tigercosmos Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 I love manual mode based on a light meter measure in shade and direct. Just take some quick measures ahead of time and recheck between and also use your histogram now and then as a quick check on the light within the frame. I shoot with a D300 & D200. The camera meters are sometimes close to correct exposure reading or way off. In manual you can adjust in about three seconds. When you nail exposure the extra flick or two of a thumb and finger is worth it. Just think ahead - you know where the action is going to be so dial it in for what you want - and have a goal of perfect exposure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_schilling___chicago_ Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 I'm amazed with all the passion raised by a comment on shooting modes on a wedding forum.....75 posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christopher hartt dallas Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 Photography IS passion...in a visual form. At least, at it's very best, it is. How ever the description of "Photographer" may have changed over the years or wherever it will go, I think "passion" will always be descriptive. Without passion, it's just an image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjogo Posted October 12, 2008 Share Posted October 12, 2008 If one can achieve a quality :: does not matter their selection of mechanics ........but : sorry to see the passion go from the art of the "untouched" image. It always seemed so natural to achieve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rvalois Posted October 12, 2008 Share Posted October 12, 2008 Hi C Jo Gough ... "... the unretouched image ..." ??? Wasn't what we did in the darkroom (wet) "retouching" whether it be the negative and more likely and often the print? You know, the first print kinda needs a bit more magenta, and we do another print ... hmmmm well, this one's a bit on the darkside, let's lighten it up a bit and maybe not so much magenta this time, just a touch. A few images later, it's "ahhhhh yesssss" and we have our "keeper". Or if we didn't do our own darkroom work, we let the labs do it for us. Today, it's Photoshop, Lightroom 2, and sooooooo many others. It's my belief that only a trickle of images went unretouched prior to digital. Am I off track here ? Ray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjogo Posted October 12, 2008 Share Posted October 12, 2008 I did very little colour work in the darkroom ::::::: For the color labs, we had a densitometer reading ( VPS was 81 min) calibrated to our meter and could call the lab and they would let you know where you stood in exposure > for the job in`house. <p> --but > with B&W --I was into perfecting the perfect neg ---- (like a zone meter and each neg/roll had to be processed just for that contrast/exposure) so there would be minuet manipulations in the enlarger/ tray. I would have a water tray between the developer and stop bath :: if I needed to stop a process. I would read the negative and adjust by a selection of graded paper and I mixed my own developer for the negs in hand. It was an easy system. Yes, there was a "dry-down" time for your paper base test strip > to achieve the "keeper" but, eventually there were microwaves & Ansel taught us to use it correctly >> to save us the hours of drying time. Quality silver paper was expensive for us starving artist ....you wore your "badge" when you accomplished the final print in 2 sheets. <p> So, yes there are great digital processors today ~! Just think some : should not place the "pre process" so non-nonchalantly in the background of their art >> But then again :: my generation originates in the slow / fiddly method. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_clark___minnetonka_mi Posted October 12, 2008 Share Posted October 12, 2008 Check this little ditty out: brooks.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjogo Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 I took Dean's classes back in the 80/90's ---great master of exposures Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william l. palminteri Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 Raymond Valois , Oct 12, 2008; 01:35 p.m......Hi C Jo Gough ... "... the unretouched image ..." ??? Wasn't what we did in the darkroom (wet) "retouching" whether it be the negative and more likely and often the print? Am I off track here ? ...Ray..... Ray, tweaking the photo to correct for what the chemicals, glass, or ccd get cockeyed is not retouching. Retouching is when 'photographers' smooth grandma's skin to look like neoprene, that textureless, lifeless look that seems to be in vogue these days, or when they 'color correct' that lawn to be some hideous shade of Kelly green, 'spot' remove shadows that shouldn't be there in the first place, photos that are so "sharpened" that they hurt the retinas, etc. Those photos look so phoney I'm suprised they get into publication, but then again "Velvet paintings" amazed me also. Look at some photos that were taken by shooters who don't do retouching, and see the difference. They have life, honesty and a genuineness that's refreshing to see these days. Retouching is so endemic that there is an entire indusrty that does nothing but retouching, or more accurately, correcting bad photos. Bill P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ty_mickan Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 Bill, where did dodging, burning, unsharp masking, filters (on camera or in the dark room), or cross processing fit into the whole equation back in the days? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william l. palminteri Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 Tom Mickan , Oct 13, 2008; 08:59 a.m.....Bill, where did dodging, burning, unsharp masking, filters (on camera or in the dark room), or cross processing fit into the whole equation back in the days?..... Hi Tom, Great question, and here's my 'take'. Things like filters on the optics, either on the camera or in the darkroom, if used to compensate for the color temp. of the film, is not retouching. Neither is Black and White photography. Sharpening to correct for digital haze, (an inherent shortcoming of the medium) is not retouching, in my estimation. When USM is used to make a photo blisteringly sharp, (and it looks silly), that's retouching. Anything that is done in 'post' or the darkroom, to make up for an incorrectly set up photo is 'retouching'. Dodging and burning tells me you didn't get the lighting set up correctly. Cross processing tells me you want a nifty effect. In motion picture, which is my primary discipline in the photographic arts, if you get the setup wrong, you get bad photographs twenty four times a second! It's easier for me to just get the setup right and enjoy shooting, not to mention the pride involved. Bill P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rvalois Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 Hi Bill P ... Ok, gotcha. I think it's semantics: my definition of what we did in the darkroom is "retouching". What you're describing is really special effects for the sake of special effects. And we've all seen movies of the same ilk ... very tiresome and one loses interest after a few minutes. Ray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william l. palminteri Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 Hi Tom, Yes, some of it is semantics, and much of it is correcting for bad shooting. Photoshop has become a huge success out of allowing 'photographers' to correct all sorts of mistakes that shouldn't have occured in the first place. Special effects have their place, in movies like "Midnight Cowboy", but this new generation of computer generated stuff puts me to sleep. I'll take "Detour" any day ! Bill P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjogo Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 Tom Mickan :: " where did dodging, burning, unsharp masking, filters (on camera or in the dark room), or cross processing fit into the whole equation back in the days?" In the portrait / wedding department > <p> Sharpness --- was maintained with top quality optics & many were shooting with 120 film & tripods. You knew how to move your subjects to a "edge"' light ...the sharpest f-stop of your fixed lens (Zeiss about f 8.5 )....cable release and a tripod..... <p> Dodge/Burn --with a hand meter and placing your subjects in the right light, manual flash......was rarely necessary. Filters ---Labs usually corrected the negatives >> <p> BIT if transparencies ~~~ I had to carry a color temperature meter, a box of CC filters, Polaroid :: really time consuming ! === were now you just AWB . If one was to shoot an interior portfolio for a designer/architect, maybe 3 rooms > you could estimate a minimum 5 hours, with assistants, and a van full of gear ...... less than an hour commercial job today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 Is "Placing your subjects" condusive to some of today's more spontanious journalistic styles? Sharpening a digital image is a necessity of the medium itself, not poor optics or bad technique. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjogo Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 I just simple wait until the subjects are all in the same light >> not very spontaneous ... but, since there are really about 4 exposure combination's I use ---there is not too much fiddling. Also my attendance is way under 75, these days > so easy to contain. Guests are going to enjoy a "pseudo-pj" ~~ much more flattering >> they have a few seconds to ready themselves and I > to compose/expose. All our shots are > "flat plane" ( since available light is usually 15th @ 5.0 ISO 400 ) you know your dof will be shallow but, sharp. Not too lending towards the new journalistic style --but each shot counts > way less editing.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 "Controlled Photojournalism" C Jo? Maybe it's more like "Casual Formals." LOL. Ironically, we used "P" for a group of shots this past weekend because the ceremony was some of the worst backlighting ever. My second shooter was pretty freaked by how bad it was. Having to change angles all over the place would have required re-metering every time if we had used manual. The cameras handled it quite well, including fill with little to no compensation. "P" on some of these newer cameras is pretty amazing and allows you to pay attention to what's happening in front of the camera rather then in the camera. Not avocating it for those who are just learning how to meter properly because it can become a crutch rather than a tool. But it IS there to use, and it is employing some pretty sophisticated technology.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arie_vandervelden1 Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 <I>some of the worst backlighting ever</I><P> I love backlighting! Nice shot Marc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picturesque Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 I love backlighting too. That's the best kind of backlighting there, because you can blow the sun highlights on the subjects pretty wildly and still be good because the sun does not touch any highly important areas. The only part that is mildly questionable is the bride's chest. How did it do with shots where more than a sliver of the faces were lit by bright sun? Just curious, because I know you use a D3, and want to know how Program on a D3 (the 'newer' cameras you mention) is different from the 'older' cameras. I think my older Canon 5D would have done well with this shot (in Program), and it uses a pretty simple (old) logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonsmith Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 Marc Dont tell me you have switched from Nikon to Canon and back to Nikon again? I was actually thinking recently of selling up my gear and going Canon....always a step behind :) I force myself to shoot on Manual most of the time. My last couple of weddings have been held indoors with similiar conditions - glass windows in full sun behind couple, dark room looking the other way which proved very challenging. All in all I missed the occasional shot due having to change exposure. It was enough to make me think I should try one of the automated modes. The danger with Aperture Priority for me is that I will go over the max sync speed if I am not careful resulting in blown shots. I have never really tried "P" mode but will do some testing with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjogo Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 Great Shot ~~~~ MARC --- > P on the Nikon but, what setting on the flash ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 "How did it do with shots where more than a sliver of the faces were lit by bright sun? Just curious, because I know you use a D3, and want to know how Program on a D3 is different." It did fine Nadine. I personally consider the 5D a "newer camera" as far as "Program" is concerned. I mean "older" as in some of the first cameras with P metering .... which is just about the last time I used "P" to shoot anything : -) BTW, I doubt metering in manual would have changed the "mildly questionable light" on the Bride's chest ... it's the way the light was, and the image has tone there. Here's less than a "sliver" shot on P ... I didn't shoot many of them facing directly into the low direct sun because all they did was squint. Yes Jason, back to Nikon ... again ... C Jo ... TTL.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picturesque Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 Thanks for the reply, Marc. I agree--manual metering would have done nothing here for the chest overexposure because I would have made the same decision Program did--favor the shadow mid tones at the expense of the sun highlights (chest and all), helping the shadows with subdued fill flash. I wouldn't have metered at all actually. I would have used manual mode, ISO 100, 1/200th, f5.6 (if the sun was the 'normal' bright sun and not less bright), chimped, and gone from there, aiming for pleasing rendition of the shaded side. Flash cut a bit--it would differ depending upon whether I was using my 580EX or Metz 54MZ4-i. Was the flash in high speed sync? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjogo Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 MARC --were you fairly close or does that new Nikon have a great GN ? --really good punch for "straight" TTL ...Looks like a ISO 100 250--10.0 with a Quantum or Metz situation ( to keep the highlights in check) unless you are closer than I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 C Jo, yes @ 131' Guide No#, the SB900 has just a little more punch than the previous SB800. Perhaps more importantly, it has a reflector zoom range for 24 to 200mm lenses compared to the SB800 @ 24-105mm. In the shot above I was using a 100/2.8 Macro with a converter to get 140mm (exif info says its 150mm?) I removed the stock diffuser on the SB900, and shot the flash straight letting the Nikon D3 Program mode command the iTTL flash for "Balanced Fill Flash." (When using a longer lens from a distance, I usually shoot the flash straight on.) Exif info from the first shot above: D3, ISO 400, Normal Program, Pattern Metering, 1/320th shutter, 150mm @ f/11. Again, not avocating using Program in place of understanding lighting and how to measure it. However, in some really difficult lighting situations I'm finding that it can be a helpful tool. I should note that my assistant Noel did just as well with her Canon EOS 30D and 380EX-II and 100/2.8 macro using Program. In reviewing the whole days shoot, the Nikon flash system tended to be more consistant ... but I already knew that from my own experiences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now