Yep thats exactly what i do, and its gets refined even further than that. with photoshop actions recorded for the ultimate processing result.
May 9, 2023
810
-
-
Number 4, of course, real photographers and all that jazz ;-).
Seriously, #3, increase the ISO but stay clear of histogram's right size or zebras/blinkies. I would increase the ISO to make the EVF sufficiently bright for framing.
-
I feel I've done my bit.
I feel you are just picking in holes in the clarity of my writing and nothing you have said is in disagreement with what I've said (if you allow yourself to see past the loose words and concentrate on the meaning). This is a disagreement over writing style. I feel you are demanding an unrealistic standard. This is not a thesis, it's a chat. I'm happy with the sloppiness and imprecision as long as we both know what the other means.
Nothing you've said confirms any material conceptual error on my part, just picky points not really relevant for field use. I'm happy my concepts of exposure, noise, DR and ETTR are good enough for practical purposes.
Talking of picky, I'm not sure why you are picking on my use of the ETTR term, either. It's not a technical term, it's just shorthand for "expose as hot as you dare". One has to decide on some sort of exposure strategy. Mine is to point the camera at my subject, and use the preview histogram to maximise exposure, ignoring what that does to the look of the image on the screen. Collect as much light as I can without blowing essential highlights. Once I have the image, I check the post capture histogram just to be sure. That's all I mean by ETTR. I know the histogram is not a raw histogram, I know the same goes for zebras and the like, but you've got to use something and that's what I use.
To answer your last question, previously I would have taken the exposure at base ISO and reduced shutter speed and damn the consequences to dof and camera shake. Then I realised that you can fix noise in post but you can't fix camera shake, so I switched to an auto ISO strategy. Then I learned from the mega threads here that ISO is not what I thought of that so I have changed to leaving everything at base ISOm choosing whatever shutter and aperture I need and just accepting less light on the sensor (raising the midtones in post). Jim assures me that the read noise benefits of raising ISO in dim conditions are minor and I won't be leaving a lot on the table with this approach. It simplifies things a lot as I am currently using 6 cameras, too many things to remember.
-
Agree 100% i was shooting test cloud images yesterday as they were moving fast and the lighting was changing every 10 secs ,so shooting an event i use A and float iso/shutter speed with a min shutter set to 1/250 sec.
-
Thank you for clarifying the term, but be aware that others may use it differently. I did not understand why you wrote that raising the ISO is effectively underexposure? What you probably meant is that you increase the ISO when you have "underexposure" or that you can raise ISO when you have "underexposure."
-
There is a third alternative: know the theory and use it to nail the shot.
-
I understand its use. Some people just want useful advice for field work, others are having an academic discussion. What matters for each scenario can be different.
Technical discussions can get very heated and quibbling over the finest distinctions is the norm. A lot of the time, those quibbles are irrelevant for field use. If you are out there approximating everything to the nearest stop, who cares about things that affect the sixth decimal place.
The problem, of course, is context. Exactly when are the quibbles material for field use? That can get tricky. And if the discussion is not relevant to field use and is in the academic domain, of course the sixth decimal place is important!
-
OK
Really, no. I'm picking holes in what you said, not how it was said.
Of course it is in disagreement. What is 'the meaning' if it isn't what is conveyed by the words? You can't expect people to understand what you meant to say if you can't say it.
But the sloppiness and imprecision results in me not knowing what you mean, apparently. Because I ascribe the meaning that the words convey to me - and then you tell me that's not what you meant. I think we're back to the same issue. Precise use of language engenders precise thinking, and usuallyimprecise use of the language is a consequence of imprecise thinking.
ETTR stands for 'Expose To The Right'. Yours would be 'EAHAYD'. But if you mean 'maximise exposure subject to working and pictorial constraints', then yes - I'd go with that, but it doesn't carry with it what you were saying about raising ISO being 'lying to yourself'.
'Fixing noise in post' doesn't solve the problem, it just changes the exposure at which you need to make the decision. To my mind, you take the picture closest to you want to take, and noise is often not the highest priority in that regard. Like most things in photography, it's a judgment call - there are no simple rules. That's why understanding how the thing works helps you make those judgments.
-
Bill's DR charts don't speak to that issue, except as they affect headroom, which is the point of how I'm suggesting you operate your camera if you have to boost ISO. His charts definitely show the loss in DR associated with cranking up the ISO though. But his charts don't address how you should set ISO to optimize noise and headroom.
-
Once again, you have created a false choice. That charts aren't pointless, but they don't speak directly to the question to which you're trying to apply them. In many light-limited situations, you're better off operating at a low ISO and not trying for ETTR.
-
Some of his charts do.
-
Do you work in some way that violates the principles I've posited? Not the details, but the principles.
-
the whole advantage of mirrorless is wysiwyg it leaves optical view finder for dead. my cameras are always set to "settings effect on" and off for studio work. i use it that much i have a button assigned to switch it on and off.
-
You are calling Iliah ignorant?
-
Please explain the technical basis for that statement.
-
Nailing the shot without changing settings rules the day in my world and for everybody else in my world.
Like I said, some of us know the theory, others don't. Collectively many don't care don't care.
That's why I had a #1 and #2.
Your #3 is simply a slower way, so it's not even a starter. You are still valuing a couple of seconds to optimise light on the sensor that we don't have in the real world.
Literally a millisecond can be the difference between somebody having their eyes open, or the right pose. Never mind 2 seconds faffing about with settings!!!!!!!
I can just see myself on the film set: "Ooh, can we take that shot again, I didn't quite maximise the light on my sensor the first time"
ALL that matters is nailing the shot. The decisive moment. Literally nothing else matters for folk like us. It never did and it never will.
-
Mischaracterisation again. No-one is talking about things that only affect the sixth decimal place. No-one is quibbling over 'finest distinctions' - just very broad ones about what people actually mean. And it's interesting that we seem to have come to a point where the very basic concepts that have underpinned photography for over 100 years are apparently 'irrelevant for field use'.
-
At same scene lighting, f-stop and shutter speed, raising -- or lowering -- ISO does not affect exposure.
