Everyone shoots under controlled lighting - you control it by pressing or not pressing the shutter release, no? Sorry - Couldn't resist :)
Someone made a point about what equipment you are using having a lot to do with these choices - Basically, the quality of light that I see without the camera is at least 50% of what makes me bring the camera to my face to shoot. I definitely shoot digital as if I were shooting with a film camera for anything beyond product photography - stuff I shoot for my ebay sales - shooting stuff just for information. The raw convert I have came with the Canon powershot pro-1 (which is still, alas, at Canon being repaired for it's drowning) I made sure when I bought it last year that it was a camera that shot raw... I really thought I needed it. So far all Ive done is convert the raw file to Tiff and then put the tiff in Photoshop Elements, which doesn't accept raw. I really do have to watch every penny, and the cards were expensive - I have a 1 gb a 512 gb and a 256 gb the last of which I bought on the road last year because even my tightly edited cards were running low on space. And then there is a space consideration on my hard drive I know when it comes to the technology for all this stuff I'm way behind practically everyone on the list - I don't even understand the buzzwords - can't wrap my brain around "curves" for instance. I'm babbling - ignore me - But I have not yet seen that the quality of images of people shooting raw , from an aesthetic viewpoint, is any better than those who are shooting jpgs or film - and that is what I care most about. Ann Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > Aaron, I don't shoot under controlled lighting. > > Yes, indeed, exposure on the high side definitely quiets down those images > shot at 1600 and 3200. > > Shel > > > [Original Message] > > From: Aaron Reynolds > > > Most of what I shoot is under controlled lighting conditions, and my > > way of making an exposure reflect that. Starting with the meter > > reading that the camera gives me, I shoot, check histogram, alter > > contrast settings, re-shoot, re-check histogram, repeat until I have > > what I'm looking for -- a nice lookin' histogram and the whitest whites > > just peaking the teeniest bit. Then I lock that in and run with it. > > Under artificial light at the stadium, that seems to be with the > > contrast up one point above the medium setting and with the exposure > > 1/3 to 2/3 of a stop over what the meter tells me. That gives me a > > bright, crisp white that still has detail (if you've seen my baseball > > pictures, the whites that are peaking so that they've lost detail are > > generally the buttons on the jersey and the highlight at the top of the > > shoulder). > > > > Unless your lighting conditions are changing, I suggest fooling around > > with this method. One benefit I noticed was that the over-exposure > > yielded a reduction in visible noise at ISO 1600. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
