seems to be the way this works.

<>

I shoot JPEG + raw almost all the time and this is just a fact of life with any camera (Nikon and Panasonic) I have ever used.

---

Thanks, Manfred. I've got a couple of Panasonics - so, on this drizzly day, that would be worth a play; I'm trying out a Takumar M42 24mm on the GH1 which is already set to raw+JPEG - so a bit of bracketing should do it and RawDigger will let me see the raw histogram.

---

Sad to say that my test didn't confirm the lore.

First, a log-log raw histogram:

http://kronometric.org/phot/post/CiC...-4144x2768.png

The greens are almost at the clipping level, which is about 3975 on this camera. Adding 1+ EV to that should result in a blown JPEG, but no ...

http://kronometric.org/phot/post/CiC...010282jpeg.JPG

It can be seen from RawTherapee's log-log histogram that there is nothing blown in the out-of-camera JPEG. Not being a Bayer camera expert, I am unable to explain that. Anybody?