Forum menu
I'd blame my camera for that. It calculates the exposure based on the available light then takes a RAW image. It THEN processes this to a JPEG if you are in that mode. So if it's darkening the image too much you need to have words with it.
Yes, but... you can only shout at your camera when you shoot jpeg. If you shoot raw you have the headroom to fix it in the converter. Even if you only use raw as a safety net it's worth doing.
Surely you could set up your camera to do it properly? I'd say RAW is only for people who want to get into all the techie details (like me), or who want as much capability as they can get.
Photographers occupy a spectrum between geeks and artists. We're all somewhere in between the two. If you tend towards the geek end you'll be interested in RAW; if you tend towards the artist end you'll not care unless your images are being persistently screwed up.
If you tend towards the geek end you'll be interested in RAW; if you tend towards the artist end you'll not care unless your images are being persistently screwed up.
There's a wee troll in there somewhere, isn't there?
Surely you could set up your camera to do it properly?
Sure, if you have time. Better hope that yeti stands still long enough to get the perfect photo 😉
Surely you could learn to pre-set up your camera to do it properly?
Surely you could learn to pre-set up your camera to do it properly?
I'm talking about a safety net here. People make mistakes. Ever leave a camera on the wrong iso? Ever leave a camera in spot metering? Ever forget to set the white balance? Cameras make mistakes too. Which is why people check histograms and dial in exposure correction.
99% may be perfect. Shoot in raw and one of the benefits is that the one that is cocked-up for whatever reason may be salvageable. That could be the best of the lot too.
That's why I do shoot in RAW as well as JPG, but then I am a geek who wants to understand it all. The thing is about being a geek is that geeking out to other non geeks can really put them off a subject, whic is a shame.
Shooting RAW costs me a lot of memory card space and meant that I bought an extra big fast one to handle it all. It still can fill up though on long trips.
RAW = Enthusiast / Geek
JPG = Sunday Afternoon Driver
?
I'm talking about a safety net here. People make mistakes. Ever leave a camera on the wrong iso? Ever leave a camera in spot metering? Ever forget to set the white balance? Cameras make mistakes too. Which is why people check histograms and dial in exposure correction.
Occasionally guilty, bt that's laziness. Generaly the camera is pre set using whatever is around me and occasionally something is set incorrectly or the light changes, but not so far out that a slight tweak of levels won't fix (nothing that couldn't be done in the darkroom) and not so far out that I have to rely on software to save an image.
RAW = Enthusiast / Geek
JPG = Sunday Afternoon Driver?
I disagree.
Thread has turned into a fairly tedious debate not really related to the OP, how surprising! 🙂
I'll just throw in a little troll of my own. Jpeg is for amateurs happy for the camera designers to take their creative decisions for them. 😉
Surely you could learn to pre-set up your camera to do it properly?
hilarious 🙂 I'm always finding I've left my camera set to bracketting, underexposure, ridiculous ISO etc etc. If I have enough attention span left to notice such things I probably don't bother taking a shot...
I'm talking about a safety net here. People make mistakes. Ever leave a camera on the wrong iso?
Correction, the aperture & shutter speed and the ISO are all parameters that must be set correctly at the time you take your shot, you cannot exactly recreate the effects of a different setting in post processing.
hilarious I'm always finding I've left my camera set to bracketting, underexposure, ridiculous ISO etc etc. If I have enough attention span left to notice such things I probably don't bother taking a shot...
More incompetence masquerading as photography then. 😉
More incompetence masquerading as photography then
my cunning plan is to take so many that some still come out right :o)
Wow, sfb you are back!
Where have you been? We have been missing you 😉
And a good plan it is too!
Welcome back. 😀
We have been missing you
get posting on my MTB guide freebie thread then 🙂 I'm looking for really good MTB related posts instead of endless cruft about cars, road bikes and chronic DailyMailism!
Correction, the aperture & shutter speed and the ISO are all parameters that must be set correctly at the time you take your shot, you cannot exactly recreate the effects of a different setting in post processing
Not true. Too low an iso on shutter priority the camera will go ahead and take the image and it'll be under exposed, which you may well be able to salvage. Too high an iso and you may get more noise than you want but otherwise acceptable image. Again, if you have the raw you have more latitude to salvage it.
Jpeg is for amateurs happy for the camera designers to take [s]their creative[/s] some subtle decisions for them
Having the camera on auto does not tell you where to be and what to point it at.
Oh wait - silly me.. those things are trivial! Geeking the settings IS the creative process, of course! 😉
Not true. Too low an iso on shutter priority the camera will go ahead and take the image and it'll be under exposed, which you may well be able to salvage. Too high an iso and you may get more noise than you want but otherwise acceptable image. Again, if you have the raw you have more latitude to salvage it.
5thElefant - You cannot change the iso settings in RAW once taken, or for that matter the shutter or apature settings, they are not adjustable!
Sure you can play around with the RAW file exposure but thats not the point I was making.
5thElefant - You cannot change the iso settings in RAW once taken, or for that matter the shutter or apature settings, they are not adjustable!
I didn't say you could. I said you could fix problems that they caused.
Sure you can play around with the RAW file exposure but thats not the point I was making.
Cool. Yes, you can't change the depth of field, add/remove motion blur etc.
We're in complete agreement. I think... 😉
No point saying composition again
or even for the first time! I'm going to posit that it is a meaningless construct, or perhaps only a way of conforming to others' expectations. And as for learning from other people's mistakes, doesn't that also mean accepting their preconceptions ? It may be that making your own mistakes is vital to developing your own style 🙂
I'm going to posit that it is a meaningless construct, or perhaps only a way of conforming to others' expectations
No no, composition simply refers to how the photo is set up. Doesn't have to mean the same composition as everyone else. Every photo has composition; it may follow convention, it may not. It also may be good or it may be terrible 🙂
So stop bloody trolling 🙂
Can someone tell me how i tell my dslr to take a correctly exposed picture when in every setting i know of the clouds and skies are over exposed and the shadows etc are under exposed. Say for example a lakes scenic shot. Nice shadowy trees in the foreground but a bright cloudy sky. I know how i would go about compensating for this in RAW but how do i do it on the camera?
Filter.
Take two shots and play in Photochop.
RTFM.
HTH.
ps. I have a style of photography, I like it, my customers like. Your style and ideas are different and therefore wrong and I mock you for it, thank you.
I dont have a filter. I am talking to my camera like suggested. What settings do i play with.
I would take the picture in the best setting i could. Then i would just load the raw file up and adjust for highlights, save. Then adjust for shadows, save, then combine the two in photoshop.
Can a dslr camera do this instead for me?
I wouldn't know about RAW, that's for geeks who don't know how to use a camera, ignore this Hobo.
You'll need two shots from exactly the same position- tripod.
Set the exposure for photo 1 for detail in the sky.
Set the exposure for photo 2 for detail in the foreground.
Go to photochop and play and mix the two until you're happy.
So i cant just shout louder at my camera 🙁
I think some compacts can take two photos and merge them in-camera.
Every photo has composition
I've been reliably informed that mine do not.
So stop bloody trolling
this is called critical thinking. HTH.
Sigh.. you're being silly. When you point your camara this constitutes composing a shot. Obviously. Whether or not you do it well is another issue.
Critical thinking would be nice, but any kind of thinking would be a start 😉
Sigh.. you're being silly. When you point your camara this constitutes composing a shot
except that I've seen many on here insist that unless it's done in a certain way the result will be awful, regardless of what it looks like. And also, depending on circumstances, you might elect to zoom out a bit (or stand further back) and concentrate on framing later when you have the leisure, and in my experience the shape of the camera frame rarely accords with that of the perceived scene.
Can I also make a bid for creative error? I have a nice shot of Malham Tarn accidentally taken at -2 stops due to inadvertent bracketting which looks much nicer than the correctly exposed one 🙂
[url= http://www.bogtrotters.org/rides/2008/29nov/270bp.jp g" target="_blank">http://www.bogtrotters.org/rides/2008/29nov/270bp.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
except that I've seen many on here insist that unless it's done in a certain way the result will be awful, regardless of what it looks like
I think you mis-interpreted that particular argument. What we were trying to say is that there are certain conventions, but that is all they are. You seemed to think we were trying to force you to conform to some rules which would of course be utterly ridiculous, and no-one interested in any modern art form would say something like that.
which looks much nicer than the correctly exposed one
It's not a question of 'correct' exposure since there's no right or wrong. You can let whatever you like through your lens - it's your camera. The auto functions on your camera are simply there to help you find a middling option, resulting in the most evenly exposed image. It's well known that this may not create as good an effect as some other setting, which is why exposure compensation is usually a very accessible function on cameras.
In the light of that lovely shot, perhaps you'll experiment with the camera settings more often? Wasn't it you that said you left it on auto the whole time?
TheLittlestHobo - which camera are you using?
If you dont want to mess about with RAW files, does your camera have a bracketing option?
Canon 1000d. Not sure about the braketing (Must admit to not understanding this yet) but i presume it has
Ahh, just read up. Actually yes it does have this. Doesnt really offer more than the raw file that is edited for highlights and then for shadows and then combined.
I suppose thats one of the things about photography and its black art. There seems to be a multitude of techniques to achieve similar if not identical effects
True enough. It's all about using techniques and technology to a creative end. It's easy to lose sight of the latter sometimes.
It took me at least two weeks of reading and re-reading the user manual and then messing around to get to grips with everything on my camera...
I suppose thats one of the things about photography and its black art
I would counter that in fact every stage is a physical, explainable process, but what makes it interesting is the emergent end result which can make the means irrelevant
Consider myself countered