Daniel,
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
Looks like the link is dead.
Do you havea copy you could post?
Thanks,
Chuck
P.S. Madison quit cause I called him a tool. I feel really bad. I was just jok'n around. He's European. woops.
Daniel,
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
Looks like the link is dead.
Do you havea copy you could post?
Thanks,
Chuck
P.S. Madison quit cause I called him a tool. I feel really bad. I was just jok'n around. He's European. woops.
Thanks, that is very helpful. I appreciate the feedback Dan.
Bob
Bob
Originally Posted by Chuck Lee
Here ya go:
Thanks
Very interesting topic and I totally agree. Take a look at this Norwegian site where you can see examples. I have run it through google translate so I hope the link is working.
Testing 50D and exposure:
http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=no&js=y&u=http%3A %2F%2Fwww.foto.no%2Fcgi-bin%2Farticles%2FarticleView.cgi%3FarticleId%3D412 81&sl=no&tl=en&history_state0=
Testing D90 and exposure. This example shows that ISO 6400 + 1.3EV can look as good as ISO 1600 if the exposure is right:
http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=no&js=y&u=http%3A %2F%2Fwww.foto.no%2Fcgi-bin%2Farticles%2FarticleView.cgi%3FarticleId%3D413 16&sl=no&tl=en&history_state0=
PS! I dont know how to make a hyperlink. Copy and paste and look at Exposure and ISO properties.
Johnny
Jonny,
Thanks for the links. To add a hyperlink to anything just select those words and click on the little chain icon (4 left of the happy face) and paste the url in the appropriate box. Just remember the "http://" has to be in front of the "www"
Like this: Canon Rumors
Voila, as the French say
First, I'm very impressed with google translation, it's pretty darn accurate, isn't it?
As for the pictures: TOTALLY AWESOME...see, I tried to do a little test with my XSi, but I guess that i'm going to see better results when I'll take pictures in real life...
thanks Johnny...(btw, that's my nickname! Everybody calls me johnny at school..well, used to: i'm finally done with highschool hahaha)
Andy
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
In a purely digital world, you may be right. In the days of film, f/4 and 1/500th might underexpose some film and overexpose other film. Otherwise, Bryan Peterson must be wrong in calling it the Exposure Triangle...and he's certainly sold a lot of books calling it that.
We're a Canon/Profoto family: five cameras, sixteen lenses, fifteen Profoto lights, too many modifiers.
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
This took me a long while to digest and interpret. What I finally figured out is that you're suggesting that we shoot in manual mode, starting at ISO 100 "for every shot", and choose "exposure" (using your definition of exposure) values such that the desired image is (hopefully) captured while also maximizing the light upon the sensor, without so much light that important highlights are lost. If it's impossible to achieve the desired image via aperture and shutter values (i.e. slowing the shutter will result in a blurry image, or opening the aperture will thin the DoF too much), it's best to increase the ISO to maximize the light upon the sensor, without so much light that important highlights are lost.
My translation of all of that is that it's best to achieve a right-justified histogram (using appropriate margins for the details we wish to keep) by prioritizing the widest artistically-reasonable aperture and the slowest artistically-reasonable shutter, and then the minimum amount of ISO increase. My initial interpretation was that I should set my camera to ISO 1600 and lock that in, which I don't think is the desired interpretation.
We're a Canon/Profoto family: five cameras, sixteen lenses, fifteen Profoto lights, too many modifiers.
There's nothing wrong with calling it the Exposure Triangle: that does not imply that changing ISO (without changing f-number or shutter speed) is changing exposure. I do not recall Bryan Peterson ever using the incorrect definition of exposure in "Understanding Exposure".Originally Posted by peety3
I did use manual for illustration, but it's possible to use the "ETTR then ITTR" technique with autoexposure as well.Originally Posted by peety3
Yep.Originally Posted by peety3
Increasing ISO doesn't change the light on the sensor at all. It increases brightness and decreases read noise.Originally Posted by peety3
That will result in the same settings (Tv/Av/ISO) that I am suggesting.Originally Posted by peety3
Correct. ISO 1600 always has less noise for a fixed exposure, but that doesn't mean we should always use it. High ISO has a price: clipped highlights. That price is always far too high to pay, except when we are in low light, and we no longer need the normal amount of highlight headroom.Originally Posted by peety3