Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

First outing with dSLR

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 8:27:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Here is my first outing with my Nikon D70:

<http://www.thepierianspring.org/gallery/&gt;

The water shots are from High Falls State Park, about 40 miles southeast
of Atlanta, Georiga (USA). The old buildings are from South Fulton
Scenic Byway, Southwest Atlanta.

I think I chose a bad day and time for the water shots: the water was
muddy and the sun was shining down directly on the water making it very
difficult to get a correct (or what I thought of as correct) exposure.
I'd be grateful for any comments & suggestions especially regarding
exposure.

Photos takes as NEF RAW & converted to JPEG with PictureProject. Then I
reviewed and culled quite a few shots using ThumbsPlus[1] (which can
actully handle NEF files natively). Only a couple of files (80 & 92)
were processed to lighten them up a bit within ThumbsPlus. ThumbsPlus
was also used to generate the quickie web gallery.

There's nothing special here. I was mainly trying to figure out how to
get decent exposures, varying apature and shutter speed to see how they
interact, etc. Long way to go, but I'd appreciate any tips on anything
that stands out.

Thanks for your time.

1. <http://www.cerious.com/&gt;

More about : outing dslr

Anonymous
April 12, 2005 9:50:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 04:27:53 -0400, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems "Randy
W. Sims" <RandyS@ThePierianSpring.org> wrote:

>Here is my first outing with my Nikon D70:
>
><http://www.thepierianspring.org/gallery/&gt;
>
>The water shots are from High Falls State Park, about 40 miles southeast
>of Atlanta, Georiga (USA). The old buildings are from South Fulton
>Scenic Byway, Southwest Atlanta.
>
>I think I chose a bad day and time for the water shots: the water was
>muddy and the sun was shining down directly on the water making it very
>difficult to get a correct (or what I thought of as correct) exposure.
>I'd be grateful for any comments & suggestions especially regarding
>exposure.
>
>Photos takes as NEF RAW & converted to JPEG with PictureProject. Then I
>reviewed and culled quite a few shots using ThumbsPlus[1] (which can
>actully handle NEF files natively). Only a couple of files (80 & 92)
>were processed to lighten them up a bit within ThumbsPlus. ThumbsPlus
>was also used to generate the quickie web gallery.
>
>There's nothing special here. I was mainly trying to figure out how to
>get decent exposures, varying apature and shutter speed to see how they
>interact, etc. Long way to go, but I'd appreciate any tips on anything
>that stands out.

If you want to stick with free Nikon software, dump PP and get NikonView
off the tech website. It has a much more reasonable interface. For more
control of raw conversion give the free demo version of Pixmantec's
RawShooter Essentials.

The first couple of shots would have been helped by using center-weighted
or even spot metering to help properly expose the subjects. The 3-D matrix
metering will tend to underexpose in this situation, though you did bump up
the EV.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
April 12, 2005 12:43:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Randy W. Sims wrote:

> Here is my first outing with my Nikon D70:
>
> <http://www.thepierianspring.org/gallery/&gt;

Whoah, you need to compress those images more, they are 1MB each! They
should be about 100KB each 1/10 the file size.

I like the layout with all the settings on the thumbnails. It is
educational! I'm guessing you used manual focus on DSC_0026.jpg because
the camera wanted to focus on the branches. Read up on the focus
options, I find it better to use individual focus points, in auto modes
it defaults to closest object but you can change the way it bahaves in
A, S & M.

I tend to like waterfalls captured with a faster shutter like you did, I
don't quite get the aesthetic of the blurred water that many use.

If you need to make adjustments do them in the RAW conversion, not
afterwards. Since you are shooting RAW, it's best to overexpose & darken
later unless there are highlights getting blown or you need a faster
shutter. Expose as bright as possible, even try boosting the ISO to
achieve this. Usually it's OK to have a bit of blinking highlights on
the LCD preview. Then manually darken them as needed.


>
> The water shots are from High Falls State Park, about 40 miles southeast
> of Atlanta, Georiga (USA). The old buildings are from South Fulton
> Scenic Byway, Southwest Atlanta.
>
> I think I chose a bad day and time for the water shots: the water was
> muddy and the sun was shining down directly on the water making it very
> difficult to get a correct (or what I thought of as correct) exposure.
> I'd be grateful for any comments & suggestions especially regarding
> exposure.
>
> Photos takes as NEF RAW & converted to JPEG with PictureProject. Then I
> reviewed and culled quite a few shots using ThumbsPlus[1] (which can
> actully handle NEF files natively). Only a couple of files (80 & 92)
> were processed to lighten them up a bit within ThumbsPlus. ThumbsPlus
> was also used to generate the quickie web gallery.
>
> There's nothing special here. I was mainly trying to figure out how to
> get decent exposures, varying apature and shutter speed to see how they
> interact, etc. Long way to go, but I'd appreciate any tips on anything
> that stands out.
>
> Thanks for your time.
>
> 1. <http://www.cerious.com/&gt;
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
April 12, 2005 12:44:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Randy W. Sims wrote:
>
> reviewed and culled quite a few shots using ThumbsPlus[1] (which can
> actully handle NEF files natively).


Is that reasonably fast loading?
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 5:13:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Randy W. Sims <RandyS@thepierianspring.org> wrote:
> Here is my first outing with my Nikon D70:
>
> <http://www.thepierianspring.org/gallery/&gt;
>
> The water shots are from High Falls State Park, about 40 miles southeast
> of Atlanta, Georiga (USA). The old buildings are from South Fulton
> Scenic Byway, Southwest Atlanta.
>
> I think I chose a bad day and time for the water shots: the water was
> muddy and the sun was shining down directly on the water making it very
> difficult to get a correct (or what I thought of as correct) exposure.
> I'd be grateful for any comments & suggestions especially regarding
> exposure.
>
> Photos takes as NEF RAW & converted to JPEG with PictureProject. Then I
> reviewed and culled quite a few shots using ThumbsPlus[1] (which can
> actully handle NEF files natively). Only a couple of files (80 & 92)
> were processed to lighten them up a bit within ThumbsPlus. ThumbsPlus
> was also used to generate the quickie web gallery.
>
> There's nothing special here. I was mainly trying to figure out how to
> get decent exposures, varying apature and shutter speed to see how they
> interact, etc. Long way to go, but I'd appreciate any tips on anything
> that stands out.
>
> Thanks for your time.
>
> 1. <http://www.cerious.com/&gt;

Image 11, slow down the shutter, put the camera on a tripod and try this
picture again. You might like the results ;-)

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 5:16:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ed Ruf <egruf_usenet@cox.net> wrote:
>
> The first couple of shots would have been helped by using center-weighted
> or even spot metering to help properly expose the subjects. The 3-D matrix
> metering will tend to underexpose in this situation, though you did bump up
> the EV.

Frankly, I find this a fairly annoying "feature" of the N70. The matrix
metering seems to under expose just about everything, even when pointed
at neutral gray (I tried with a gray card). I have had better results
with center and spot metering, but they still tend to under expose
unless I bump up the EV or switch to manual and slow things down myself.
I am still an extreme amateur, but this "feature" sticks out at me like
a thorn.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 6:55:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <425bca3d$0$32855$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net>, veldy71
@yahoo.com says...
> Ed Ruf <egruf_usenet@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> > The first couple of shots would have been helped by using center-weighted
> > or even spot metering to help properly expose the subjects. The 3-D matrix
> > metering will tend to underexpose in this situation, though you did bump up
> > the EV.
>
> Frankly, I find this a fairly annoying "feature" of the N70. The matrix
> metering seems to under expose just about everything, even when pointed
> at neutral gray (I tried with a gray card). I have had better results
> with center and spot metering, but they still tend to under expose
> unless I bump up the EV or switch to manual and slow things down myself.
> I am still an extreme amateur, but this "feature" sticks out at me like
> a thorn.
>
>
There are solutions. Bracketing, for one. The D70 custom setup
lets you use the front command wheel for EV override, without
holding down the EV button above the shutter button. Nice, easy
bracketing without taking your eye from the viewfinder.

Or use center-weighted or spot metering, and the auto-exposure
lock. You can meter on one area of the image you want to shoot,
then reframe without changing exposure.

Diane
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 7:00:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <425bc95d$0$32855$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net>, veldy71
@yahoo.com says...
> Randy W. Sims <RandyS@thepierianspring.org> wrote:
> > Here is my first outing with my Nikon D70:
> >
> > <http://www.thepierianspring.org/gallery/&gt;
> >
> > The water shots are from High Falls State Park, about 40 miles southeast
> > of Atlanta, Georiga (USA). The old buildings are from South Fulton
> > Scenic Byway, Southwest Atlanta.
> >
> > I think I chose a bad day and time for the water shots: the water was
> > muddy and the sun was shining down directly on the water making it very
> > difficult to get a correct (or what I thought of as correct) exposure.
> > I'd be grateful for any comments & suggestions especially regarding
> > exposure.
> >
> > Photos takes as NEF RAW & converted to JPEG with PictureProject. Then I
> > reviewed and culled quite a few shots using ThumbsPlus[1] (which can
> > actully handle NEF files natively). Only a couple of files (80 & 92)
> > were processed to lighten them up a bit within ThumbsPlus. ThumbsPlus
> > was also used to generate the quickie web gallery.
> >
> > There's nothing special here. I was mainly trying to figure out how to
> > get decent exposures, varying apature and shutter speed to see how they
> > interact, etc. Long way to go, but I'd appreciate any tips on anything
> > that stands out.
> >
> > Thanks for your time.
> >
> > 1. <http://www.cerious.com/&gt;
>
> Image 11, slow down the shutter, put the camera on a tripod and try this
> picture again. You might like the results ;-)
>
>
Slow the shutter WAY down, like 1/2 second or 1 second. Polarizing
or neutral density filters help get you there; so does shooting on
heavy overcast days, or in early morning or late afternoon.

If you don't have a tripod with you, you might be able to shoot these
hand-held by sitting on the ground and bracing the camera on your
knee. It's not foolproof, so don't rely on a single shot to get it.

Diane
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 8:35:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ed Ruf wrote:
> If you want to stick with free Nikon software, dump PP and get NikonView
> off the tech website. It has a much more reasonable interface. For more
> control of raw conversion give the free demo version of Pixmantec's
> RawShooter Essentials.

I'm not stuck on any particular software at this point. I just haven't
had time to look at all the alternatives and evaluate them. I was just
using what I had easily available. I'll take a look at RawShooter and
Capture One (others?) over the next few days. ThumbsPlus also seems to
handle these tasks, but its raw plugin seems rather slow, even compared
to PP. But I've always favored it over anything else I've seen (and I've
tried just about all of them) for image management.

> The first couple of shots would have been helped by using center-weighted
> or even spot metering to help properly expose the subjects. The 3-D matrix
> metering will tend to underexpose in this situation, though you did bump up
> the EV.

To be honest, I didn't play with the different metering options much at
all. I was too busy trying to figure out WB, aperture, shutter speed,
etc. On many of those pictures, including the first one shown, I used
manual, setting shutter & aperture manually until I got a decent shot as
shown by the histogram. If I wasn't using manual I was using
aperture-priority and in a few instances, shutter-priority. Perhaps
learning to use the metering facilities would have been more beneficial.

Randy.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 8:48:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

paul wrote:
> Randy W. Sims wrote:
>
>> Here is my first outing with my Nikon D70:
>>
>> <http://www.thepierianspring.org/gallery/&gt;
>
>
> Whoah, you need to compress those images more, they are 1MB each! They
> should be about 100KB each 1/10 the file size.

Oops. Wasn't really paying attention. I'll take care of that as soon as
I can. But that might be a while since I just hosed my Windows box. It
was an old computer that multi-booted Window 2000, SUSE linux, OpenBSD,
and FreeBSD that I used for a test box (my primary system runs Debian
Linux). I deleted one of the partitions to make more room for photo
processing and apparently deleted the one with the boot manager. None of
my attempts to restore it were successful so I'm rebuilding from scratch
with just Windows 2000 to use purely for photo processing... after I
recover my picts.

> I like the layout with all the settings on the thumbnails. It is
> educational! I'm guessing you used manual focus on DSC_0026.jpg because
> the camera wanted to focus on the branches. Read up on the focus
> options, I find it better to use individual focus points, in auto modes
> it defaults to closest object but you can change the way it bahaves in
> A, S & M.

I tended to use manual focus on most of the shots because I was having a
hard time getting it to focus where I wanted in the water shots. The
different focusing options are another thing I need to learn. Sigh.
There is a lot of stuff to keep in mind... all at the same time.

> I tend to like waterfalls captured with a faster shutter like you did, I
> don't quite get the aesthetic of the blurred water that many use.
>
> If you need to make adjustments do them in the RAW conversion, not
> afterwards. Since you are shooting RAW, it's best to overexpose & darken
> later unless there are highlights getting blown or you need a faster
> shutter. Expose as bright as possible, even try boosting the ISO to
> achieve this. Usually it's OK to have a bit of blinking highlights on
> the LCD preview. Then manually darken them as needed.

Thanks.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 9:00:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

paul wrote:
> Randy W. Sims wrote:
> >
>
>> reviewed and culled quite a few shots using ThumbsPlus[1] (which can
>> actully handle NEF files natively).
>
>
>
> Is that reasonably fast loading?

Actually, it seems kinda slow to me. What I did was use PicureProject to
convert to best quality JPEG at 1024x768 and then use ThumbsPlus to
manage the JPEGs. I wish the JPEGs could be linked to the NEFs (I'll
have to enquire about that posability in future versions).

TP will create Thumbs for the NEF files also, but it's slow when you
load the full image, but then it can also be set to use another program
for that. I just haven't experimented to find the right setup yet.

I love TP because it is great for organizing and batch processing, it
lets you set to thumbnails to any size, it reads IPIC, EXIF information,
create web galleries with lots of flexibility, etc, etc. They have a
30-day free trial you can download[1]. The raw plugin is a seperate
download. It's worth looking at. I'd like to hear the opinions of the
more experienced people here on how it compares to other similar programs.

1. <http://www.cerious.com/download.shtml&gt;
April 12, 2005 9:00:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Randy W. Sims wrote:

> paul wrote:
>
>> Randy W. Sims wrote:
>> >
>>
>>> reviewed and culled quite a few shots using ThumbsPlus[1] (which can
>>> actully handle NEF files natively).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Is that reasonably fast loading?
>
>
> Actually, it seems kinda slow to me. What I did was use PicureProject to
> convert to best quality JPEG at 1024x768 and then use ThumbsPlus to
> manage the JPEGs. I wish the JPEGs could be linked to the NEFs (I'll
> have to enquire about that posability in future versions).
>
> TP will create Thumbs for the NEF files also, but it's slow when you
> load the full image, but then it can also be set to use another program
> for that. I just haven't experimented to find the right setup yet.
>
> I love TP because it is great for organizing and batch processing, it
> lets you set to thumbnails to any size, it reads IPIC, EXIF information,
> create web galleries with lots of flexibility, etc, etc. They have a
> 30-day free trial you can download[1]. The raw plugin is a seperate
> download. It's worth looking at. I'd like to hear the opinions of the
> more experienced people here on how it compares to other similar programs.
>
> 1. <http://www.cerious.com/download.shtml&gt;


Thumbs is a pretty good program. I just got used to others & couldn't
get into it. Breeze Browser is another I looked at which *does* match
jpegs with their raw pairs but no extras for organizing or editing. I
like irfanview but it is incredibly slow with raw files unfortunately. I
use an old version of ACDsee for quick browsing & batch renaming. I use
photoshop for browsing raw directly, it is fast opening raw & is a great
converter but you can't zoom in without opening, only as big as the
preview pane & that keeps defaulting to small. Also very limited in options.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 9:34:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Diane Wilson <diane@firelily.com> wrote:
> There are solutions. Bracketing, for one. The D70 custom setup
> lets you use the front command wheel for EV override, without
> holding down the EV button above the shutter button. Nice, easy
> bracketing without taking your eye from the viewfinder.
>
> Or use center-weighted or spot metering, and the auto-exposure
> lock. You can meter on one area of the image you want to shoot,
> then reframe without changing exposure.
>

Or they could update the firmware so that the stupid thing exposes
correctly in the first place. Unless I am doing something wrong very
consistantly, it always is underexposed. I would like the ability to
just compose a picture, take it and print it without having to go to
photoshop. Granted, I don't mind using Photoshop, but I am not happy
that I end up doing this for every picture or jacking the EV up on the
camera when using Apeture priority. BTW ... full automatic and all of
the automatic modes also underexpose.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 9:39:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Diane Wilson <diane@firelily.com> wrote:
>
> If you don't have a tripod with you, you might be able to shoot these
> hand-held by sitting on the ground and bracing the camera on your
> knee. It's not foolproof, so don't rely on a single shot to get it.
>

I found that you can roll up a towel or cloth into a ball use it to lean
the side of your camera up against a tree and it will stay quite steady.
It is possible sometimes to rest the camera and use the timer to fire
the shutter as well.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 10:50:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Thomas T. Veldhouse <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Frankly, I find this a fairly annoying "feature" of the N70. The matrix
> metering seems to under expose just about everything, even when pointed
> at neutral gray (I tried with a gray card).

If you meter off an 18% gray card, expecting that to be the meter's neutral
gray, it's going to underexpose. Despite what people continue to believe,
18% gray has nothing to do with anything in photography, and it's not what
the meter is calibrated to. The card is a half stop brighter than the
meter's neutral point, so you get a half stop of underexposure.

I've still seen no tendency to underexpose in the D70. I seem to use
negative EC about as often as positive.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 10:50:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Jeremy Nixon wrote:

> Thomas T. Veldhouse <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Frankly, I find this a fairly annoying "feature" of the N70. The matrix
>>metering seems to under expose just about everything, even when pointed
>>at neutral gray (I tried with a gray card).
>
>
> If you meter off an 18% gray card, expecting that to be the meter's neutral
> gray, it's going to underexpose. Despite what people continue to believe,
> 18% gray has nothing to do with anything in photography, and it's not what
> the meter is calibrated to. The card is a half stop brighter than the
> meter's neutral point, so you get a half stop of underexposure.

With Minolta cameras if I meter a grey card perpendicular to the lens
axis in sunny-16 @ f/16, ISO 100, I get 1/90 .. 1/100 or 1/125 with an
incident meter reading f/11 0.9 (a hair under f/16) for ISO 100, 1/100
in the same light. Further, when I do use a grey card I get
consistently good exposures on slide film; same with using the incident
meter. (Though I usually spot meter slide film).

I've measured the Max 7D (earlier posts refer) and the most careful
control of lighting of a grey card results in an image reading 118/255
on R+B and slightly lower on green. 18% grey is supposed to fall at
118/255 per the industry norms. (Find the ref. posts for links).

Finally, per Chasseur d'Images, issue 271, March 2005, when the D70 is
set to ISO 200 its sensitivity is really 160, when set to 400 it is
actually 320, etc. indicating a consistent 1/3 EV underexposure.

Contrast with the Canon 20D which is shown (by C d'I) to be the
opposite, that is for ISO 100, it's sensitivity is really 125, or 1/3 EV
the opposite way. So the Canon 20D and the Nikon D70 are 2/3 of a stop
apart.

Expecting cameras across brands to behave exactly the same in the same
conditions of light while having different lenses, sensors, converters
and processors is a good goal, but a tad 'wishful'.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 10:54:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Thomas T. Veldhouse <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Image 11, slow down the shutter, put the camera on a tripod and try this
> picture again. You might like the results ;-)

We're not completely and utterly sick of the "blurred flowing water" trick
yet? I think it's quite refreshing to see a waterfall picture with a fast
shutter speed for a change.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 10:54:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Jeremy Nixon wrote:


> We're not completely and utterly sick of the "blurred flowing water" trick
> yet?

If that is not the sole purpose of the image, it still makes for
compelling images when it is a part of the image. When it is over done
(very long shutter times) it ruins it as well.

> I think it's quite refreshing to see a waterfall picture with a fast
> shutter speed for a change.

Occasionally, but the usual effect is something that doesn't look
natural at all. Water is suposed to flow.



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 10:54:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:
> Jeremy Nixon wrote:
>
>
>> We're not completely and utterly sick of the "blurred flowing water"
>> trick
>> yet?
>
>
> If that is not the sole purpose of the image, it still makes for
> compelling images when it is a part of the image. When it is over done
> (very long shutter times) it ruins it as well.
>
>> I think it's quite refreshing to see a waterfall picture with a fast
>> shutter speed for a change.
>
>
> Occasionally, but the usual effect is something that doesn't look
> natural at all. Water is suposed to flow.

I did experiment with slower speeds, but I wasn't that happy with the
effect from this particular falls. On some of them, I did slow it down a
bit for interesting effect. Eg. photo DSC_0067[1] is a little slow to
give the water a milk-like consistency which I thought was kinda
interesting without being too far out. Mostly, I was trying for a more
realistic look.

1. <http://www.thepierianspring.org/gallery/DSC_0067_jpg.ht...;
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 10:54:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Randy W. Sims wrote:

> interesting without being too far out. Mostly, I was trying for a more
> realistic look.
>
> 1. <http://www.thepierianspring.org/gallery/DSC_0067_jpg.ht...;

That's not so bad, there is a sense of movement to it.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
April 12, 2005 10:54:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:

> Randy W. Sims wrote:
>
>> interesting without being too far out. Mostly, I was trying for a more
>> realistic look.
>>
>> 1. <http://www.thepierianspring.org/gallery/DSC_0067_jpg.ht...;
>
>
> That's not so bad, there is a sense of movement to it.


1/160 is still pretty fast. I wondered if that one just looked out of
focus but it does loosen it up I suppose. Not like some tense frigid
freeze-frame. It would be interesting to combine both extremes with a
fill flash or merged exposure fast & slow.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 11:05:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:
> Thomas T. Veldhouse <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Image 11, slow down the shutter, put the camera on a tripod and try this
>> picture again. You might like the results ;-)
>
> We're not completely and utterly sick of the "blurred flowing water" trick
> yet? I think it's quite refreshing to see a waterfall picture with a fast
> shutter speed for a change.
>

I like both. I think the slower shutter speed makes the scene feel
"calm", and that is why I like it. My life is busy enough the rest of
the time. I didn't suggest destroying the picture he already took ;-)

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 11:44:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> I've measured the Max 7D (earlier posts refer) and the most careful
> control of lighting of a grey card results in an image reading 118/255
> on R+B and slightly lower on green. 18% grey is supposed to fall at
> 118/255 per the industry norms. (Find the ref. posts for links).

18% gray isn't "supposed" to do anything. Well, I don't know about
industry "norms", but the industry standards don't say any such thing.

> Finally, per Chasseur d'Images, issue 271, March 2005, when the D70 is
> set to ISO 200 its sensitivity is really 160, when set to 400 it is
> actually 320, etc. indicating a consistent 1/3 EV underexposure.
>
> Contrast with the Canon 20D which is shown (by C d'I) to be the
> opposite, that is for ISO 100, it's sensitivity is really 125, or 1/3 EV
> the opposite way. So the Canon 20D and the Nikon D70 are 2/3 of a stop
> apart.

I remember that thread; they were measuring what the camera did with
neutral gray, which has no relation to measuring ISO sensitivity; the
test measured *something*, certainly, but ISO sensitivity wasn't it.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 11:44:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Jeremy Nixon wrote:

> I remember that thread; they were measuring what the camera did with
> neutral gray, which has no relation to measuring ISO sensitivity; the
> test measured *something*, certainly, but ISO sensitivity wasn't it.

Funny, I believe them more than I believe you. I wonder why that is?



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 11:52:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <425c06a4$0$14550$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net>, veldy71
@yahoo.com says...
> Diane Wilson <diane@firelily.com> wrote:
> > There are solutions. Bracketing, for one. The D70 custom setup
> > lets you use the front command wheel for EV override, without
> > holding down the EV button above the shutter button. Nice, easy
> > bracketing without taking your eye from the viewfinder.
> >
> > Or use center-weighted or spot metering, and the auto-exposure
> > lock. You can meter on one area of the image you want to shoot,
> > then reframe without changing exposure.
> >
>
> Or they could update the firmware so that the stupid thing exposes
> correctly in the first place. Unless I am doing something wrong very
> consistantly, it always is underexposed. I would like the ability to
> just compose a picture, take it and print it without having to go to
> photoshop. Granted, I don't mind using Photoshop, but I am not happy
> that I end up doing this for every picture or jacking the EV up on the
> camera when using Apeture priority. BTW ... full automatic and all of
> the automatic modes also underexpose.
>
>
Why do you think your pictures are underexposed? The proof
is in the seeing. However, it seems normal for the histogram
to be skewed to the dark side; it does give highlights more
room for variance, and that seems to come out right a lot of
the time.

Then there's the question of what's "right." There's no such
thing as a metering system that's going to give the right
exposure every time; that's why the better cameras give you
more options for exposure. On the D70, you've got three
completely different conceptual models for exposure, with
adjustments available to all of them. You've got exposure
lock, so you can meter for one part of the image, reframe
without changing exposure, and then shoot. And you have
EV overrides for both exposure and flash, which you can
adjust separately or in tandem. EV override can be done
manually or with auto-bracketing. All of these are "right"
some of the time, and wrong some of the time. Especially
if you're shooting into contrasty side light or back light,
you may have to use more than one of these variations to
get the right exposure, but it's also how you get the most
interesting shots.

When people move up to a SLR, interchangeable lenses is the
most obvious first advantage. But the control you get over
exposure is just as much of a change from a typical P&S.
I guarantee that the D70 can do everything you want, but
it's not going to be automatic. There's a heck of a learning
curve, not just for the camera but for improving your
photography in general.

All that said, post some pictures that you're not happy with,
and let's talk about different ways of approaching exposure
and metering.

Diane
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 11:57:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
> Finally, per Chasseur d'Images, issue 271, March 2005, when the D70 is
> set to ISO 200 its sensitivity is really 160, when set to 400 it is
> actually 320, etc. indicating a consistent 1/3 EV underexposure.

My problem isn't with the actual versus labeled ISO reading, my problem
is with the metering driving the camera to underexpose. It seems that
the meter may be using the labeled ISO to determine exposure and that
the cause is that the real ISO is lower, but they should fix the meter
to simply expose correctly in a reference scenario. I have played with
a couple of Canon DSLR (300D and 20D) and they don't seem to have this
issue. This comes down to whether the meter works correctly or whether
I will be forced to always second guess it and compensate [granted, the
meter can only be a guide in the first place, but no sense it being
consistantly offset].

Having said that, I love the D70 in all other respects.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 11:57:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:


> issue. This comes down to whether the meter works correctly or whether
> I will be forced to always second guess it and compensate [granted, the
> meter can only be a guide in the first place, but no sense it being
> consistantly offset].

But that falls in line with what you're saying. If you set 200 and the
camera meter decides on settings appropriate to 200, but the sensor
(braad term) sensitivity is lower, then the images will come out looking
under exposed.

I've found with the Max 7D that metering as if it were slide film
results in slight over exposure. IOW you have new tricks to learn and
so do I for our respective cameras.

Cheers,
Alan



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 12:02:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> If that is not the sole purpose of the image, it still makes for
> compelling images when it is a part of the image. When it is over done
> (very long shutter times) it ruins it as well.

Sure, I don't mean to suggest it should be avoided at all costs. :) 
But I think too many people see flowing water and think "long exposure"
as a reflex. I tire of seeing those shots, but allow for the possibility
that the cliche can be done well also.

It's what I call a "cheap trick" picture -- nothing to it, but it always
gets a good reaction so sometimes we can't resist. Like a common sunrise
shot -- we all have lots of those, and everyone loves them, but most of
them aren't anything special. They just don't get tiresome as quickly
as the flowing-water trick.

>> I think it's quite refreshing to see a waterfall picture with a fast
>> shutter speed for a change.
>
> Occasionally, but the usual effect is something that doesn't look
> natural at all. Water is suposed to flow.

Well, I've seen waterfalls in person, from time to time, and they have
never looked anything like the "slow shutter speed" effect to me. They
look a lot more like these shots, in fact. Actually, with a high enough
shutter speed to actually freeze the water in place, I think that's more
interesting, since that's something you don't see standing there either.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 2:13:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> Jeremy Nixon wrote:
>
>> I remember that thread; they were measuring what the camera did with
>> neutral gray, which has no relation to measuring ISO sensitivity; the
>> test measured *something*, certainly, but ISO sensitivity wasn't it.
>
> Funny, I believe them more than I believe you. I wonder why that is?

My guess is that it's because you haven't looked into what the ISO standard
actually says.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 5:53:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

paul wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> Randy W. Sims wrote:
>>
>>> interesting without being too far out. Mostly, I was trying for a
>>> more realistic look.
>>>
>>> 1. <http://www.thepierianspring.org/gallery/DSC_0067_jpg.ht...;
>>
>>
>>
>> That's not so bad, there is a sense of movement to it.
>
>
>
> 1/160 is still pretty fast. I wondered if that one just looked out of
> focus but it does loosen it up I suppose.

Actually, quite a few of those are out of focus. The more I look at
them, the more I see the flaws. Focus, bad choices for exposure. I knew
the compositions weren't that great, that wasn't really my focus for
this outng (pun not intended). I thought I had done a fair job on the
exposures, which was my focus. The histograms looked like what I thought
they should look like from my still limited understanding. I think I
tended to go with too large an aperture.

Of course, I expect to take lots of bad photos. It's part of learning. I
probably picked a poor subject for a first outing. Lots of light and
shadow. I think I did marginally better with the photos of the old
buildings since there wasn't as much of a dynamic range in light values.

I guess the good thing about photography is that bad results mean more
practice is needed. And practicing is fun (as long as you don't take
along people who can't understand why it takes so long to "snap a few
pictures").

Randy.
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 6:26:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Diane Wilson <diane@firelily.com> wrote:

> Why do you think your pictures are underexposed? The proof
> is in the seeing. However, it seems normal for the histogram
> to be skewed to the dark side; it does give highlights more
> room for variance, and that seems to come out right a lot of
> the time.
>
> Then there's the question of what's "right." There's no such
> thing as a metering system that's going to give the right
> exposure every time; that's why the better cameras give you
> more options for exposure. On the D70, you've got three
> completely different conceptual models for exposure, with
> adjustments available to all of them. You've got exposure
> lock, so you can meter for one part of the image, reframe
> without changing exposure, and then shoot. And you have
> EV overrides for both exposure and flash, which you can
> adjust separately or in tandem. EV override can be done
> manually or with auto-bracketing. All of these are "right"
> some of the time, and wrong some of the time. Especially
> if you're shooting into contrasty side light or back light,
> you may have to use more than one of these variations to
> get the right exposure, but it's also how you get the most
> interesting shots.
>
> When people move up to a SLR, interchangeable lenses is the
> most obvious first advantage. But the control you get over
> exposure is just as much of a change from a typical P&S.
> I guarantee that the D70 can do everything you want, but
> it's not going to be automatic. There's a heck of a learning
> curve, not just for the camera but for improving your
> photography in general.
>
> All that said, post some pictures that you're not happy with,
> and let's talk about different ways of approaching exposure
> and metering.
>
> Diane

Fair enough. I will get some pictures taken of "whatever" over the next
few days and try to make them available as an example. I will make the
..NEF available so that we are all comparing apples to apples.

I appreciate the great responses from everybody ... and I am VERY happy
with the D70. It just seems that pictures [in RAW] always show as under
exposed when sent to the computer [I don't think I said that before, but
the adjusted images print fine, so the monitor seems to be adjusted
correctly].

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 2:16:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

paul wrote:

> photoshop for browsing raw directly, it is fast opening raw & is a great
> converter but you can't zoom in without opening, only as big as the


I have Elements 3.0 and the RAW converter does allow zooming. Right
click over the image to get the zoom menu with the zoom or hand mode
slected. I don't know if the PS RAW interface is identical to that in
Elements 3.0.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
April 13, 2005 2:16:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:

> paul wrote:
>
>> photoshop for browsing raw directly, it is fast opening raw & is a
>> great converter but you can't zoom in without opening, only as big as the
>
>
>
> I have Elements 3.0 and the RAW converter does allow zooming. Right
> click over the image to get the zoom menu with the zoom or hand mode
> slected. I don't know if the PS RAW interface is identical to that in
> Elements 3.0.


There are three steps, the thumbnail browser, the raw conversion window
& finally having it open in photoshop. It's the first step where I can't
zoom to choose between similar shots & check focus.
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 3:12:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Randy W. Sims wrote:

> Actually, quite a few of those are out of focus. The more I look at
> them, the more I see the flaws. Focus, bad choices for exposure. I knew
> the compositions weren't that great, that wasn't really my focus for
> this outng (pun not intended). I thought I had done a fair job on the
> exposures, which was my focus. The histograms looked like what I thought
> they should look like from my still limited understanding. I think I
> tended to go with too large an aperture.

The exposure of the linked (above) shot is about as good as you could
expect. The whites are right at the edge. The water has the natural
look (brownish) of river water coming down a stream, etc.

Shoot early in the mornign or late in the day when the light has more
warm color to it (although stream beds are often in shaddow, which makes
it very contrasty and tough to shoot).

Too much white water in a scene makes it a dull scene. (Same with white
skies, they really rob the scene. Even long shutter shots of streams
should minimize the area of the image that the white occupies).

>
> Of course, I expect to take lots of bad photos. It's part of learning. I
> probably picked a poor subject for a first outing. Lots of light and
> shadow. I think I did marginally better with the photos of the old
> buildings since there wasn't as much of a dynamic range in light values.

Try a lot of close up photography and focus on subject. Eliminate
things that don't relate to the subject.

>
> I guess the good thing about photography is that bad results mean more
> practice is needed. And practicing is fun (as long as you don't take
> along people who can't understand why it takes so long to "snap a few
> pictures").

There is nothing worse for photography than an outing with people who
just want to see the sights and smell the flowers. It's a lonely game
unless you're out with other people who want to make photographs. OTOH,
my SO and I often find oursleves kms apart and affecting a hookup
outside of cell phone range is not easy. I've got to buy a pair of
radios before our next vacation as we'll be in the wilds of Labrador.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 3:34:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

paul wrote:
> There are three steps, the thumbnail browser, the raw conversion window
> & finally having it open in photoshop. It's the first step where I can't
> zoom to choose between similar shots & check focus.

I see. IMO, you're expecting too much from the thumbnail bowser.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
April 13, 2005 3:34:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:

> paul wrote:
>
>> There are three steps, the thumbnail browser, the raw conversion
>> window & finally having it open in photoshop. It's the first step
>> where I can't zoom to choose between similar shots & check focus.
>
>
> I see. IMO, you're expecting too much from the thumbnail bowser.


BreezeBrowser allows side by side zoomed previews & zooming into the
preview pane. It shows EXIF data & histogram as well. Unfortunately I
think their RAW conversion quality is not the best. PS is not the best
either but overall is quite useful. Nikon Capture supposedly is a better
conversion but is slow & akward.
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 4:18:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <425c8367$0$32865$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net>, veldy71
@yahoo.com says...

> Fair enough. I will get some pictures taken of "whatever" over the next
> few days and try to make them available as an example. I will make the
> .NEF available so that we are all comparing apples to apples.

Normal jpeg photos should be sufficient; using the .NEF files (which
are going to be big) would be useful for specific correction
techniques, but if the jpegs aren't looking reasonably good, then
that will be sufficient for talking about different approaches to
exposure. (Postprocessing is in another class, down the hall
and on the left!)

Also, keep in mind that there's often more than one way to get a
good exposure, especially in tough situations like backlight.
In the tough shots, there's also a lot of room for deciding what
is "good." For instance, in strong backlighting, you (generally)
want to get your subject exposed in mid-range for lots of good
detail, but you have a choice of either letting the backlight
fall wherever it falls in the exposure range, or trying to expose
the backlit areas normally also, which requires fill flash.
Or you may want the backlit area normally exposed, with your
subject in deep shadow as a silhouette. Three very different
exposures, all of which may be "right" depending on what you
want, all requiring very different exposure techniques. And in
most cases, there's more than one way to set the exposure for
the specific result you want.

Diane
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 4:24:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

paul wrote:

>
> BreezeBrowser allows side by side zoomed previews & zooming into the
> preview pane. It shows EXIF data & histogram as well. Unfortunately I
> think their RAW conversion quality is not the best. PS is not the best
> either but overall is quite useful. Nikon Capture supposedly is a better
> conversion but is slow & akward.

What a mess we live with!

FWIW the Minolta RAW converter is not as good as the Adobe. The Adobe
RAW plugin works very well IMO. (I dial most settings to neutral and do
that as I please in Elements. Althought he "exposure" slider has saved
at least two phots that were worth saving. (Damned studio strobes
weren't 100% charged)).

BTW, assuming your eyesight is good, go to manual focus and I will bet
you have more winners. MO.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 4:35:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 20:02:43 +0000, Jeremy Nixon wrote:

> Sure, I don't mean to suggest it should be avoided at all costs. :) 
> But I think too many people see flowing water and think "long exposure"
> as a reflex. I tire of seeing those shots, but allow for the possibility
> that the cliche can be done well also.
>
> It's what I call a "cheap trick" picture -- nothing to it, but it always
> gets a good reaction so sometimes we can't resist. Like a common sunrise
> shot -- we all have lots of those, and everyone loves them, but most of
> them aren't anything special. They just don't get tiresome as quickly
> as the flowing-water trick.
>
>>> I think it's quite refreshing to see a waterfall picture with a fast
>>> shutter speed for a change.
>>
>> Occasionally, but the usual effect is something that doesn't look
>> natural at all. Water is suposed to flow.
>
> Well, I've seen waterfalls in person, from time to time, and they have
> never looked anything like the "slow shutter speed" effect to me. They
> look a lot more like these shots, in fact. Actually, with a high enough
> shutter speed to actually freeze the water in place, I think that's more
> interesting, since that's something you don't see standing there either.

Here's an interesting variation on a similar theme:

Take a reading of a typical waterfall scene. Divide the reading by 100 and
use that as your exposure. Set your camera for 100 multiple exposures on
the same frame. The result is quite interesting.

Oh...you will need to do this on film with a sturdy tripod and a camera
that can take 100 exposures on the same frame.

--
The good old days start now.
April 13, 2005 4:35:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Roxy d'Urban wrote:
>
> Here's an interesting variation on a similar theme:
>
> Take a reading of a typical waterfall scene. Divide the reading by 100 and
> use that as your exposure. Set your camera for 100 multiple exposures on
> the same frame. The result is quite interesting.
>
> Oh...you will need to do this on film with a sturdy tripod and a camera
> that can take 100 exposures on the same frame.


Hmm. I'd like to see an example of that. It could be done by 'stacking'
images in photoshop or with special software for 100 images.
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 8:54:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 18:54:01 -0000, Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com>
wrote:

>Thomas T. Veldhouse <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Image 11, slow down the shutter, put the camera on a tripod and try this
>> picture again. You might like the results ;-)
>
>We're not completely and utterly sick of the "blurred flowing water" trick
>yet? I think it's quite refreshing to see a waterfall picture with a fast
>shutter speed for a change.

Amen!
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 1:10:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 08:21:08 -0700, paul wrote:

> Roxy d'Urban wrote:
>>
>> Here's an interesting variation on a similar theme:
>>
>> Take a reading of a typical waterfall scene. Divide the reading by 100 and
>> use that as your exposure. Set your camera for 100 multiple exposures on
>> the same frame. The result is quite interesting.
>>
>> Oh...you will need to do this on film with a sturdy tripod and a camera
>> that can take 100 exposures on the same frame.
>
>
> Hmm. I'd like to see an example of that. It could be done by 'stacking'
> images in photoshop or with special software for 100 images.

It was in an old edition of Practical Photography (a UK publication). I
still have it at home somewhere.

The results are interestingly different to the typical shutter drag
waterfall photograph.

--
The good old days start now.
April 14, 2005 10:50:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I am not qualified to critique your images. I liked most of them and would
like to see them again when the water is flowing clearly. The park is
beautiful. The muddy water was not something that I was drawn to. I have a
D70 and am having fun with it as you are.

"Randy W. Sims" <RandyS@ThePierianSpring.org> wrote in message
news:q_CdndLPGcMRG8bfRVn_vg@giganews.com...
> Here is my first outing with my Nikon D70:
>
> <http://www.thepierianspring.org/gallery/&gt;
>
> The water shots are from High Falls State Park, about 40 miles southeast
> of Atlanta, Georiga (USA). The old buildings are from South Fulton Scenic
> Byway, Southwest Atlanta.
>
> I think I chose a bad day and time for the water shots: the water was
> muddy and the sun was shining down directly on the water making it very
> difficult to get a correct (or what I thought of as correct) exposure. I'd
> be grateful for any comments & suggestions especially regarding exposure.
>
> Photos takes as NEF RAW & converted to JPEG with PictureProject. Then I
> reviewed and culled quite a few shots using ThumbsPlus[1] (which can
> actully handle NEF files natively). Only a couple of files (80 & 92) were
> processed to lighten them up a bit within ThumbsPlus. ThumbsPlus was also
> used to generate the quickie web gallery.
>
> There's nothing special here. I was mainly trying to figure out how to get
> decent exposures, varying apature and shutter speed to see how they
> interact, etc. Long way to go, but I'd appreciate any tips on anything
> that stands out.
>
> Thanks for your time.
>
> 1. <http://www.cerious.com/&gt;
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 5:03:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:425c283b$0$14542$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net...
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Finally, per Chasseur d'Images, issue 271, March 2005, when the D70 is
>> set to ISO 200 its sensitivity is really 160, when set to 400 it is
>> actually 320, etc. indicating a consistent 1/3 EV underexposure.
>
> My problem isn't with the actual versus labeled ISO reading, my problem
> is with the metering driving the camera to underexpose. It seems that
> the meter may be using the labeled ISO to determine exposure and that
> the cause is that the real ISO is lower, but they should fix the meter
> to simply expose correctly in a reference scenario. I have played with
> a couple of Canon DSLR (300D and 20D) and they don't seem to have this
> issue. This comes down to whether the meter works correctly or whether
> I will be forced to always second guess it and compensate [granted, the
> meter can only be a guide in the first place, but no sense it being
> consistantly offset].
>
> Having said that, I love the D70 in all other respects.
>

I did a similar test using a Gossen meter in incident and spot reflected
which matched. The 20D came out about 1/3 stop lower using it's internal
meter. This seemed close enough to me.
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 5:03:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Lester Wareham wrote:

>
> I did a similar test using a Gossen meter in incident and spot reflected
> which matched. The 20D came out about 1/3 stop lower using it's internal
> meter. This seemed close enough to me.

In the end it is all not that important. If you blow out your
highlights, they are bye-bye. So a little chimping is in order and
manual settings for consistency in a given light.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
!