| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/27/2007 10:55:35 AM · #26 |
Yeah I didn't have much of a problem with processing.
UPDATE!!
I did a photoshoot today and noticed a SIGNIFICANT difference from when I shoot at iso 80 and iso 100. At iso 80 I cannot manually adjust the contrast using my camera but at iso 100 i can. Even when I have contrast as low as possible at iso 100 it is still higher contrast and more vibrant than the images taken at iso80. The pictures I posted in the beginning were shot at iso 80 and the one that i gave as an example of being vibrant was shot at iso 100....think i may have found the main source of my problem....anyone have any idea why this would be?? |
|
|
|
12/27/2007 11:10:05 AM · #27 |
| Obviously you don't need a meter..if you get good results from the camera. I also don't use one. Maybe I should get one but am afraid it would just sit in my camera bag getting dusty. It is good you are trying to figure out how to fix shots without post processing. You rock! |
|
|
|
12/27/2007 11:45:32 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by Sonifo:
Obviously you don't need a meter..if you get good results from the camera. I also don't use one. |
I don't use one either, but I check the histogram to make sure I'm getting the exposure I want. I will say that it's comforting to know some of my favorite portrait photographers are "winging it" too. ;-) |
|
|
|
12/27/2007 12:26:53 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by lovethelight:
Yeah I didn't have much of a problem with processing.
UPDATE!!
I did a photoshoot today and noticed a SIGNIFICANT difference from when I shoot at iso 80 and iso 100. At iso 80 I cannot manually adjust the contrast using my camera but at iso 100 i can. Even when I have contrast as low as possible at iso 100 it is still higher contrast and more vibrant than the images taken at iso80. The pictures I posted in the beginning were shot at iso 80 and the one that i gave as an example of being vibrant was shot at iso 100....think i may have found the main source of my problem....anyone have any idea why this would be?? |
Yup. Look at your specs:
ΓΆ€ΒΆ Auto (100 - 800)
ΓΆ€ΒΆ ISO 100
ΓΆ€ΒΆ ISO 200
ΓΆ€ΒΆ ISO 400
ΓΆ€ΒΆ ISO 800
ΓΆ€ΒΆ ISO 1600
ΓΆ€ΒΆ Lo80 (ISO 80, Low key)
ΓΆ€ΒΆ Hi200 (ISO 200, High key)
Your 80 setting is a low-key setting, that will make contrast drop and darken everything.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/27/2007 02:25:35 PM · #30 |
OMG...so THATS what it means....it just says "low" next to it on the camera and i just thought...um yeah...80 is a low number i know....hahaha well don't i feel silly....
but yah i don' feel like i need a light meter quite yet...with only two lights it doesn't make sense to me. I tried using the histogram yesterday and it they didnt look like a bell curve at all...more like two spikes and a dip in the middle...but the pictures came out great....i don't know what to think |
|
|
|
12/27/2007 02:42:29 PM · #31 |
Is it accurate to say that the histogram and "blinkies" are the poor-man's light meter?
Originally posted by dwterry:
Wow... you've been doing everything without a light meter?!? I'm impressed!!! So I think you've learned a lesson here, but wow, I gotta say it again. Based on what I've seen you produce, I'm really, really impressed!
Now go out and get yourself a light meter! :-)
Or at least ... shoot an 18% gray card and use it to check your in camera metering. |
|
|
|
|
12/27/2007 02:54:55 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by PGerst:
Is it accurate to say that the histogram and "blinkies" are the poor-man's light meter? |
Well, back in the day we burned through Polaroid 55 P/N film like crazy "proofing" our images in large format work, and I never really bothered with light meters then (color work, not zone system work) cuz between my experience and the polaroid I'd nail it fine. So yeah, I think that's right :-) Maybe "lazy man's", not "poor man's"...
R.
|
|
|
|
12/27/2007 04:52:05 PM · #33 |
|
|
|
12/27/2007 05:18:02 PM · #34 |
I saw an article, online once....if I can find where it is, I'll post the link, but basically, it showed how to "calibrate" the histogram display to the number of stops. It went like this:
1) Take a photo of a white paper
2) Adjust the aperture by 1 stop and take a photo
3) Examine the difference.
That way, you could determine the number of stops your camera can support. Then, from the histogram of an image, it was pretty much easy (after experience) to meter the subject by eye and the histogram. |
|
|
|
12/27/2007 07:19:30 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by PGerst:
Is it accurate to say that the histogram and "blinkies" are the poor-man's light meter? |
Well, back in the day we burned through Polaroid 55 P/N film like crazy "proofing" our images in large format work, and I never really bothered with light meters then (color work, not zone system work) cuz between my experience and the polaroid I'd nail it fine. So yeah, I think that's right :-) Maybe "lazy man's", not "poor man's"...
R. |
In today's terms this would equate to test shots on digi plus experience.
I don't have a meter either, but I work a lot less with strobes. And my 'pudding' as proof is significantly less than some here.
On the other hand, I did take the time to learn about light meters by using one.
I generally use grey cards and the histogram if I feel that special metering is required. For regular shooting, the histogram is enough. When using my flashes, I use them either on auto with exposure adjustments (they can do like 5 stops either way if memory serves) or manual and adjust using distance.
I like Pgerst's suggestion, but I'd still probably use a grey card for that. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/10/2025 03:06:45 PM EDT.
