- Messages
- 7,571
- Name
- Ken
- Edit My Images
- Yes
There is no obvious catchlight in the angler's eyes- or the fish.
Very reflective scales?
and help to keep the site free for all
Beginner Help with settings.
- Thread starter ginger.robertson
- Start date
There is no obvious catchlight in the angler's eyes- or the fish.
Very reflective scales?
- Messages
- 1,389
- Edit My Images
- No
Ginger.
This is for available light (although similar principals apply when using a flash).
You will need to dial in some exposure compensation, if using one of the "automated" shooting modes, or make allowances for it if shooting in manual exposure mode.
Yor in camera metering sytem is measuring the light reflected from the subject. If the subject has has an "average" reflection than there is a good chance all will be ok especially with a low contrast scene.
If the subject has a lot of light reflecting off it - like a sunny day at the beach the camera will think there is too much light and will under expose the image unless you dial in some exposure positive compensation.
#1 Here the exposure compensation was + 1.7 (f stops)
Uploaded for a thread by Richard Taylor, on Flickr
A similar problem happens with subjects that do not reflect a lot of light, except you will need to dial in some negative exposure compensation.
How much exposure compensation do you need for a particular shot?
#1 This may come with experience, and lots of practice, (it did for me).
#2 If you have a time take a test shot and check the histogram - Do you know how to read a histogram?
#3 Use a live histogram - this may be be camera dependant (my Olympus E-M5MarkII has one) or you may need to be in live view and have the histogram activated.
A third alternative is to bracket your shots (I do this very rarely) or if your camera and/or software supports i use HDR (high dynamic range techniques).
#2 I was asked to take this family group (our son's wifes family) without any prior notice. The lighting was a bit tricky so I just put the camera in HDR mode and rattled off 3 groups of 5 shots (1 stop appart) each and merged the best lookin set when post processing.
For our in-laws by Richard Taylor, on Flickr
Hope this helps
This is for available light (although similar principals apply when using a flash).
You will need to dial in some exposure compensation, if using one of the "automated" shooting modes, or make allowances for it if shooting in manual exposure mode.
Yor in camera metering sytem is measuring the light reflected from the subject. If the subject has has an "average" reflection than there is a good chance all will be ok especially with a low contrast scene.
If the subject has a lot of light reflecting off it - like a sunny day at the beach the camera will think there is too much light and will under expose the image unless you dial in some exposure positive compensation.
#1 Here the exposure compensation was + 1.7 (f stops)
Uploaded for a thread by Richard Taylor, on FlickrA similar problem happens with subjects that do not reflect a lot of light, except you will need to dial in some negative exposure compensation.
How much exposure compensation do you need for a particular shot?
#1 This may come with experience, and lots of practice, (it did for me).
#2 If you have a time take a test shot and check the histogram - Do you know how to read a histogram?
#3 Use a live histogram - this may be be camera dependant (my Olympus E-M5MarkII has one) or you may need to be in live view and have the histogram activated.
A third alternative is to bracket your shots (I do this very rarely) or if your camera and/or software supports i use HDR (high dynamic range techniques).
#2 I was asked to take this family group (our son's wifes family) without any prior notice. The lighting was a bit tricky so I just put the camera in HDR mode and rattled off 3 groups of 5 shots (1 stop appart) each and merged the best lookin set when post processing.
For our in-laws by Richard Taylor, on FlickrHope this helps
Last edited:
OP
- Messages
- 10
- Name
- Ginger
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Phil no flash was used. Only thing to create problem I think is the dark grass bank and the light sky.
OP
- Messages
- 10
- Name
- Ginger
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Great shots mr Taylor. I will get the hang of things trust me. It's just a time thing.
- Messages
- 1,389
- Edit My Images
- No
Thanks (don't worry about the mr etc)
With high contrast scenes you may need need to make a decision on what is the most important part of the scene.
Or you an possibly change the scene by repostioning yourself and/or the subject
Or you can add light to the scene to reduce the contrast (fill flash/reflectors)
Or, and this is mostly in relation to 'scapes, use a neutral density graduated (ND grad) filter.
With high contrast scenes you may need need to make a decision on what is the most important part of the scene.
Or you an possibly change the scene by repostioning yourself and/or the subject
Or you can add light to the scene to reduce the contrast (fill flash/reflectors)
Or, and this is mostly in relation to 'scapes, use a neutral density graduated (ND grad) filter.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 8,006
- Name
- Bazza
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Mike
I can't really make out from your long posting if you use your meter Quote " I have a 1970's, War Era, Russian 'Leningrad' Selenium Cell light meter..... its a fantastic device "unquote, or what you say further on again quote " So I looked at the sky, I looked at the scene I used my EYE! And a little know-how!" unquote.
From my understanding a camera does not look at colours as such but what shades of grey it sees (so many talk about using a grey card which must mean something) and takes a mean average to produce and average colour. A light meter reads the actual amount of light instead and therefore a more accurate reading.
Maybe I have misunderstood what the tuts on youtube from experts on photographic lighting on flash-ambient-tunnel -studio or whatever, but to me what they say makes sense, maybe you have not viewed them? I put in a link to just one of them who actually teacher on the subject among other aspects of photography
All I know is the light meter I got appears to give a better reading for ambient light than my Nikon D800 and Nikon D300 in program mode which I don't use anyway as I prefer to use manual settings. I don't do studio so not tried it with a model so can't voucher under those circumstances, but for landscape definately better.
Also by altering say one of the readings the other two adjust correspondingly which is a bonus, and a meter can read a flash output reading which neither eye nor camera can do.
I can't really make out from your long posting if you use your meter Quote " I have a 1970's, War Era, Russian 'Leningrad' Selenium Cell light meter..... its a fantastic device "unquote, or what you say further on again quote " So I looked at the sky, I looked at the scene I used my EYE! And a little know-how!" unquote.
From my understanding a camera does not look at colours as such but what shades of grey it sees (so many talk about using a grey card which must mean something) and takes a mean average to produce and average colour. A light meter reads the actual amount of light instead and therefore a more accurate reading.
Maybe I have misunderstood what the tuts on youtube from experts on photographic lighting on flash-ambient-tunnel -studio or whatever, but to me what they say makes sense, maybe you have not viewed them? I put in a link to just one of them who actually teacher on the subject among other aspects of photography
All I know is the light meter I got appears to give a better reading for ambient light than my Nikon D800 and Nikon D300 in program mode which I don't use anyway as I prefer to use manual settings. I don't do studio so not tried it with a model so can't voucher under those circumstances, but for landscape definately better.
Also by altering say one of the readings the other two adjust correspondingly which is a bonus, and a meter can read a flash output reading which neither eye nor camera can do.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 8,006
- Name
- Bazza
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Richard
You say and I understand why you say " I was asked to take this family group (our son's wifes family) without any prior notice. The lighting was a bit tricky so I just put the camera in HDR mode and rattled off 3 groups of 5 shots (1 stop appart) each and merged the best lookin set when post processing." unquote
In reality surely the camera light reading was possibly taken from where you took the shot, this might have a slight light variation from where the family was. I was just thinking instead of doing it the way you did, why not take the camera to where the family are ,half press the shutter button for a reading and lock that reading off on the camera? on mine it has a "L" to do this, or make a note of the reading on the camera. That way surely it would avoid going the route you took and save a lot of hassle.
Hope you don't mind my suggestion and just a thought which might help
You say and I understand why you say " I was asked to take this family group (our son's wifes family) without any prior notice. The lighting was a bit tricky so I just put the camera in HDR mode and rattled off 3 groups of 5 shots (1 stop appart) each and merged the best lookin set when post processing." unquote
In reality surely the camera light reading was possibly taken from where you took the shot, this might have a slight light variation from where the family was. I was just thinking instead of doing it the way you did, why not take the camera to where the family are ,half press the shutter button for a reading and lock that reading off on the camera? on mine it has a "L" to do this, or make a note of the reading on the camera. That way surely it would avoid going the route you took and save a lot of hassle.
Hope you don't mind my suggestion and just a thought which might help
Last edited:
- Messages
- 1,389
- Edit My Images
- No
Thanks Bazza - I will keep it in mind, as I am sure there will be a next time.
- Messages
- 25,321
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
So back to the shot;
There are 2 things 'wrong' with it:
Overexposed
The processing has posterised it to the point it no longer looks like a photo.
I find it difficult to believe that a camera on auto has got it this wrong without auto flash. The camera will aim for 18% grey, this looks at least a stop over that.
Do you have the exif?
There are 2 things 'wrong' with it:
Overexposed
The processing has posterised it to the point it no longer looks like a photo.
I find it difficult to believe that a camera on auto has got it this wrong without auto flash. The camera will aim for 18% grey, this looks at least a stop over that.
Do you have the exif?
- Messages
- 1,076
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
For me, 'digital' is all about convenience. I shoot AUTO!!!!!!! for the most part! If i wanted to 'faff' I'd pick up one of the film cameras!!!!!.. but even then, I probably wouldn't 'faff' half as much as that chap on the river-bank in your american tutorial!!! I did have a look... but sorry... chap may have some worth-while suggestions to offer, but GAWD he's a gadget-freak, and what wisdom there seemed to be in there was lost in a welter of aps, and function buttons, and magic boxes!!!
Getting his 'phone out to estimate depth of focus? spending ten minutes to program his light meter to calculate two-stops 'compensation' for a polarizing filter?!?! cant he divide by four?!
And he 'sort' of said pretty much the same as I did, though, SOMEWHERE in among all the faffing about how to program ISO2 functions?!?!?!
> You need to know the effect of shutter speed and aperture and LOOK at your scene and work out what you want to do < Only he seemed to spend more time looking at 'gadgets' & playing with them, before he got round to it!
That shot of granddaughter in the garden by f16-sunny, with the electric-picture maker was unusual for me. I would, more often than not, have had the kit 18-55 on the front, and been on green-box 'full-auto' for such 'grabs'. For that shot, I 'may' have clicked over to aperture-priority to get a bit of selective focus. Otherwise, it was only because when I 'grabbed' the camera, it still had the 135mm M42 screw lens on it from my daughter doing a school assignment, and the camera wont even meter with manual lens, I had the choice.. use it 'as is' and go by eye, or rush off to try and find alternative lens or light-meter, and hope granddaughter didn't run off in the mean-time.... I went for option 'A'.. 'cos I could! And worked pretty well, I reckon! I got the shot, that's for sure.
As to the meter question; I actually have a couple of hand-held meters. I do use them... but seldom & circumstance dependent, and usually only if I am shooting one of the old film cameras that doesn't have an inbuilt meter, when I'll use one to take an 'incident' reading just to 'confidence check' against my 'estimate' by f16-sunny. May then get used for a reflected reading, for a specific subject, again, as a confidence check / comparison, if the subject is particularly bright or dark... because film is expensive, and I wont know if I have cocked it up until I have developed the film!
There you go again, abscessing about this 'accuracy'!!!! Why?!
ACCURACY - how close something is to a target. First of all, this implies that there IS a target. Second that the object is to get as close to it as possible.
If we were making pistons to fit in a car engine, and the 'target' was to make them 75mm in diameter, then accuracy is all important. Make them too big, they wont fit in the engine. Make them too small, then they wont 'seal' and when the petrol goes bang, the pressure will disappear down the gaps rather than push the piston down and make the wheels go round. So, closer we get to the desired outcome the better.
But we aren't making pistons! We are making pictures. And the desired out-come ISN'T to make a scientifically calculated 'perfect' exposure.. its to make a 'pleasing' picture!
How bright or dim the picture is, the tonal range, any blown high-lights or lost shadows are mere elements within that, that may or may not contribute or detract from how pleasing the final image is....
So there IS no 'target' no 'perfect' exposure to aim for... so if you don't have a 'target' how the heck can you measure 'accuracy'?
Image is judged, ultimately on its merit... whether it is 'pleasing'... NOT whether the exposure is scientifically centered on a theoretically 'perfect' tonal range, most scenes wont even have!!!!
Colours and Grey-Cards and measuring 'the actual amount of light'?!?! Do you know the difference between an incident reading and a reflected reading?
What chap was doing in the first part of your US How2, was using an incident meter, to measure ambient light levels falling on the scene.
This is no more 'accurate' than taking a reflected light reading, or letting your camera make one 'through the lens'! and both are measuring 'actual' light.. there's nothing else for them to measure!
A 'reflected' light meter reading, measuring the 'actual amount of light' going into the camera, rather than how much is falling out the sky. By your suggested ranking of 'actual light', then this would seem to be the more 'accurate'; its measuring the 'actual' light that is making your 'exposure'....with an incident reading, you are not measuring 'directly' how much light is making your picture in the camera, you are measuring how much light is available to make one outside it!
Its a bit like trying to work out how many people are in the shop by how many cars are in the car-park, rather than going in the shop and counting the 'actual' shoppers.. number of cars in the car-park is probably 'reasonably' proportional to the number of people in the shop, and easier to count, than folk moving around up and down the isles... give or take a little, you might, more often get closer to the answer counting cars and multiplying by 1.4 or something, than trying to count heads, and counting one or two twice and missing the odd one ducked under the vegetable counter or hiding in the freezers.
But its two alternative means of doing the same thing, and neither is any more or less 'accurate' than the other, only more or less appropriate.
Used the analogy of a white rabbit in a snow covered field, vs a black cat on a coal pile. Under the same 'ambient' light, if you took an incident meter reading, that suggested, say, ISO100, f5.6 @ 1/125th... the picture of your white rabbit in the snow would come out nice and bright, the whitet subject would be reflecting a lot more of that ambient light into the camera, than using those same settings to take a photo of the black cat on the coal-pile, which would be a bit dark, the subject not reflecting as much of that light into the camera.
Now, if you used a 'reflected' meter reading, it would likely suggest something a couple of stops less for the white rabbit in the snow, because its measuring how much light is being reflected off the bunny, not how much is falling on it, so maybe ISO100, and f16 @ 1/125th, and your snow would come out a little 'grey', and you would probably get a little more detail in the fur. Meanwhile, for your black cat on the coal-pile, again, meter measuring the light being reflected off the subject not what is falling on it, would probably suggest something a couple of stops more, maybe ISO100, f4 @ 1/60th, and your coal would be a little less black, and again, you'd probably get a little more detail in the cats fur.
Both methods very accurately measure the light levels.. and suggest very different exposure settings... the settings are no more or less 'accurate'.. they are merely more or less 'appropriate'... and neither method is 'right' or 'wrong' and neither are the results.. they are merely more or less 'pleasing' or closer or further from what you hoped to achieve.
Glad they make sense to you! Of what I watched of the tutorial you posted, I spotted one of two very pertinent and useful pieces of advice, utterly LOST in a sea of techno-gabble!
Ah! 'better readings'... explain.. how are the 'readings' better?
A reading is a reading. If I put a ruler against a block of wood and its 4" its four inches! Is it any 'better' if its in cm? 10cm, that's a MUCH 'better' reading, isn't it?
Maybe I should use my fancy vernier calipers (used to measure them pistons I mentioned earlier!) It's SOOOO much more accurate! Its calibrated down to 100ths of a mm! now my block of wood measures 101.59mm, is that 'better'? is that any more 'accurate'.. higher resolution, perhaps, but whether its any 'better'? REALLY depends on the question.. WHY do I want to know how thick it is!
Do you see the point about 'accuracy' and 'appropriateness' here?
May I guess what you mean is, that the hand-held meter suggests 'camera settings' that result in pictures YOU find more 'pleasing'?
This does NOT mean that the cameras inbuilt meter is 'wrong' or 'no good' or that the hand-held meter is 'right' or 'better' or 'more accurate'
What it means is that the hand-held meter is suggesting different camera settings.... no more, no less.
'for some reason' the two meters don't agree... old proverb for you.. man with watch always knows time... man with two watches, never sure! Which watch do you trust? and why do you want to know the time to start with?
So, IF you knew how the two different meters were working out what settings to suggest to you, and why they were offering different ones..... then you might have that bit of know-how, to better exploit either meter, to be advised by them both, and slave to neither.
Maybe so, but, swapping the camera's inbuilt meter for a hand held one, and slavishly following the suggestions that offers rather than slavishly following the ones the inbuilt meter offers, you have merely swapped masters.. you aren't exploiting ANY of the kit you have bought to get better pictures.. you are simply hoping the kit you have bought will do it for you.. and luckily, it seems, at the moment it is.. whether its the 'best' way or even the most 'appropriate' way, the easiest way, or the cheapest way, or the fastest way... well,, more and more questions, to which there is no unequivocal right or wrong answer.
- Messages
- 7,499
- Edit My Images
- Yes
@ginger.robertson I was going to ask for the exif............... but Phil V even gets up earlier than me!
Edit
Another thought would be to set the camera up looking a long the bank instead of looking up the bank towards the sky. Any photos I take when fishing usually have vegetation behind me.
If you set the camera on the tripod looking slightly down, with no sky and only grass behind you, that might help with getting a correct exposure.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 7,903
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
That certainly has the look of a fish overexposed by flash to me - there's a highlight on the right leg that looks more shiny than you'd get on a dull day. Usually when you have a bright sky behind you the camera will underexpose the subject.
No flash.
With Flash.
This one I messed up with flash and the fish is overexposed along the belly.
When I used a basic bridge camera I got more consistent results using it in Program rather than Auto.
No flash.
With Flash.
This one I messed up with flash and the fish is overexposed along the belly.
When I used a basic bridge camera I got more consistent results using it in Program rather than Auto.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 8,006
- Name
- Bazza
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Mike
I see you say Quote " I shoot AUTO!!!!!!! for the most part! "unquote, which is fine if that is the route you want to take but not for me. Auto is just that auto, generally in Jpeg, you have no control over anything just relying on the camera to get it right. This can be anything from over dark image to blown out brightness within the shot.
Modern light meters do so much more than the no doubt good ones built 30/40 years ago such as you say you have. But just can't do the same functions as a digital modern one.
Ok hands up although I shoot in RAW on manual settings within the cameras I have up to now, I really want to get to grips with different lighting conditions hence getting the light meter in my posting.
Lugging a Manfrotto 055xprob tripod with a Manfrotto MVH502AH fluid head , also a Nikon D800 with a battery pack and a Nikon AFS 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 G ED lens about is not easy just to take a light reading. Even removing the camera off the tripod still weighs a considerable amount. For me the answer is the use of a light meteras a solution.
Way back in the late 1950s early 1960s you were very limited on what cameras could do, I had a brownie 127 at the time. With that no adjustments just point and shoot.Then I Got a voighlander Vito cl 35mm camera which had a few more functions, even a clockwork shutter release timer, wow and could have an electronic flash on it, mine was a Rollei E19BC. I still have both but don't use them both bought new around 1963/4 and in perfect working condition still
Started to get interested in video photography as well so started off with a Samsung 8mm movie camera which again I still own.
So that is how I started out in photography. Then digital came along and started off with a Kodak 2mp camera to see what all this digital stuff was about. Since then owned several Nikon digital cameras as I felt Ihad outgrown them over the years to just Now the Nikon D800 and the Nikon D300. OOPs forgot to mention a small Nikon compact kept in the car and my Panasonic HC-X900M camcorder.
So that is my history in photography basically
So as I mentioned I now want to try and expand my knowledge a little more regarding light and how to measure it more accurately than just relying on a camera. Maybe it is not the right method using a modern digital light meter but if I don't try I will never know
I see you say Quote " I shoot AUTO!!!!!!! for the most part! "unquote, which is fine if that is the route you want to take but not for me. Auto is just that auto, generally in Jpeg, you have no control over anything just relying on the camera to get it right. This can be anything from over dark image to blown out brightness within the shot.
Modern light meters do so much more than the no doubt good ones built 30/40 years ago such as you say you have. But just can't do the same functions as a digital modern one.
Ok hands up although I shoot in RAW on manual settings within the cameras I have up to now, I really want to get to grips with different lighting conditions hence getting the light meter in my posting.
Lugging a Manfrotto 055xprob tripod with a Manfrotto MVH502AH fluid head , also a Nikon D800 with a battery pack and a Nikon AFS 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 G ED lens about is not easy just to take a light reading. Even removing the camera off the tripod still weighs a considerable amount. For me the answer is the use of a light meteras a solution.
Way back in the late 1950s early 1960s you were very limited on what cameras could do, I had a brownie 127 at the time. With that no adjustments just point and shoot.Then I Got a voighlander Vito cl 35mm camera which had a few more functions, even a clockwork shutter release timer, wow and could have an electronic flash on it, mine was a Rollei E19BC. I still have both but don't use them both bought new around 1963/4 and in perfect working condition still
Started to get interested in video photography as well so started off with a Samsung 8mm movie camera which again I still own.
So that is how I started out in photography. Then digital came along and started off with a Kodak 2mp camera to see what all this digital stuff was about. Since then owned several Nikon digital cameras as I felt Ihad outgrown them over the years to just Now the Nikon D800 and the Nikon D300. OOPs forgot to mention a small Nikon compact kept in the car and my Panasonic HC-X900M camcorder.
So that is my history in photography basically
So as I mentioned I now want to try and expand my knowledge a little more regarding light and how to measure it more accurately than just relying on a camera. Maybe it is not the right method using a modern digital light meter but if I don't try I will never know
Last edited:
- Messages
- 1,369
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I learnt to use a camera before auto-exposure, autofocus, or any kind of auto, had been invented. On my lens shelf there's a good handful of ancient lenses which don't do auto, and a few modern lenses which couldn't be bothered. The only reason I now don't always carry my light meter in my bag is that my camera has lots of sophisticated auto modes which most of the time get things close enough to being exactly what I want that I probably nudge them off their self chosen settings only about half the time. In fact it's such a complicated camera that even now, after three years of ownership, I still occasionally check the manual for something and am surprised on browsing onwards to discover something I'd been happily doing the old fashioned way for years actually can be done much faster and at least as well by the camera itself, one of its special features I'd never bothered to check out because I'd thought it a bit of toy nonsense for beginners.
I converted from film to digital nine years ago. To learn the ropes I joined a gang of local photographers who went on photo expeditions and social evenings where we showed off our latest toys and photographed each other's drinks. I got into a lot of arguments with a hard line enthusiast of the school "auto is a crutch for beginners, professionals use manual!". He insisted that the only proper path to professional expertise was never ever ever to use any auto modes, go straight into full manual and struggle with it until it makes sense.
Whereas I used to advise beginners to let the auto modes of their camera teach them about the settings, and only move away from them when they'd learned enough to judge exposure etc. better than the camera. I also suggested that even if you were as expert as humanly possible, it would probably still be faster to use an auto mode to get close to what you you wanted and then adjust it. He wouldn't have any of it. He would carry an exposure meter around, without a camera, teaching himself to guess exposures accurately by eye.
He's now become a well regarded local teacher of photographer who advertises that he'll teach you how to stop using the beginner auto modes and use manual settings to get professional results. Sometimes as I walk around with my camera I'll bump into another photographer who turns out to have been a student of his. They're always most enthusiastic about how much they learned from his excellent tutorials. This chap was very impressed by his teacher's ability to look around, sniff the air, and pronounce the correct exposure settings. That was years ago, and he was still struggling to get his manual settings up to speed. He said it was his fault, he just needed more regular practice. As we spoke a heron flew overhead and settled in a nearby tree. Nearby children got noisily excited. The heron took off again. I switched my camera to shutter priority auto which was set up for fast moving things and managed a few heron in flight shots before it was gone. But I hadn't time to switch to continuous tracking focus and they were all blurred. My new friend never even got the camera pointed at the heron. While he fiddled with his manual settings the heron had gone.
I suggested that in circumstances like these having some preset auto modes was useful. When things happen quickly in difficult conditions getting an imperfect photo is better than getting nothing. He explained to me that if he started relying on the auto crutches then he'd be avoiding the practice necessary to develop the fast manual settings professionals used.
I recognised the argument and didn't want to start criticising his teacher. It seemed to me that this dogmatic insistence on full manual settings was like trying to learn how to ride a bicycle from an expert unicyclist who thought that two wheeled bicycles were for beginners.
I converted from film to digital nine years ago. To learn the ropes I joined a gang of local photographers who went on photo expeditions and social evenings where we showed off our latest toys and photographed each other's drinks. I got into a lot of arguments with a hard line enthusiast of the school "auto is a crutch for beginners, professionals use manual!". He insisted that the only proper path to professional expertise was never ever ever to use any auto modes, go straight into full manual and struggle with it until it makes sense.
Whereas I used to advise beginners to let the auto modes of their camera teach them about the settings, and only move away from them when they'd learned enough to judge exposure etc. better than the camera. I also suggested that even if you were as expert as humanly possible, it would probably still be faster to use an auto mode to get close to what you you wanted and then adjust it. He wouldn't have any of it. He would carry an exposure meter around, without a camera, teaching himself to guess exposures accurately by eye.
He's now become a well regarded local teacher of photographer who advertises that he'll teach you how to stop using the beginner auto modes and use manual settings to get professional results. Sometimes as I walk around with my camera I'll bump into another photographer who turns out to have been a student of his. They're always most enthusiastic about how much they learned from his excellent tutorials. This chap was very impressed by his teacher's ability to look around, sniff the air, and pronounce the correct exposure settings. That was years ago, and he was still struggling to get his manual settings up to speed. He said it was his fault, he just needed more regular practice. As we spoke a heron flew overhead and settled in a nearby tree. Nearby children got noisily excited. The heron took off again. I switched my camera to shutter priority auto which was set up for fast moving things and managed a few heron in flight shots before it was gone. But I hadn't time to switch to continuous tracking focus and they were all blurred. My new friend never even got the camera pointed at the heron. While he fiddled with his manual settings the heron had gone.
I suggested that in circumstances like these having some preset auto modes was useful. When things happen quickly in difficult conditions getting an imperfect photo is better than getting nothing. He explained to me that if he started relying on the auto crutches then he'd be avoiding the practice necessary to develop the fast manual settings professionals used.
I recognised the argument and didn't want to start criticising his teacher. It seemed to me that this dogmatic insistence on full manual settings was like trying to learn how to ride a bicycle from an expert unicyclist who thought that two wheeled bicycles were for beginners.
- Messages
- 8,006
- Name
- Bazza
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Chris
Under those circumstances yes auto mode would be the better option but for static shots I would always opt for the manual route. Photography will always be and has been a controversial subject which makes it interesting reading how others approach it.
If you notice in my postings I carefully avoided saying how someone took a photo was wrong, only how I would go about it. Same as I took the self taught route because i didn't want to copy how others were taught. I always give the example of the great painters of the past. They mainly did the paintings their way and now worth £M those who copy you never hear of . Same with photography one has to do it the way suits one the best.
Under those circumstances yes auto mode would be the better option but for static shots I would always opt for the manual route. Photography will always be and has been a controversial subject which makes it interesting reading how others approach it.
If you notice in my postings I carefully avoided saying how someone took a photo was wrong, only how I would go about it. Same as I took the self taught route because i didn't want to copy how others were taught. I always give the example of the great painters of the past. They mainly did the paintings their way and now worth £M those who copy you never hear of . Same with photography one has to do it the way suits one the best.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 7,903
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
Having had another think I reckon part of the exposure problem might be a result of using the self timer (assuming that was how the shot was taken). Not only is focus locked in when using the timer, so is exposure.
In this case the camera might have exposed for the dark grass, so when a light and reflective fish is put in front of the camera it comes out over exposed.
Another good reason for using a bulb/remote release.
It still looks more like flash burn out though.
In this case the camera might have exposed for the dark grass, so when a light and reflective fish is put in front of the camera it comes out over exposed.
Another good reason for using a bulb/remote release.
It still looks more like flash burn out though.
- Messages
- 1,076
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Entering serious Thread-Jacking territory but.....
No control over anything in J-Peg?!?!?!? Ugh!?!?! [scarcasm] Oh no! Its all been pointless! Nothing I do can make any differece! I have been wasting my time, picking my vantage point, choosing my focal length, framing my shots, picking my focus points, and changing apertures and shutter speeds and ISO settings!! Its all been a waste of time, because 'J-Peg'! COME OFF IT!? !Do you REALLY actually believe this?! No control over anything!!!!!!! The only 'control' you don't have using J-Peg, is 'some' and it is just SOME, limited 'correction' in post-process.
One of the few bits of 'useful' advice I cought in the US-Tutorial you linked, he actually offerd "Its better to get it 'clean in camera'.." and THAT was big chunk of what he was actually trying to teach folk to do! Get it 'CinC' and job-done! Doesn't MATTER how much 'control' you do or dont have in 'Post-Process' to make "corrections".. it shouldn't NEED 'correcting'!
So.. separating to independent subjects here... 'Auto-Exposure' mode; regardless of the file-format you choose to save your 'pictures' in. Even here, you STILL have 'control', you are merely 'delegating' some of the tasks of taking an 'exposure reading' and making ISO/Shutter/Aperture settings based on it, to a computer program.
You STILL have control over where you point the camera. You STILL have control over lens legth & framing. You STILL have control over focus... EVEN if you delgate THAT job to another 'Automatic' computer program. EVEN if you shoot on Auto, you still have ALL the control you do in manual. Camera doesn't take the control 'AWAY' from you. It doesn't say "OK, leave this to me.. you just go have a cup of tea, I'll take your photo for you" It tells you in the view finder What it's 'doing', what it's light-meter readings are, and the ISO/Shutter/Aperture settings its 'proposing' to set for you based on that.... if you dont 'like' those 'readings'.. you STILL have it within your 'control' to change them!
IF you don't look at those, if YOU 'leave it to the camera' - then yeah, you ARE relying on the camera to get it 'right' for you; but, that is not because the camera has 'taken control', its because YOU HAVEN'T. But even then... the amount of control you can 'abdicate' to the camera is STILL limted merely to the 'exposure' metering and settings.. you still have to control everything else!
My daughter has a fantastc 'telephone'.. it sits under her chin, lighting her face like a ghoul, she can play pac-man games on it, she can write a school essay on it; she can check her e-mail, look at her bank-balence, get the news headlines, buy a new hand-bag, watch TV, or a movie. She can find a local resturant, and even check thier menu and prices, before getting turn by turn directions to tell her how to get there. AMAZING.... it can do SO much more than the old Bacalite 100 that used to sit on the window-sill... curiousely, though, as far as 'making a phone call', which is REALLY all I need or want a telephone to do... well, it's no 'easier' to use, for sure, and for 'whatever' reason to do with ear-piece and micropnone placement or 'back-ground niose'... I dont recall ever having to ask people to repeat themselves half as often on an old dial telephone....
The 'old' Cold-War-Era, Russian, Leningrad 4, Selenium cell light meter, I have, is FAR from being one of the 'good' ones of its generation, like a 'Weston'! It was about the cheapest, most rudimentary Light-Meter you could buy, and sold as an acessory to the cheapest most rudimentary 'entry-level' SLR film cameras, like the Zenit EM, I bought it to parnter. Calibrated from EV6 to EV14, it's most 'advanced' feature, is a 'low-light' scale, that is moved under the needle by a lever, that changes a resistor value in the bridge circuit to offer EV readings from EV0 to EV8! Oh, ad a 'calculator dial' to turn the EV reading to a range of suggested shutter and Aperture settings for any given Film ASA, rather than having to use look up tables! It's 'simple', its rugged, its reliable, and it 'does the job' - it measures a light level!
Modern 'Digtal' light meter.. 'does so much more'... Oh-Kay.. well, yeah... rather than having to manually turn a dail to the EV number the analogue needle points at, and looking at a 'range' of aperture and shutter settings, to choose from..... electronics display one shutter and aperture suggestion on an LCD screen.. what 'more' does it do? The fundemental 'job' its doing is the same.. beyond that, the added functions & features, what are they 'doing' for you? Narrower angle spot-metering for reflected light readings? Reading recording / recall? Programmed reading 'averaging'. Programmeable ISO or Filter Compensation 're-calculate', I dont know what else.. Possibly more pertinant to the 'job at hand' than being able to play pac-man on a telephone, but still; How many of them are actually 'useful', but more, actually 'useful' to helping you take a better 'photo?
AGAIN, you go fixate on ACCURACY! See previous post. This obsession with "Accuracy" is making you blind to the bigger picture! Its NOT NEEDED! More accurate 'metering' doesn't mean 'better pictures'!! A hand-Held meter, is a great tool, BUT a slave to the meter, whether the one in the camera or the one in your hand, to my mind you have been sold up the river! Your STILL a slave to the meter, and confusing 'understanding light' with 'understanding light meters', as if the 'answers' are all in the little black box, NOT in the 'light' they are looking at, that you could too!
If you want to 'get to grips with different lighting conditions go LOOK at 'different lighting conditions'!!!! NOT 'gadgets'! Use your EYES, and use your brain! They are FAR more 'sensitive' and far more 'powerful' than anything made out of silicon and copper!
Eh?!?! How do you make the 'leap' from the 'automatic exposure' setting to the 'file format'? They aren't related, let alone linked! Certainly not on my camera! I can use any of the 'automatic exposure' settings, and have the camera record the data-file in either or both J-Peg or RAW (NEF).
No control over anything in J-Peg?!?!?!? Ugh!?!?! [scarcasm] Oh no! Its all been pointless! Nothing I do can make any differece! I have been wasting my time, picking my vantage point, choosing my focal length, framing my shots, picking my focus points, and changing apertures and shutter speeds and ISO settings!! Its all been a waste of time, because 'J-Peg'! COME OFF IT!? !Do you REALLY actually believe this?! No control over anything!!!!!!! The only 'control' you don't have using J-Peg, is 'some' and it is just SOME, limited 'correction' in post-process.
One of the few bits of 'useful' advice I cought in the US-Tutorial you linked, he actually offerd "Its better to get it 'clean in camera'.." and THAT was big chunk of what he was actually trying to teach folk to do! Get it 'CinC' and job-done! Doesn't MATTER how much 'control' you do or dont have in 'Post-Process' to make "corrections".. it shouldn't NEED 'correcting'!
So.. separating to independent subjects here... 'Auto-Exposure' mode; regardless of the file-format you choose to save your 'pictures' in. Even here, you STILL have 'control', you are merely 'delegating' some of the tasks of taking an 'exposure reading' and making ISO/Shutter/Aperture settings based on it, to a computer program.
You STILL have control over where you point the camera. You STILL have control over lens legth & framing. You STILL have control over focus... EVEN if you delgate THAT job to another 'Automatic' computer program. EVEN if you shoot on Auto, you still have ALL the control you do in manual. Camera doesn't take the control 'AWAY' from you. It doesn't say "OK, leave this to me.. you just go have a cup of tea, I'll take your photo for you" It tells you in the view finder What it's 'doing', what it's light-meter readings are, and the ISO/Shutter/Aperture settings its 'proposing' to set for you based on that.... if you dont 'like' those 'readings'.. you STILL have it within your 'control' to change them!
IF you don't look at those, if YOU 'leave it to the camera' - then yeah, you ARE relying on the camera to get it 'right' for you; but, that is not because the camera has 'taken control', its because YOU HAVEN'T. But even then... the amount of control you can 'abdicate' to the camera is STILL limted merely to the 'exposure' metering and settings.. you still have to control everything else!
My daughter has a fantastc 'telephone'.. it sits under her chin, lighting her face like a ghoul, she can play pac-man games on it, she can write a school essay on it; she can check her e-mail, look at her bank-balence, get the news headlines, buy a new hand-bag, watch TV, or a movie. She can find a local resturant, and even check thier menu and prices, before getting turn by turn directions to tell her how to get there. AMAZING.... it can do SO much more than the old Bacalite 100 that used to sit on the window-sill... curiousely, though, as far as 'making a phone call', which is REALLY all I need or want a telephone to do... well, it's no 'easier' to use, for sure, and for 'whatever' reason to do with ear-piece and micropnone placement or 'back-ground niose'... I dont recall ever having to ask people to repeat themselves half as often on an old dial telephone....
The 'old' Cold-War-Era, Russian, Leningrad 4, Selenium cell light meter, I have, is FAR from being one of the 'good' ones of its generation, like a 'Weston'! It was about the cheapest, most rudimentary Light-Meter you could buy, and sold as an acessory to the cheapest most rudimentary 'entry-level' SLR film cameras, like the Zenit EM, I bought it to parnter. Calibrated from EV6 to EV14, it's most 'advanced' feature, is a 'low-light' scale, that is moved under the needle by a lever, that changes a resistor value in the bridge circuit to offer EV readings from EV0 to EV8! Oh, ad a 'calculator dial' to turn the EV reading to a range of suggested shutter and Aperture settings for any given Film ASA, rather than having to use look up tables! It's 'simple', its rugged, its reliable, and it 'does the job' - it measures a light level!
Modern 'Digtal' light meter.. 'does so much more'... Oh-Kay.. well, yeah... rather than having to manually turn a dail to the EV number the analogue needle points at, and looking at a 'range' of aperture and shutter settings, to choose from..... electronics display one shutter and aperture suggestion on an LCD screen.. what 'more' does it do? The fundemental 'job' its doing is the same.. beyond that, the added functions & features, what are they 'doing' for you? Narrower angle spot-metering for reflected light readings? Reading recording / recall? Programmed reading 'averaging'. Programmeable ISO or Filter Compensation 're-calculate', I dont know what else.. Possibly more pertinant to the 'job at hand' than being able to play pac-man on a telephone, but still; How many of them are actually 'useful', but more, actually 'useful' to helping you take a better 'photo?
AGAIN, you go fixate on ACCURACY! See previous post. This obsession with "Accuracy" is making you blind to the bigger picture! Its NOT NEEDED! More accurate 'metering' doesn't mean 'better pictures'!! A hand-Held meter, is a great tool, BUT a slave to the meter, whether the one in the camera or the one in your hand, to my mind you have been sold up the river! Your STILL a slave to the meter, and confusing 'understanding light' with 'understanding light meters', as if the 'answers' are all in the little black box, NOT in the 'light' they are looking at, that you could too!
If you want to 'get to grips with different lighting conditions go LOOK at 'different lighting conditions'!!!! NOT 'gadgets'! Use your EYES, and use your brain! They are FAR more 'sensitive' and far more 'powerful' than anything made out of silicon and copper!
- Messages
- 1,076
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Back on the rails, sorry for OT Ramblings... Ginger...
As other's I find it hard to believe that picture wasn't taken with flash, and, not a Cannon User, I'm a bit perplexed by your comment that it was shot on 'auto', yet you adjusted the ISO setting?
On Nikons, in this house at least, full Auto and 'Program' modes select all three primary settings, ISO shutter and aperture. Only way you'd be able to change ISO would be if you were already on manual or a semi-manual setting.
As to the pic; the fish is well 'blown'... but then so is half your face... even under the peak of your cap, implying light from low and in-front, not overhead.. very very 'like' an on camera flash would give!
Speckling, noise and 'posterisation' I think Phil mentions, as a post-process effect.. could be pushing the ISO too high, or as Phil suggests, over-cooking the original image in post-process trying to recover it, or combination of both... again, find it hard to believe that this is a 'straight' out of camera photo taken on 'auto', and suspect we are victims of a 'bit' of a fshermans tale here, or at least not being given the full story!.
I suspect that the 'primary' fault though is in your set-up,, you say you are stetting the camera on a tripod, and using self timer, BUT, you are focusing on a stick? where you intend to sit with the fish, when the shutter is triggered? As ed suggests, if you have 'locked' both exposure and focus, then it's likely that the meter is 'locked' on an exposure setting for the predominately 'dark' grass of the bank, which it is trying to 'brighten'... though, not familiar with the operation of Cannon's I don't know how likely this is. If the camera was being 'fooled' by the bright sky, though,...then the camera would do the opposite and try and set a darker exposure to bring that down.. and it hasn't.. your fish is blown.
Lighting doesn't seem to be all 'that' tricky, only quirk being that the fish could be a bit bright & shiny.. is it a white 'ghost' Carp? (I don't DO fish except with chips, but O/H was fascinated by them). Filling large portion of your frame as main 'subject', that could be reflecting a LOT of light into the lens...
If you have read comments to reelspeed vis the difference between hand-held meter 'incident' readings, and 'through the lens' in-camera 'reflected' meter readings.. THIS is actually a case where a hand-held meters incident reading is likely to be less appropriate...measuring the light falling 'on' the subject, rather than reflected off it, you will likely get a suggested reading that would tend to 'over-expose' the bright & reflective fish. Using the cameras 'through the lens' meter, then is probably more appropriate... but ONLY if you actually meter off the fish! Which, if its wasn't there when you set the camera up, you didn't! And I think you may be 'over-complicating' things, and trying too hard here in 'set-up', and making problems that possibly don't really need solving.
Back to basics. Assuming no 'expert' knowledge, for that shot, Using my Nikon (Or even one of the kids compacts!) I would set it on the tripod, on 'Auto', point it roughly where I was going to sit, set the self timer to 30s delay, press the shutter button, and jump into the frame to grab the fish.
Camera would beep at me, then focus, meter, choose settings, and fire. And on my 'auto' setting, it would take a 'reflected' light-meter reading of the scene, including the possibly very bright fish. Especially as such a 'predominant' element in the frame. If so, it would tend to try and lower the 'exposure' for the fish, which could darken other parts of the frame, the sky and back-ground or other 'shadows'. If the fish was very dark, and not very shiny, on the other hand, could do the opposite, and tend to try and raise the exposure to brighten it up a bit, which could 'blow' the sky or other 'hot-spots' in the frame; BUT but the main 'subject' , your fish, ought to be pretty well 'exposed' either way, as that is what is filling largest part of the frame and what the camera is significantly taking its meter readings off.
Specific settings my camera would choose, would be based on the meter reading it got 'TTL'; be an aperture appropriate to the subject distance the camera focused on to ensure reasonable 'Depth of Focus', a shutter speed, appropriate to avoid 'blur' at the lens' 'zoom' setting and an ISO appropriate to 'balance' the exposure against those two. And 95% of the time, I 'trust' my camera to not be 'fooled' in its meter reading, even with slightly trickier subjects or conditions, and to select 'settings' I would not argue with or see any reason to change no matter how many alternate metering methods I chose to utilise for comparison.
Getting a bit 'trickier', if the scene was was near sun-set; ambient light levels would be a bit dim, and light could be raking low and in your face to reflect off the bright fish. "Through The Lens" reflected meter reading, though "aught" to cope with this still . The camera would merely try and increase the exposure settings, first opening up the aperture, next dropping the shutter speed and ramping the ISO. And at some point, when it got close to the limit of how far it could go with any of those three... it would pop up the flash, and only THEN would I expect to get that sort of effect, of the near subjects 'washed out' by the flash
If it was later in the day, and darker still, same deal, only camera would reach the 'limits' of available settings to increase exposure, sooner, and pop the flash up earlier. For it to NOT pop the flash up, I would have to manually over-ride it, which would make the camera drop the shutter speed, but if light levels were that low, then without flash, my camera would be picking shutter-speeds down under the 1/4s speed, and at that range, holding a slippery (live?) fish? I wouldn't be able to pose still enough for the picture to NOT come out 'blurry'. And if ambient light levels were THAT low that Auto couldn't find settings to get an exposure? Well, going to a 'manual' setting wouldn't make my lens any 'faster' or my cameras sensor any more sensitive, ALL I could do would be set a lower shutter speed, ad try and hold flapping fish still in my hands to avoid 'blur'.
THAT is how I would 'approach' this situation. And only way I could conceive getting the picture you have showed, would be, if the 'auto' activated the flash..... OR putting the camera down, I had knocked the dial off Auto, and tried using settings I had set the night before shooting a band down the pub or something!
So, I don't think that there is a 'problem' with your camera, or its metering or its auto-exposure mode. I don't think 'going manual' is the answer here. I think that MAY be the 'problem'! I think you DID use manual, and cocked it up! Metering TTL on the grass where you intended to sit when you focused on your stick, making settings it suggested for that... 'scene'.. then creating a completely new scene you HAVEN'T metered on in-front of the lens, after, 'trying' too hard, NOT trusting the camera, in a siltation where actually, perfectly reasonable and appropriate to.
As other's I find it hard to believe that picture wasn't taken with flash, and, not a Cannon User, I'm a bit perplexed by your comment that it was shot on 'auto', yet you adjusted the ISO setting?
On Nikons, in this house at least, full Auto and 'Program' modes select all three primary settings, ISO shutter and aperture. Only way you'd be able to change ISO would be if you were already on manual or a semi-manual setting.
As to the pic; the fish is well 'blown'... but then so is half your face... even under the peak of your cap, implying light from low and in-front, not overhead.. very very 'like' an on camera flash would give!
Speckling, noise and 'posterisation' I think Phil mentions, as a post-process effect.. could be pushing the ISO too high, or as Phil suggests, over-cooking the original image in post-process trying to recover it, or combination of both... again, find it hard to believe that this is a 'straight' out of camera photo taken on 'auto', and suspect we are victims of a 'bit' of a fshermans tale here, or at least not being given the full story!.
I suspect that the 'primary' fault though is in your set-up,, you say you are stetting the camera on a tripod, and using self timer, BUT, you are focusing on a stick? where you intend to sit with the fish, when the shutter is triggered? As ed suggests, if you have 'locked' both exposure and focus, then it's likely that the meter is 'locked' on an exposure setting for the predominately 'dark' grass of the bank, which it is trying to 'brighten'... though, not familiar with the operation of Cannon's I don't know how likely this is. If the camera was being 'fooled' by the bright sky, though,...then the camera would do the opposite and try and set a darker exposure to bring that down.. and it hasn't.. your fish is blown.
Lighting doesn't seem to be all 'that' tricky, only quirk being that the fish could be a bit bright & shiny.. is it a white 'ghost' Carp? (I don't DO fish except with chips, but O/H was fascinated by them). Filling large portion of your frame as main 'subject', that could be reflecting a LOT of light into the lens...
If you have read comments to reelspeed vis the difference between hand-held meter 'incident' readings, and 'through the lens' in-camera 'reflected' meter readings.. THIS is actually a case where a hand-held meters incident reading is likely to be less appropriate...measuring the light falling 'on' the subject, rather than reflected off it, you will likely get a suggested reading that would tend to 'over-expose' the bright & reflective fish. Using the cameras 'through the lens' meter, then is probably more appropriate... but ONLY if you actually meter off the fish! Which, if its wasn't there when you set the camera up, you didn't! And I think you may be 'over-complicating' things, and trying too hard here in 'set-up', and making problems that possibly don't really need solving.
Back to basics. Assuming no 'expert' knowledge, for that shot, Using my Nikon (Or even one of the kids compacts!) I would set it on the tripod, on 'Auto', point it roughly where I was going to sit, set the self timer to 30s delay, press the shutter button, and jump into the frame to grab the fish.
Camera would beep at me, then focus, meter, choose settings, and fire. And on my 'auto' setting, it would take a 'reflected' light-meter reading of the scene, including the possibly very bright fish. Especially as such a 'predominant' element in the frame. If so, it would tend to try and lower the 'exposure' for the fish, which could darken other parts of the frame, the sky and back-ground or other 'shadows'. If the fish was very dark, and not very shiny, on the other hand, could do the opposite, and tend to try and raise the exposure to brighten it up a bit, which could 'blow' the sky or other 'hot-spots' in the frame; BUT but the main 'subject' , your fish, ought to be pretty well 'exposed' either way, as that is what is filling largest part of the frame and what the camera is significantly taking its meter readings off.
Specific settings my camera would choose, would be based on the meter reading it got 'TTL'; be an aperture appropriate to the subject distance the camera focused on to ensure reasonable 'Depth of Focus', a shutter speed, appropriate to avoid 'blur' at the lens' 'zoom' setting and an ISO appropriate to 'balance' the exposure against those two. And 95% of the time, I 'trust' my camera to not be 'fooled' in its meter reading, even with slightly trickier subjects or conditions, and to select 'settings' I would not argue with or see any reason to change no matter how many alternate metering methods I chose to utilise for comparison.
Getting a bit 'trickier', if the scene was was near sun-set; ambient light levels would be a bit dim, and light could be raking low and in your face to reflect off the bright fish. "Through The Lens" reflected meter reading, though "aught" to cope with this still . The camera would merely try and increase the exposure settings, first opening up the aperture, next dropping the shutter speed and ramping the ISO. And at some point, when it got close to the limit of how far it could go with any of those three... it would pop up the flash, and only THEN would I expect to get that sort of effect, of the near subjects 'washed out' by the flash
If it was later in the day, and darker still, same deal, only camera would reach the 'limits' of available settings to increase exposure, sooner, and pop the flash up earlier. For it to NOT pop the flash up, I would have to manually over-ride it, which would make the camera drop the shutter speed, but if light levels were that low, then without flash, my camera would be picking shutter-speeds down under the 1/4s speed, and at that range, holding a slippery (live?) fish? I wouldn't be able to pose still enough for the picture to NOT come out 'blurry'. And if ambient light levels were THAT low that Auto couldn't find settings to get an exposure? Well, going to a 'manual' setting wouldn't make my lens any 'faster' or my cameras sensor any more sensitive, ALL I could do would be set a lower shutter speed, ad try and hold flapping fish still in my hands to avoid 'blur'.
THAT is how I would 'approach' this situation. And only way I could conceive getting the picture you have showed, would be, if the 'auto' activated the flash..... OR putting the camera down, I had knocked the dial off Auto, and tried using settings I had set the night before shooting a band down the pub or something!
So, I don't think that there is a 'problem' with your camera, or its metering or its auto-exposure mode. I don't think 'going manual' is the answer here. I think that MAY be the 'problem'! I think you DID use manual, and cocked it up! Metering TTL on the grass where you intended to sit when you focused on your stick, making settings it suggested for that... 'scene'.. then creating a completely new scene you HAVEN'T metered on in-front of the lens, after, 'trying' too hard, NOT trusting the camera, in a siltation where actually, perfectly reasonable and appropriate to.
- Messages
- 25,321
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
Whilst largely I agree with all you've said, Auto ISO on Canon is still considered a luxury feature, I don't know about green box mode, but on all the PAS modes on all my Canon cameras I still have to select the ISO with some of them giving me an Auto option, which isn't very useful. And in M mode it's completely pants, not allowing any exp comp even on my 'best' camera. I think the new top of the range Canon's have finally got over this.
- Messages
- 1,076
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I knew there was a 'reason' I didn't like Cannons..... too 'gadgety'!
So... by f16-Sunny.. what would we be looking at? He said it was a bit over-cast..so up two, maybe three stops, then back off maybe one stop for the shiny fish? Something in the order of f8 and one over the ISO... looking for specs... goes up to err... ISO6400 on that camera? Fastest shutter, 1/4000th? So if he ramped the ISO to the max, opened up as wide as he could go, f3.5? Then is AV 'Aperture Priority'? It 'could' top out on the shutter-speed... only able to fire at 1/4000th when at such a high ISO and at such a wide aperture the exposure needed something over 1/6400 to 'balance' the triangle, and the camera simply don't have it..... it would over-expose by maybe two, two and a half-stops?
So... by f16-Sunny.. what would we be looking at? He said it was a bit over-cast..so up two, maybe three stops, then back off maybe one stop for the shiny fish? Something in the order of f8 and one over the ISO... looking for specs... goes up to err... ISO6400 on that camera? Fastest shutter, 1/4000th? So if he ramped the ISO to the max, opened up as wide as he could go, f3.5? Then is AV 'Aperture Priority'? It 'could' top out on the shutter-speed... only able to fire at 1/4000th when at such a high ISO and at such a wide aperture the exposure needed something over 1/6400 to 'balance' the triangle, and the camera simply don't have it..... it would over-expose by maybe two, two and a half-stops?
Last edited:
- Messages
- 7,903
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
A lot of words being posted here by people who have never photographed an angler with a fish in their life are only serving to confuse the issue - in the usual photographic hobbyist techno-babble 'look at me aren't I clever' way of the internet which only serves to discourage beginners. That's why I don't usually get involved in technical threads. I wouldn't offer advice about studio lighting on this forum, because I've never done it and have no intention of trying it. But in this case I'm confident enough to say that I do know more about the subject than most of the people posting in this thread. So if you haven't photographed yourself, or anyone else, holding a big fish I disrespectfully suggest you butt out.
Taking photos of yourself holding a fish is simple. I've given my method of taking fishing selfies already. I know it works because that's how I've been doing it since I went completely digital back in 2004. It's worked with Fuji and Canon bridge cameras (both shooting jpegs only), a Panasonic mirrorless, Nikon DSLRs and a Nikon compact. I've done it in bright sunshine, on dull days, and in the pitch dark when I've had to shine my head torch on a fish to get the camera to focus. I have had very few problems with bad exposures. One or two cock-ups with shutter speeds and ISO when a setting has been accidentally altered - but that's user error. The automation of cameras is impressive - use it. I get better pictures using the tripod than handing my camera to a passer-by or another angler (with a few exceptions).
It all boils down to camera on tripod, use a release not the timer, camera in P mode, autofocus on automatic, flash up if dull/dark, focus illumination light on. Away you go. Once the routine of setting the camera up and taking the photos has been mastered and can be done quickly THEN you can start thinking about shutter speeds, exposure compensation, fill flash, ISO, depth of field etc.
But in all honesty time is of the essence when photographing big fish and the fish's welfare ought to come before taking photos that will impress people on a photography forum. Most people who are going to look at trophy shots are other anglers, and (in my experience) they don't give a fig how technically, or artistically, good a shot is as they are only interested in the fish! So long as the fish is sharp, large in the frame and well exposed, you've done OK.
Taking photos of yourself holding a fish is simple. I've given my method of taking fishing selfies already. I know it works because that's how I've been doing it since I went completely digital back in 2004. It's worked with Fuji and Canon bridge cameras (both shooting jpegs only), a Panasonic mirrorless, Nikon DSLRs and a Nikon compact. I've done it in bright sunshine, on dull days, and in the pitch dark when I've had to shine my head torch on a fish to get the camera to focus. I have had very few problems with bad exposures. One or two cock-ups with shutter speeds and ISO when a setting has been accidentally altered - but that's user error. The automation of cameras is impressive - use it. I get better pictures using the tripod than handing my camera to a passer-by or another angler (with a few exceptions).
It all boils down to camera on tripod, use a release not the timer, camera in P mode, autofocus on automatic, flash up if dull/dark, focus illumination light on. Away you go. Once the routine of setting the camera up and taking the photos has been mastered and can be done quickly THEN you can start thinking about shutter speeds, exposure compensation, fill flash, ISO, depth of field etc.
But in all honesty time is of the essence when photographing big fish and the fish's welfare ought to come before taking photos that will impress people on a photography forum. Most people who are going to look at trophy shots are other anglers, and (in my experience) they don't give a fig how technically, or artistically, good a shot is as they are only interested in the fish! So long as the fish is sharp, large in the frame and well exposed, you've done OK.
- Messages
- 1,369
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I agree it looks at first sight like an overexposed frontal flash. But on detailed examination that hypothesis doesn't hold up. The strongest lighting to the face comes from the side, and there is not the slightest hint of a frontal flash catch light in the eyes, which is always there even when the flash is so low it's hard to see any other evidence of it. So there was definitely no flash. Disappointing to see so many "experts" barking up the wrong tree.
The undersides of fish are designed to be as strongly white as possible, camouflage when seen from underneath against a bright sky. The grass looks well exposed, which suggests the possibility of the timer having locked exposure on the grass, just as it would have locked focus on the grass had not a stick been used. I've had cameras which on auto locked exposure and focus when you pressed the shutter to start the timer, and others which did the more convenient thing of setting exposure and focus when the timer expired. For those the usual stick solves the focus problem. To solve the fish auto exposure on a timer problem I'd try putting the biggest whitest hat I could find on the stick.
As another poster has pointed out, all those problems can be solved by letting the camera see the fish when making up its auto mind. In other words use a remote release instead of a timer. While camera makers often charge "you must be joking!" prices for their remote releases, it's often possible to get a good reliable radio trigger from Hong Kong at a substantially lower price than your camera maker would charge you for a switch on the end of a wire.
The undersides of fish are designed to be as strongly white as possible, camouflage when seen from underneath against a bright sky. The grass looks well exposed, which suggests the possibility of the timer having locked exposure on the grass, just as it would have locked focus on the grass had not a stick been used. I've had cameras which on auto locked exposure and focus when you pressed the shutter to start the timer, and others which did the more convenient thing of setting exposure and focus when the timer expired. For those the usual stick solves the focus problem. To solve the fish auto exposure on a timer problem I'd try putting the biggest whitest hat I could find on the stick.
As another poster has pointed out, all those problems can be solved by letting the camera see the fish when making up its auto mind. In other words use a remote release instead of a timer. While camera makers often charge "you must be joking!" prices for their remote releases, it's often possible to get a good reliable radio trigger from Hong Kong at a substantially lower price than your camera maker would charge you for a switch on the end of a wire.
Last edited:
OP
- Messages
- 10
- Name
- Ginger
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Chris Malcolm. Nice one mate. As said no flash was used in my shot. And like you say my thoughts were on the camera focus and ISO setting on the darker grass background. I now realise it's possible the camera can focus on me while I set the 10sec timer! So will now try to put lens on m/f. This way I can focus on a bank stick. Which I can place where I will sit. Not ideal but only way I can sort it till I get a self time remote. I'm still amazed at some of the comments on here saying a flash was defo used!!! But I can assure you all it was not. I still appreciate all the comments posted and am trying to learn from them.
- Messages
- 7,903
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No