Zone System. Metering. Digital.. Etc. (Help.)

reish_lakish · November 23, 2010

I'm grateful for ideas and instruction.

I've photographed mostly in aperture priority. If I wanted shallow depth of field, I shot wide open. If I wanted sharp front-to-back, I stopped

down. If the camera wanted a way-slow shutter, I used a tripod. I spent money on fast lenses. I took what pictures I got.

I'm now trying, I guess, an application of the zone system. I set my 5D to evaluative meter, focus on some bright spot in the scene,

then dial the shutter until the meter in the viewfinder points between +1 and +2. (I like grim, dark, moody, so if I can still coax detail

from the darkest spots of the frame, I'll increase the shutter speed or stop down if dof is a consideration.)

This process yields the crappiest pics I've made to date, and I've made some pretty crappy ones.

I'm way-grateful for instruction, ideas, remediation.

Other background info: I shoot at iso 100 in sunlight, and at 400 indoors or after dark. I shoot two prime lenses; an 85mm for portraits;

a 28mm for street scenes. Both open to 1.8

I shoot mainly in available light. When I use an off camera speedlite, I shoot like Avedon when he channels Rembrandt. Almost.

Again, I'm grateful for pointers. Thanks In advance

ps: I've done a fair amount of reading up on this stuff, here in these forums, and elsewhere online. I've also viewed some various YouTube vids that seem to describe a process I've outlined here. I'm afraid these pointers are of little help. I'm in need of a solid example/recipe from which I can build. Thx.

craigd · November 23, 2010

If you want to use the Zone System, you need to know what you are metering. Evaluative metering is not the way to go because in that mode the camera examines several different areas of the image and makes its own decision based on its calculations, so you really have no idea what it's doing. Try setting your camera into spot-metering mode, then meter something that you want to appear as a middling gray, and you should get predictable results. Or meter something that you want to come out very light but not overexposed, and then add two stops to what the meter tells you. Or, contrariwise, meter something that you want to come out very dark but not blocked, and subtract two stops. Experiment with these methods for a while and you should develop a good sense of how to get the exposure you want.

On the other hand, with digital, I find that the best results are obtained by shooting raw, going for as bright an exposure as you can get without blowing anything out, and then bringing it down in post-production to whatever level of brightness you really wanted. This tends to minimize noise and maximize detail, especially in the shadows.

I have not used the Canon 85mm f/1.8 lens, but by all reports it's supposed to be excellent. I used to own the 28mm f/1.8 and was not impressed, especially at anything less than f/2.8. It could be that I had a bad copy, but if so, there seem to be a lot of bad copies out there, because a number of online reviews that I've seen describe exactly the problems I saw -- lots of purple fringing and CA, and it wasn't all that sharp either.

bobcossar · November 23, 2010

Richard, The zone system is a process for film, and negative film at that, and Digital simply does not have the analogous process either with respect to the chemical process, or even zone placement using a digital sensor.

I have taught Zone System in community college, and I assure you that is unsuited to work in digital, although some of its concepts have value to both....Regards, Robert

CoryAmmerman · November 24, 2010

Because the Zone system was invented for use with negative film, as Robert pointed out, it is not nearly as applicable to the digital process. Digital sensors do not (yet) have the dynamic range of negative film, and many of the applications with negative film require different processing and printing techniques (pushing, pulling, dodging and burning, etc.). If you read Ansel Adams's The Negative you see that almost all of his descriptions on how he obtained his photographs include some variations in the developing and printing process. This was easy for Adams because he usually used sheet film and could process each shot differently. The only part that applies to digital is being able to assign zones to parts of the image and setting the exposure to get a desired result. In order to do this, you'll have to do some experimenting and take detailed notes to figure out the effective dynamic range of your sensor (basically how far you can push it before you start blowing highlights and loosing detail in the shadows). And Spot metering is definitely the way to go.

johnw63 · November 24, 2010

With evaluative metering, your zone is EVERYTHING in the viewfinder. It's hard to meter for various parts, individually, if your camera is taking it ALL in. A small center weighted or better, a spot meter mode would be best.

dan_south · November 24, 2010

Richard, it might help if you'd post a couple of your "crappy" photos. That way we can see what's happening and perhaps offer suggestions.

Unless you are shooting in very dark environments, pot metering will work better than evaluative metering for this type of manual exposure calculation.

Be aware of the main difference between digital capture and B&W film. Print film response well to overexposure and poorly to underexposure. Digital capture responds poorly to underexposure and horribly to overexposure. Digital capture is more like slide film. You need to nail the exposure, especially on the most important feature of the image.

The Zone System was designed for use with B&W print film. It's not that you can't use the Zone System with other media (digital capture, slide film, color print film, etc.), but you'll need to modify the system to adjust to the constraints of digital sensors.

William Michael · November 24, 2010

I'm in need of a solid example/recipe from which I can build.

</blockquote>

Knowing how each Metering Mode works on each camera you have is very important.

If you want to play with the Zones; then on a 5D, you need to use Spot Metering more often - but more importantly you need to know what to do with it and that is as much practice, or in fact more practice, than theory.

Here: <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/11996332-lg.jpg" alt="" width="750" height="500" /> I used the Spot Meter Mode and metered right of the “Sleeman” Sign on the lit grey wall as my “template grey card”; then I metered the water; then the video screen (when that image was showing) and then the white spot lit tiles (camera left).

Then I calculated my exposure manually.

The image "as shot", was a bit "overexposed" on the first spot meter “grey card template” and was also more overexposed for the TTL Average Meter Reading of that scene. What I wanted out of that shot was as much definition as I could get from the video screen and the remainder of the scene to be evenly balanced with detail and dark and light. I figured that if I got definition in the spot lit area of the white tiles, the video screen would be in the "OK range":

The spot reading on the white tiles and the screen (with that image) was the same.

I metered the Grey Area of the Spot Lit Wall as my first reading, because I figured that it was "close to" Photographic Grey and if I went with that exposure it would make the WHITE tiles OK: ergo the screen would be the best exposure.

I shoot a lot of Swimming - so I "know" the "exposure" if I only have the water to meter (with no specular reflections) - that's why I had a check reading on the water.

For my final exposure, I went with opening the lens a little more (about 1/2 stop I think) than the grey wall reading and I recovered the highlights in post production - the JPEG SOOC is here:<a href="../photo/10677134&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/10677134&size=lg</a> the image below it is the first rework - to remove the people.

The point about re-working an image in post production is, we need to have the best quality RAW file in the first place - you just gotta get it right in the neg, IMO.

Ideally (for digital 135 format capture) this scene should have been metered with an hand held meter and also colour temperature meter and shot with a TS-E45mm lens and a tripod and remote release and mirror up technique and at ISO100 - but hey - I had a 5D and a 50mm lens - and I wanted that screen image and the stillness and tranquillity of the end of the days racing and Security was asking me to leave - so I used what I had at hand.

+++

I will often use ONE spot meter reading on the skin tone and open up a bit, depending upon the skin colour, like here: <a href="../photo/11241037&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/11241037&size=lg</a>

And here ONE Spot reading on the shadow side of the face then lock exposure and recompose: <a href="../photo/10963088&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/10963088&size=lg</a>

Or even more dramatic ONE Spot meter reading on the shadow side of the face and let the burn fall where it might as in here: <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/11996235-lg.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="980" />

That’s not to say average or weighted metering is of no use, but I think if you want to play with the zones, the Spot Meter in the camera is invaluable for this as it is the tool to allow you know where the basic zones are in the first place.

Then again there are situations when the camera's TTL metering systrem is just not used at all, like here - the first frame should explain all: <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=972502">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=972502</a>

WW

PS: whilst I was writing this others have posted: the bit mentioned about the zone system being for B&W film is very important if you want to apply this to digital - my gut feel is there are only about seven, maybe eight zones I can squeeze out of my 5D

bobcossar · November 24, 2010

The above approaches are image getting techniques....no question.

But they are not, in any way, Ansel Adam's Zone System.....

William Michael · November 24, 2010

Robert, I made no inference (at least I thought I didn't) that my example was Ansel Adam's Zone Metering . . . The OP asked for a technique to build upon . . . he said he wanted ideas to build on, for crying out loud!-

I merely have given him a few small examples of how I have taken my knowledge of Ansel’s Zones and adapted that, if you need a title for it . . . call it "Bill's dumbed down digital zones" and give credit to Ansel Crikey mate! I even mentioned as a PS – when had I read the other posts - that the bit about zone metering being about B&W neg was very important - sheesh I taught Zone Metering Technique too, you know. Take a chill pill. Ten minutes after I posted! sheesh . . .

WW

mike_hitchen · November 24, 2010

This process yields the crappiest pics I've made to date, and I've made some pretty crappy ones

</blockquote>

Do you mean dark with lots of digital noise? If so you would be better to expose 'normally' and do the 'dark and moody' in post processing using the brightness/contrast/etc sliders.

I agree with William - the Zone system was developed for film but the general principles can be used for digital. I have just started to look at a scene in terms of 'zones' and it helps you to recognise what parts of the image you want to be 'average' and which parts will, as a result, be 'blown out' or 'blocked out' - you can then make the judgement call as to whether you are losing what you consider to be important detail. More experienced photographers may do this automatically but for me it is another technique that I am finding useful.

bobcossar · November 24, 2010

William......He asked about the "zone system".....his words. And there only ever was the one zone system....Adams. But the general principles mentioned by Mike above, are NOT convertible for digital.

What I am distressed about that even the people who know better don't explain to the beginner what the reality is.......

The person using digital does not know how very differently digital sensors respond to light......that the film zone placements do not work on digital......no one ever explains about T-stops as well as F-stops.

So if you want to encourage someone to try the ZS, then at least explain to them why it won't work.......and that the mish-mash results they will get are based on poor information from people who should know better....

kevin_delson · November 24, 2010

While the zone system is of some value visualizing everything from black to white, it is not nearly applicable as it was when expoused by Mr. Adams.

Craig's advice is probably the best answer concerning "how to expose."

When asking how to get from point "A" to point "B" quickly on a horse, most will answer "why not take a car?"

Most of us do not use horses anymore for our daily commute.

You have in your hands a engineering marvel compared to years past. That engineering marvel has the greatest button built in for you when learning about exposure..It's called "DELETE."

simon_hickie1 · November 24, 2010

Attempting to use the zone system or a variant seems a little complicated. Having said that, William's multi-spot approach seems the most appropriate when the lighting is tricky. In difficult light you need a central reference point - typically a mid tone from a point which is in the middle of the light range. You can then spot meter the brightest point, see how many stops brighter it is than your mid point; then spot meter the darkest point & see how many stops darker it is (remembering that even the spot meter will assume you are metering a mid grey at 18% reflectance). By comparing the three spot readings, you should end up with an approximate figure of the dynamic range present in the image. If you want dark and moody, an exposure somewhere between your mid point and your 'light' reading might give you what you want. If you want to capture as much of the dynamic range in the image in the image as possible, bracketing around the mid point then adjusting in post processing might work best.

matt_needham · November 24, 2010

Use the histogram. Instead of thinking about 10 or 11 zones it has 256 zones, and presents them in a visual manner that your eyes can interpret almost instantly. The zone system is for controlling tones when you can't use your eyeballs to see what you are doing. The camera histogram shows you the tonal distribution of your exposure, and a calibrated computer monitor shows you your processing adjustments in real time (and there is also a histogram available).

I used the zone system when I shot film and worked in my darkroom, and I think my experience with it helps me think about image management, but I don't use it with digital like I did with film. The zone system was created because photographers had to work blind during parts of the process when creating images. I don't have to worry about that anymore. I get to use my eyeballs, and they are more capable of assessing images in an instant than my mind equipped with many years of zone system study.

William Michael · November 24, 2010

It is easy to note that there’s sufficient comment on the theory of Ansel’s Zone System and how a direct use of it will not suit digital.

I did not, nor do not, intend to expand on what will NOT work.

But rather supply a few practical examples of "a solid example/recipe from which I can build" to address “Crappy pictures” within a framework and based upon "now trying, I guess, an application of the zone system."

WW

charlesheckel · November 24, 2010

You seem to be shooting contrasty scenes and trying to get a good exposure of brightly lit areas that occupy a small amount of your sensor's real estate and letting the shadow areas go to black. This is fine, as long as you're aware that the darkest areas are also going to be the noisiest.

Ideally, you'd want to walk right up to that bright area and meter it with an incident meter, or failing that, a reflectance meter pointed at a gray card or an 18% (digital: 12%) reflectance gray in the scene. That would give you a good basic exposure, in which values three or four stops above and below that reference gray would register clearly on your sensor. Less optimally, you might want to get a reading from where you are using a spotmeter, or zooming in on the brightest area with your longest telephoto.

When the brightest area fills your viewfinder, looking at the histogram is of help, but if it occupies a small area, the histogram is going to have a small bump in it to the right that doesn't tell you much about the highlight values in the scene. You've got the option of firing off a test shot and zooming in to examine the bright area in playback mode, but your LCD isn't a particularly reliable guide. It's better than nothing.

You can also shoot RAW to give yourself a little wiggle room during post-processing. Finally, you can bracket, shooting the same scene with three exposures about an f-stop apart, on the basis that memory is cheap and one exposure is bound to work.

None of this is Zone System, which is a matter of spotmetering a series of luminance values in the original scene and controlling both exposure and film development to ensure that those values are placed on the sensitometric curve exactly where you have previsualized that they belong. You do Zone System flying blind after an extended period of testing and calibrating your equipment and workflow. Today we do essentially the same thing with Curves manipulations and full blazing color values in PS after the fact.

reish_lakish · November 24, 2010

This is terrific feedback and, typical of photo.net, the discussion gives way-more light than heat.

My bad: I should not have referred to "Zone System" in my post. Cory put it as I couldn't: assign spot(s) in the frame to a zone, set exposure to get the desired result. The recipe that Craig wrote out worked real well for me early this morning. I'm about to run out and try it glaring night-time street light. (More on Craig's digital post stuff in a minute.) I agree with the majority here, and take to heart Robert's correcting me: digital ain't film, sensors lack latitude, the process described in Adams' The Negative can only be loosely applied to digital photography, and only most generally.

William, as always, I get more from your posts than I get from the various classes that cost me too much $. Your examples are terrific. (Thanks, also, for your guidance on lenses, the camera, and how to wrest back gear from enterprising offspring. Hope you recovered your lens.) ;D

@Mike: the worst of the pics I mentioned suffer from poor focus. Could be a bad lens. (Craig's point about shooting wide open with the Canon 28mm/1.8, which does indeed suck at <2.8, but is scary sharp at it or above.) We can factor out long shutter time; I shot nothing last night at under 1/60. Could also be: I was shooting into storefront windows, specifically to get reflection and a ton of things to meter. I could have aimed poorly while the camera's AF was doing the job it was built to do.

I'll read through page two shortly. But first, Dan wrote:

Digital capture responds poorly to underexposure and horribly to overexposure. Digital capture is more like slide film. You need to nail the exposure, especially on the most important feature of the image.

</blockquote>

I may be reading this in my own new-to-the-practice way, but this is why I kind of think it's good to get the desired exposure in-camera, rather than in post. Granted, shooting raw (I do, always) will save most pictures, and digital post is (as darkroom/print is to film) as central to making the image as is getting it into the camera. But I'm of a kind of religious thinking on this: get what you desire most at the time you make the exposure. I hear good photographers say often: we'll fix it in photoshop. Reminds me of my video work, the editor telling me after an iffy shoot, "we'll save it with music." I don't mean to start a fire here. It's just a newcomer's view of the process.

Thanks again. I'm off to shoot more storefront windows.

</blockquote>

jon_robert · November 24, 2010

I am doing a lot of interpretation of what you said here but I think what you need to do is use ND filters to get control of the highlights and then take charge of the entire photo. I read that your problem is not a metering problem but a wide variation between bright and dark problem. Explore ND filtration and see if it yields what you are after.

bebu_lamar · November 24, 2010

I believe that you could adapt the zone system to work with digital but why bother? The zone system was invented so that the photographer can visualize the final photograph in his/her mind when the photograph was taken. But with digital, all you have to do is to estimate the exposure, take a shot, review it on the LCD (and yes with practice one can judge exposure on the little LCD screen) and them make the adjustment as neccesary. Why try to visualize the final image when you can actually see it?

James G. Dainis · November 24, 2010

Zone system film - Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights.

Zone system digital - Expose for the highlights as far to the right of the histogram as possible without clipping, convert for the shadows in Photoshop.

Otherwise, you are just trying to get the best exposure possible with no post processing work.

William Michael · November 24, 2010

Richard: You have an excellent memory. I have recovered that particular lens which was in question a while ago, thank you: but, I am now missing my (spare) card reader; one (spare) 4gb memory stick; one quick release base; and my standby, standby tripod has gone permanently missing; I think the 16 to 35 was on the hit list too . . . but she couldn't find it – it wasn’t in my lens bag but on my camera at work . . . so she’ll have to make a work around using a kit lens at 18mm to 20mm and F/3.5 – so that will be a good exercise in available light shooting . . .

On the 28/1.8: – I didn’t buy that lens because I found it a tad soft at the edges: and a tad soft wide open generally (more so I noticed this on my 5D than the APS-C cameras) – so those are my experiences too – but at F/2.4 ish, it is a very nice lens On the 1/60s: - though this is “a rule of thumb fast shutter speed” for a 28mm lens - it is still possible to get camera shake, hand held. On shooting store front windows: – I reckon the AF is confused about what to do and what you wanted it to do. . . I would be investigating this issue as the first cause of OoF. Shooting reflections (e.g. Bride at Home into her Mirror) I would usually use Manual Focus.

On Craig’s Method: I wrote my previous answer off line, having read ONLY your question. I do as Craig does apropos Spot Metering - I’ll add (I think it is obvious) that taking several readings I find only necessary when the scene is: complex (lighting); or far away. So my even more dumb-down version – because I Photograph a lot of people – revolves around metering only the skin tone (usually the shadow side) and working from there . . . which leads me to comment on Dan South’s comment (only the bit you have quoted and commented upon):

(Not speaking for Dan) but to me, nailing the exposure on the most important part of the image means establishing what the lighting has to say and what it will be required to emphasise or not – and then establishing the exposure around that: given that I also understand the limitations of the Dynamic Range of the Digital Medium (and also that I am not using HDR Techniques). For example these are two images captured with available light and each has a widish dynamic range: <a href="../photo/11961575&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/11961575&size=lg</a> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/12000375-lg.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="500" /> The face / eyes, especially the line of the profile is very important, so I paid particular attention to the light on the line of the profile and I wanted that edge skin tone, exposed correctly.

+++

In this image, however: <a href="../photo/11961430&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/11961430&size=lg</a>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/12000371-lg.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="980" /> I just wanted the detail in the faded jeans to be the main element of exposure – and in fact I probably should have burnt the face to black and just let the arms, slowly move to black.

In neither image am I concerned about the (maybe blown) highlights (background) - though for the profile portrait I did move the camera viewpoint away from a direct glass refelction so his head was shielding my lens. Also, in both shots, I am not all that fussed about a little noise in the blacks – in fact for The Acrobat, a bit of noise (aka grain) is kind of nice, IMO – remembering also that noise is seen more on the screen than in the print – The Acrobat is quite pleasant, in print. So these are two examples of what I understand exposing for the main element of the image to mean. I will do this whilst considering the overall exposure, but I will not always care about the fact that the scene goes beyond the capacity of the Dynamic Range of the digital medium, or I will sometimes exceed one end of the dynamic range (usually hightlights blowning), for some types of images, but I will be selective, to suit want I want to achieve.

WW

lachaine · November 25, 2010

I taught myself the zone system in the 1970's. I see no really practical reason for it with digital. Just the part about spotmetering something you want to be photographed as middle grey (and adding or subtracting one or two stops) is merely understanding how a lightmeter works. It's useful to know that and how all the ISO, shutter and aperture settings are steps of one stop, but by itself, it's not the zone system.

For the original poster, by all means, learn how a meter works, but if you're doing that, don't use a multi-segment meter mode and then apply exposure compensation to it. That's confusing both you and the metering system. If you really want to understand lighting and metering for it, use more traditional metering methods (both spot and centre). Once you've got a good grasp of that, you will be able to understand what the evaluative metering system is doing a lot better.

I'm not sure the great one himself would be using his own zone system today unless he was still photographing landscapes on single sheets of film in a large format camera.

reish_lakish · November 26, 2010

Thanks again to all for the good feedback and terrific examples. Again, my mistake in asking for application of the Zone System to digital, rather than asking about what so many here agree can only be a general, or conceptual, application of it. Pierre puts right--as so many others here have:

...Just the part about spotmetering something you want to be photographed as middle grey (and adding or subtracting one or two stops) is merely understanding how a lightmeter works. It's useful to know that and how all the ISO, shutter and aperture settings are steps of one stop, but by itself, it's not the zone system...

</blockquote>

I don't want to waste a whole lot more of your time with discussion of desired vs predictable results. I'll say only: I tend to underexpose on purpose--either for mood or visual interest, or to separate the subject from environment at times when flash is impossible. I don't mind sacrificing highlights in favor of exposing detail in the darkest spots of the scene. If you have guidance, instruction, experience in this kind of technique, I'm grateful for it.

So thanks again to William for the examples and instruction above. (And again, the ref to the kids and their spiriting away gear is quite endearing. I know it may not seem so, but to the kid-less, it it.) And to Craig, for the step-wise process, which, coming so early in the conversation, was a terrific help. I'm grateful.

To the guys that made the good point that shoot-delete-reshoot is the technique most helpful in digital photography: I mean, yeah, ok. But: If it's street photography or event photography--or the kind of documentary work I do--reshooting is seldom an option. And consulting the screen & histogram is an after-the-fact kind of thing. Pre-visualization, and knowing the range and quality of the light in which I shoot before exposing, has become real important. Hence my original post.

The images below are the worst of the trials--the ones I mentioned early on--and posted here by request.

These were shot at a nearby mall, in day light and again at night. I wanted: glare / reflection off the windows, sharp front-to-back (little bokeh), detail in the darks. Underexposure is on purpose. In each, I spot metered a mid-grey spot, then adjusted for underexposure.

3pm Daylight. 1/20th, f8, iso 100.

<img src="https://8548609578531202689-a-1802744773732722657-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/rsbenari/24112007-150-f8-400.jpg?attachauth=ANoY7cpNXDvXuhaORM-KPxEOpAdq0TQr6UCiintX1iBGPrXKlMS1yJxirFlvwvJGcNrXxOYs4_7vA4jpzOGJijwURDQEbrw_cd1XamYu02tFd5x3R3VPveaHwH1i5Z9D6uD8SNtqukVsY8OuA-F2KfPCDCpp5FDl-SbV96s2Qy5msEGy9oaIPtekTiO3wJXMS78Pj4g8vBXGHbqUAxpsuh8MClSavxgvYw%3D%3D&attredirects=0" alt="" /> 8pm Evening light. 1/50th, f8, iso 400.

<img src="https://8548609578531202689-a-1802744773732722657-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/rsbenari/24112008-150-f2-400-auto.jpg?attachauth=ANoY7cpNjMgoEwBGaeJQIVc5MNQbB1jZyrsTSx7yiZjNucmYhTSzFLU2G8wHBDEubgcje01R5dFap75Id1fWlL8o5sZjfo5hUds-9AIVet6826GaTf8jG_waLvF8bLxGuR_kKNVx0AdNZ424g0QW6v2Xzgbt8HeLUockZ8s34t5dBFHC_XtgEX_5kD3oVjrfNwSN_HOWuA3ejHO2aFQI7KQLWKWhN0hrfw%3D%3D&attredirects=0" alt="" /> Reference shot. 8pm Evening light. Auto Program 1/50th, f2, iso 400. (Pattern metering.)

<img src="https://8548609578531202689-a-1802744773732722657-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/rsbenari/2411.1255-1250-f8-400-skir.jpg?attachauth=ANoY7crQNIGTZXulMEFrgj-hhJCEohKvVjOL7482Sj3OcULrS2Sa0EgqNOv4YzOUVOVE2WxTVGPvCFuVuFdN3p0mcG-xppz3i-u95qvcnCwFOqQTY4G5RjFPCHoqVEo5BbrBnD12AHZ8aHc7D9w6gwB3XBdYUlihbKqiA01ucJgEufku8cOjPbR1rTpYiHSmO7MbSqG8Wxnqk7cZvL9cXdY_o3qfFEvHLw%3D%3D&attredirects=0" alt="" /> 1pm Daylight. 1/250th, f8, iso 400. Day-for-night fail.

Again, these are the worst of them. They show the the focus problems I mentioned. I'm not looking for aesthetic crit; rather comment on technique. (Typically I photograph guys in way worse light and they're moving. Mannequins. Sheesh. Training wheels.) Thanks so much. And again, best for the holiday weekend. Wishing you each a terrific start to the season.

William Michael · November 26, 2010

I can't see your images.

I am using Internet Explorer on a PC.

WW

reish_lakish · November 26, 2010

Yeah, I linked from my google sites attachment page, and permissions no longer work at the file level, apparently. I'll

repost by morning. Thanks for your patience. Be well-

Sign In

Zone System. Metering. Digital.. Etc. (Help.)

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in