Jump to content

Does digital tempt you to shoot your M camera with a slower shutter...


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

. Ansel Adams certainly pre-visualized, but didn't neglect post processing in the slightest).

 

 

Exactly...he "created" mood with lots of PP, but only after he pre-visualized and adjusted camera at time of exposure.

 

Interestingly, however, it took him some time after he started photographing to decide how he wanted to "see" his images. Some of his early prints had light skies, low contrast...he then recreated ("re-saw") some of these images and made very different later prints off the early negs. Ultimately, this set the stage for most of his later work, which most people now associate with him...dark skies, lots of contrast, etc.

 

Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 40
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I am trying to work hard to determine what shutter speeds to use without the meter to improve my technique and I did quite well with it - 1/250 I decided.

For me that's the best to do to improve your meter technique. It doesn't matter which camera you use. To learn the light and it's different quality. To see the contrast. To guess the exposure when you are just practicing. It's like a game. The same iso, the same f-stop and guess the exposure and trying to keep all the information. With the time you'll know what's going on in every situation. It will help you to see the shot, to choose the iso, where to meter and which meter technique use for every different shoot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I utterly disagree. The shot must be visualized before pressing the shutter. Postprocessing is needed to recreate that visualization.

Going the opposite way about it is photographic opportunism. Technique is a tool, not a goal.

 

You've understood me wrong there - what I mean is that I CAN see what I want - and I can create it at the time straight off the shutter. Done. (As with the example shot I talked about in the first post).

 

But

 

What we're discussing here is if 'correct' or 'best' digital technique is to use a slower shutter to capture more data and then when you get back to PP re-create the mood that you saw when you were there.

 

Are you with me?

 

So hence I'm asking if 'The mood comes later in PP'

Link to post
Share on other sites

...

So hence I'm asking if 'The mood comes later in PP'

 

 

I sort of agree with Julian, though his last question is worded rather differently from the original one, as it was about digital affecting his exposure technique or not. Actually it might sound like pointing to a different issue.

 

Anyway, I do not understand why some think that exploiting digital to its best would kill their picture taking or hinder their creativity.

How could that be? We still use shutter speeds and apertures to record our vision in an image, just as we did in the film days. Nothing has changed as far as that.

 

The perfectly exposed film neg has a certain density, the digital "neg" has one too. With both our best chances are in getting as close as possible to it, and with digital the optimum exposure is when you fill your "data bag" to the brim, so to say.

When you set your shutter and your aperture with film, you do also take into account the film type and speed, don't you? You're just expected to do the same thing with a "digital film" ...

 

Does this affect our way to take a pic? Of course it does, just as choosing a Tri-X vs an FP4 did.

With one you could not easily blur a waterfall, with the other you'd be sort of stumped if your sunny day suddenly turned into dark clouds. But we'd adapt to it with our experience and try to get our picture anyway, maybe later compensating with the dev times.

Then in our darkroom we would try to render it accordingly to the mood/vision that had us click that one, but of course we could also change it or even create one if we like.

Is this any different in a digital environment? If you ever worked in a real darkroom, guess you'll agree with me: it's just easier. Much easier.

 

 

Best to all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I utterly disagree. The shot must be visualized before pressing the shutter. Postprocessing is needed to recreate that visualization.

Going the opposite way about it is photographic opportunism. Technique is a tool, not a goal.

 

This is your approach and though it may work well for you that doesn't mean it suites everyone. It's just one of many approaches. Some people do very well by opportunism and experimentation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You've understood me wrong there - what I mean is that I CAN see what I want - and I can create it at the time straight off the shutter. Done. (As with the example shot I talked about in the first post).

 

But

 

What we're discussing here is if 'correct' or 'best' digital technique is to use a slower shutter to capture more data and then when you get back to PP re-create the mood that you saw when you were there.

 

Are you with me?

 

So hence I'm asking if 'The mood comes later in PP'

 

So let's look at this a different way and step away from theory for a sec...

 

Suppose you used a slower shutter on your shot you described above, and it was all fine. You got an extra stop of data in the shadows, the highlights were preserved, and your midtones moved into the upper-quartertone of a typical curve.

 

Now you're post-processing the RAW file.

 

Gee... it doesn't have the mood you wanted--and the midtones are wayyy off! So you lower the midtones, clip the shadows and increase the contrast. Then you set the whitepoint.

 

You now have a picture that is exactly the same as the one you could have taken in-camera, except you've set the whitepoint, which in most RAW converters is a millisecond's worth of fix :)

 

So let's say it once more: on any semi-pro or pro digicam these days, at ISOs under maximum, you have 2+ stops of leeway in the shadows in RAW. The histo doesn't show you this, so stop looking at it!

 

The M8 has closer to 14bpp data in the shadows anyway. You don't need to worry about it at all if you expose your subject properly. Get an incident meter and learn how light falls on a subject.

 

And even in theory, with the M8 anyway, you will get less tonality in the upper tones (in practice I've never seen this).

 

So practically speaking, if all of the interesting information in the scene is in the mid-tones, make sure they're exposed for midtones. Don't just push them higher, or you really do risk clipping interesting highlight detail which you can't recover in post.

 

So IMO, you always take a chance with "expose to the right"... That was nice advice when digicams had all of 5 or 6 stops of range, but the M8s is closer to 8 - 10+ in practice at ISOs 640 and under.

 

So just make sure you've exposed as close to what you want in-camera as you can--it will save you darkroom time (and as someone who worked in real darkrooms, there's nothing worse than dealing with a sloppy neg, or trying to save some TriX to look like Tech Pan. But no-one would call a neg of a very dark place bad, really--even if it was thin.).

 

But you can forget that now. With normal ISOs, you can still make huge changes in RAW with no visible ill-effects... it's one reason to shoot RAW.

 

So shoot for mood and enhance in post. Understand zones of exposure. Know what your camera can deliver in different environments.

 

Practice and forget the histogram (or use it as a rough guide if you must).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

So IMO, you always take a chance with "expose to the right"... That was nice advice when digicams had all of 5 or 6 stops of range, but the M8s is closer to 8 - 10+ in practice at ISOs 640 and under.

 

So shoot for mood and enhance in post. Understand zones of exposure. Know what your camera can deliver in different environments.

 

).

 

Some good points raised...but I have a couple of questions, Jamie. Does this mean that you make NO adjustment in the digital world vis a vis the film world, given that the top 2 zones in the digital arena theoretically encompass 75% of the potential "information"?

 

And, If there's that much latitude in the histogram (since it's not based on RAW to begin with), then what's the risk of highlights being clipped (when exposing to the right) if the highlights aren't clipped on the Jpeg display?

 

Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites

My habit has been to use Auto with the M8. This often leads to blown highlights, so I tend to underexpose by 2/3 stops when metering this way.

 

If I use an incident lightmeter then the measured exposure is around 2 stops less (seems to depend on focal length of the lens) than the M8 gives me in manual mode (or auto). The histogram (on the camera and in C1) using incident lightmetering is off to the left, which worries me. The advantage with incident lightmetering for me at least is the highlights dont blow out. So at the moment I am trying incident lightmetering plus 1 stop.

 

Is the histogram shown in C1 for a dng derived from a jpg? I would be interested to know.

 

When taking some shots I am more engaged with capturing the moment than anything else. Post processing does sometimes give one the opportunity to regenerate the vision that you hoped was there originally.

 

Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites

So let's look at this a different way and step away from theory for a sec...

 

Suppose you used a slower shutter on your shot you described above, and it was all fine. You got an extra stop of data in the shadows, the highlights were preserved, and your midtones moved into the upper-quartertone of a typical curve.

 

Now you're post-processing the RAW file.

 

Gee... it doesn't have the mood you wanted--and the midtones are wayyy off! So you lower the midtones, clip the shadows and increase the contrast. Then you set the whitepoint.

 

You now have a picture that is exactly the same as the one you could have taken in-camera, except you've set the whitepoint, which in most RAW converters is a millisecond's worth of fix

 

So let's say it once more: on any semi-pro or pro digicam these days, at ISOs under maximum, you have 2+ stops of leeway in the shadows in RAW. The histo doesn't show you this, so stop looking at it!

 

The M8 has closer to 14bpp data in the shadows anyway. You don't need to worry about it at all if you expose your subject properly. Get an incident meter and learn how light falls on a subject.

 

And even in theory, with the M8 anyway, you will get less tonality in the upper tones (in practice I've never seen this).

 

So practically speaking, if all of the interesting information in the scene is in the mid-tones, make sure they're exposed for midtones. Don't just push them higher, or you really do risk clipping interesting highlight detail which you can't recover in post.

 

So IMO, you always take a chance with "expose to the right"... That was nice advice when digicams had all of 5 or 6 stops of range, but the M8s is closer to 8 - 10+ in practice at ISOs 640 and under.

 

So just make sure you've exposed as close to what you want in-camera as you can--it will save you darkroom time (and as someone who worked in real darkrooms, there's nothing worse than dealing with a sloppy neg, or trying to save some TriX to look like Tech Pan. But no-one would call a neg of a very dark place bad, really--even if it was thin.).

 

But you can forget that now. With normal ISOs, you can still make huge changes in RAW with no visible ill-effects... it's one reason to shoot RAW.

 

So shoot for mood and enhance in post. Understand zones of exposure. Know what your camera can deliver in different environments.

 

Practice and forget the histogram (or use it as a rough guide if you must).

 

I took the step of quoting your whole post Jamie because it's answered my question and helped me tremendously. Thankyou for sharing this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some good points raised...but I have a couple of questions, Jamie. Does this mean that you make NO adjustment in the digital world vis a vis the film world, given that the top 2 zones in the digital arena theoretically encompass 75% of the potential "information"?

 

And, If there's that much latitude in the histogram (since it's not based on RAW to begin with), then what's the risk of highlights being clipped (when exposing to the right) if the highlights aren't clipped on the Jpeg display?

 

Jeff

 

Hey Jeff S../--

 

Modern BW films have so much exposure latitude that if anything I have to be even less careful shooting the M6 :) I also don't do (anymore) the kind of post I used to for film; I leave that to people who still do it for a living and who I trust.

 

There's pretty much zero risk in the absolute highlights being clipped in RAW if the JPEG display says they're ok. But here's the thing... often clipping speculars is better for exposure, because no-one cares generally if they're gone or not. The histo won't tell you anything about that, but the JPEG preview is a better guide.

 

But again, if you're backed up into high-ISO territory, then you can't count on the latitude of your sensor anymore (I dare say ISO 2500 on the m8 has more like 6 stops of range. No margin for errors) So then you need to expose for your subject into midtones and upper quartertones.

 

(Remember too, in theory, the M8's compression scheme evens out the imbalance between highlight and shadow sampling... but at ISO 2500 you don't have any play in the shadows and your highlights will still clip :))

Link to post
Share on other sites

{snipped}

Is the histogram shown in C1 for a dng derived from a jpg? I would be interested to know.

 

When taking some shots I am more engaged with capturing the moment than anything else. Post processing does sometimes give one the opportunity to regenerate the vision that you hoped was there originally.

 

That's an excellent question on C1, and I don't actually know the complete answer, though since in RAW interpretation you are definitely dealing with a conversion and you *are* looking at gamma corrected, TIFF interpretation that will change based on "C1 film curve," contrast, output profile, etc... But it's much more sophisticated than the M8 (or any in-camera histo)... look how long it takes for C1 to make previews :)

 

Jeff--in truth you should "calibrate" your incident meter with your m8 by shooting an evenly lit white target and measuring how you get about 242/242/242 RGB for white. Ideally your M8's ISO and the incident meter's matches, but these things can be off by a bit. Since you can more easily adjust the meter than the M8, once you have an ISO conversion factor you just set the meter up that way and you're done.

 

Really important for the studio, of course, where you're mixing lights. But also works to train your eye when you're walking around.

 

Once you've done that, and you know how your incident meter works relative to the M8, then you can just use the meter and not care at all what the reflective meter in the M8 says.

 

And once you get a feel of what the incident meter provides, you can go back to the meter in the M8 (it's easy, I find, to hold the most important brightest object in a shot by getting the little OE triangle lit in addition to the "dot" when you're shooting weddings--the most important bright object is 99% the bride's dress :))

 

But again, this will sometimes produce a histo that is bunched to the left (a dark scene) but more often will make sure the subject is right while speculars blow out properly (meaning the histo will be wrong :))

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sad, actually.

 

Mood should instead underlie the inspiration to take a shot a priori.

 

This sentiment suggests that digital photography will divulge (has divulged) into the realm of the clinical. Will the art of photography shun the thrill of the shot - where the mood of the moment motivates the photographer to shoot - in favor of a mechanistic approach, where one seeks to rescue a mood from an arbitrary shot? Where's the art?

 

In the field the 'mood of the moment' motivates the photographer to get the right information on the negative or memory card. In the darkroom or in front of the computer the 'mood of the moment' motivates the photographer to manipulate the information.

 

Was it Ansel Adams who said that the negative is the score and the print is the performance? The mood of the composer may be very different to that of the performer and although in photography it is usually the same person, the mood is probably still very different.

 

In this respect, the use of digital technology hasn’t changed anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have taken from this that it is all too easy to get caught up in technicalities and now I'm shooting to get from the shot that what I desire. I am going to use PP to repair the damage I have done with the gaps in my ability, rather than just 'gathering data'.

 

My god - I remember six months ago when I thought a better camera had more megapixels!

 

What an amazing journey I'm having learning all this!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Jeff--in truth you should "calibrate" your incident meter with your m8 by shooting an evenly lit white target and measuring how you get about 242/242/242 RGB for white. Ideally your M8's ISO and the incident meter's matches, but these things can be off by a bit. Since you can more easily adjust the meter than the M8, once you have an ISO conversion factor you just set the meter up that way and you're done.

 

Really important for the studio, of course, where you're mixing lights. But also works to train your eye when you're walking around.

 

Once you've done that, and you know how your incident meter works relative to the M8, then you can just use the meter and not care at all what the reflective meter in the M8 says.

 

And once you get a feel of what the incident meter provides, you can go back to the meter in the M8 (it's easy, I find, to hold the most important brightest object in a shot by getting the little OE triangle lit in addition to the "dot" when you're shooting weddings--the most important bright object is 99% the bride's dress :))

 

But again, this will sometimes produce a histo that is bunched to the left (a dark scene) but more often will make sure the subject is right while speculars blow out properly (meaning the histo will be wrong :))

 

Hi Jamie,

 

OK I have shot a white card in slight shade no direct sun. The incident lightmeter indicated just under F5.6 @ 1/125 (ie slightly smaller aperture). I set the M8 to F5.6 @ 1/125. I took the DNG into ACR and using the eyedropper in the centre got a reading of 245/245/246 RGB. Both M8 and meter set to 160iso.

 

That seems OK to me?

 

Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jamie,

 

OK I have shot a white card in slight shade no direct sun. The incident lightmeter indicated just under F5.6 @ 1/125 (ie slightly smaller aperture). I set the M8 to F5.6 @ 1/125. I took the DNG into ACR and using the eyedropper in the centre got a reading of 245/245/246 RGB. Both M8 and meter set to 160iso.

 

That seems OK to me?

 

Jeff

 

Hey Jeff--it's really close--a very little bit hot maybe, but hell I'd live with it. It's very close!

 

Is this the meter that was under by a stop? I don't think so :) But remember you sometimes need to point the incident meter in the direction of the light source instead of towards the camera lens. (I know that's strictly speaking not the "right" way to do this, but when gauging side light or other directional lights this works well).

 

What you know with this test is that if you use the meter, you will capture white detail right up to the capability of the camera! Speculars will still blow out.

 

You should try taking a couple of meter readings and walking around taking light and dark objects then seeing how then come out when you open them in ACR...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Standard advice used to be to expose to keep the histogram up against the right to maximize shadow detail. You will find that you lose color saturation and detail if you expose that way. Blue skies will go white, clouds will disappear. I would experiment and figure out a) what looks best to you and B) what holds up best to your standard post processing.

 

I was toying with the idea of having a go at a bit of film shooting, and thinking about the way I do digital it really wouldn't work.

 

Today I found myself at the side of a canal. I had ISO 320 selected and I wanted some depth of field but a bit of personality so from memory I was using approx F4. Sky was very overcast and the scene was quite dim to the eye because of the tree canopy.

 

I am trying to work hard to determine what shutter speeds to use without the meter to improve my technique and I did quite well with it - 1/250 I decided.

 

I shot - and had a look at the image in the LCD. Perfect actually - I was really pleased. If that had been film it would have presumably turned into a beautiful result.

 

But then, I checked the histogram (knowing secretly that this dilemma was going to unfold!) and yes - all huddled up there on the left!

 

So - that means I'm using hardly any of the camera's dynamic range.

 

So here's the point of my rambling.

 

Was my photo not a success as far as 'correct' digital technique is concerned? Should I really expose up to the limit and then throttle it all back in post to maximise the dynamics or should I shoot it to be right as I see it straight off the shutter?

 

I'm at a bit of a creative crossroads with this and would appreciate some discussion!

 

Thanks for your thoughts!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Jeff--it's really close--a very little bit hot maybe, but hell I'd live with it. It's very close!

 

Is this the meter that was under by a stop? I don't think so :) But remember you sometimes need to point the incident meter in the direction of the light source instead of towards the camera lens. (I know that's strictly speaking not the "right" way to do this, but when gauging side light or other directional lights this works well).

 

What you know with this test is that if you use the meter, you will capture white detail right up to the capability of the camera! Speculars will still blow out.

 

You should try taking a couple of meter readings and walking around taking light and dark objects then seeing how then come out when you open them in ACR...

 

Thanks Jamie. It is the same meter as previously a Sekonic Digilite-F, a cheap version of their products.

 

Using incident light does certainly avoid the blowing out of highlights which I value cause I have had problems with that. I think I understand what is going on, the M8 does seem to meter almost as a spot meter from something central in the photo and that can often be a slightly dark area if if one does not count it as shadow.

 

Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...