E-1 Highlights

[dankapsner]

I am trying very hard to like my E-1 (there is a great deal to like about it) but I seem to get some blown

highlights shooting Raw. (I shoot only raw using ISO 100-400). I don't seem to have this problem

shooting Canon digital bodies. Is this a "finicky" camera? Do others have this problem?

Thanks, Dan Kapsner

[mark bucher]

I've never seen that problem with any of my bodies. I shoot 400 RAw for the local HS sports

and I've always had great results. BTW, did you get the HLD-2 with your body? Makes a

huge difference in terms of overall handling and power. Helps with the focusing too.

 

Mark

[dankapsner]

Mark, I haven't used the HLD--it sounds like it's worthwhile. Dan

[httpwww.photo.netphoto1664880414]

sometimes ESP metering does that with me

when the situation looks high contrast, i go to center weighted

 

Riley

[todd frederick]

I'm a very old film photographer, and if you've got deep shadows and extremely bright highlights, something will have to go. In b/w film photography we used to say, "Expose for the highlights and develop for the shadows." This is called the Zone System, in a very, very simplified way.

 

It works the same with digital, in RAW or Jpeg. Either you're going to get good highlights and black featureless shadows, or good shadows and totally blown highlights if you're photographing in bright sun. That's how it works.

 

If your goal is a portrait, then expose for the face and let the highlights explode. You can adjust a bit in PS, but this is the nature of photography.

 

I share your problem and have to learn to work with it. A change in camera will not help.

 

Take many photographs, practice, and learn how different lighting conditions affects your photos.

[mark bucher]

Right on Todd, learned that one back using the first generation of D1s in the military. That

reinforces my insistance that knowledge of basic photography is even more critical in today's

digital world. As far as the HLD-2s, I'm 6'3", so I've never been accused of being small. In

my hands, a camera just doesn't feel right unless it's got an external power drive mounted on

it. I've got two E-1s and have the HLD-2s on both of the bodies and they feel right when I

pick them up. The HLD also improves the focusing speed and responsiveness of the E-1.

What I'm hoping for is that the next generation of professional body Olympus releases uses

the HLD-2, instead of a new design. I know that's wishful thinking, but I can hope can't I?

[skip_williams]

I also shoot HS sports and the metering can sometime get confused. I typically shoot ISO 400-1600 indoors. Depending on the venue, I alternate from Manual, Center-weighted, and ESP. Often I shoot Manual, as the backgrounds can dark with lit subjects. But I've found that ESP usually nails about 80-90% of the situations that I find myself in.

 

For my own information, why do you shoot RAW for sports? What does it offer you?

 

FWIW, I also only shoot JPG, as the time to post-process RAW images isn't worth it for me. My audience doesn't care about the additional stop of dynamic range or the increased flexibility that RAW offers. I do a custom WB inside of every arena, which takes care of any funky lighting issues. I run Neat Image over the ISO 1600 images if they look bad, but most I just leave as-is. I'd rather have nice, sharp, grainy pictures than ones with little grain and fuzzy detail. I also shoot a little at 3200 + NI, but you have to be careful not to underexpose too much.

 

Skip

[dankapsner]

Skip, I am surprised to hear you're shooting at ISO 1600. Frankly, I thought the camera was

unusable over ISO 400. I will have to try it at some higher ISO settings and use a noise

controlling program.

[mark bucher]

Skip,

I'll shoot RAW when my daughter's playing hoops and my wife is busting on me for pictures. Normally I don't for publication. These are for our walls or her scrapbooking. I've pushed the ISO up to 1600 on a couple of occasions and don't have any major gripes with it. Compared to the days of TRI-X and Accufine, it's an even tradeoff. As my old mentor always used to tell me: " Just tell em the grain is a special effect and charge em extra".

 

Mark

[mark bucher]

To further elaborate on shooting at higher ISOs, I'll also shoot totally manual and use an old Vivitar 285HV, prefocus on spots and let the action come to me. I'm pretty comfortable with that set up shooting at 1/125 @f8 at ISO 800 shooting hoops and volleyball of the girls. I also have the FL-36 but I've found it isn't as responsive as the 285. I have shot thousands of images with the 285 and am more familiar with what it can and can't do compared to the FL-36. All goes back to having a basic understanding of fundamental photography and getting that good sharp latent image. Guess I'm old school.

 

Mark

[skip_williams]

Here's one nice ISO 800 shot in SHQ JPG, no levels, curves, etc done to these yet except for a little sharpening from Photokit. This one was a little soft on the girl's face, but the photo is nice and I don't notice the noise at all.<p>

<img src="http://www.skipwilliams.com/paw2007/photos/3a.jpg"><p><p>

[dankapsner]

Thanks for posting this, Skip. I'm obviously going to have to try working more with higher

ISOs. Clearly ISO 800 is usable! Dan