bob_bill

Statistically relevant numbers, can't speak with certainty what other folks do? Oh, kiss my ass. Either you are full of shit or you need to get out with other photographers. I have shot with hundreds if not thousands of photographers on 2 coasts, a group of 20 only 2 days ago and that is my sample. Are you actually saying that most folks don't chimp after most of their shots? Is this the night of the walking contrarians? Looks only for blinkies? Where did I say they didn't ?? Study that histogram, it's based on the jpeg It's good enough for government work. I SAID IT WAS NOT AS TECHNICALLY A PRECISE MEANS. Like another poster, you are putting words in my mouth then disproving it. Typical strawman bull shit. Frank, this isn't a debate of film vs digital, it's just a bunch of trolls with too much time on their hands. I am beginning to realize why numerous folks I admired that used to be on this site are no longer here. I have neither the time nor the inclination to be involved in this crap. I too have reached the end of my patience with this site. Little wonder there are some topics that don't get new posts for months. A site for professionals I am on doesn't have this inane chatter and is more informative. After 10 years with this site, adios.

Statistically relevant numbers, can't speak with certainty what other folks do? Oh, kiss my ass. Either you are full of shit or you need to get out with other photographers. I have shot with hundreds if not thousands of photographers on 2 coasts, a group of 20 only 2 days ago and that is my sample. Are you actually saying that most folks don't chimp after most of their shots? Is this the night of the walking contrarians? Looks only for blinkies? Where did I say they didn't ?? Study that histogram, it's based on the jpeg It's good enough for government work. I SAID IT WAS NOT AS TECHNICALLY A PRECISE MEANS. Like another poster, you are putting words in my mouth then disproving it. Typical strawman bull shit. Frank, this isn't a debate of film vs digital, it's just a bunch of trolls with too much time on their hands. I am beginning to realize why numerous folks I admired that used to be on this site are no longer here. I have neither the time nor the inclination to be involved in this crap. I too have reached the end of my patience with this site. Little wonder there are some topics that don't get new posts for months. A site for professionals I am on doesn't have this inane chatter and is more informative. After 10 years with this site, adios.

Here is my 2 sentence post: Mark, just shot a few rolls and the mystery is refreshing, unlike the instant gratification of an lcd. Not to mention slowing down to craft the image, spot metering the scene, placing tones, not just checking for blinkies. Do you really think just checking blinkies is a better way of crafting an image than carefully making the shot? Sure seems like some folks are pretty sensitive about it. After pages of "angel on the head of a pin" discussion, I don't see any rebuttal of the fact that looking at the lcd is called "chimping" because of the ooh's and aah's of joy when it is viewed after the shutter is released. Evidence of gratification. It takes place immediately after taking the shot, immediacy. INSTANT GRATIFICATION. Fact. The term is recognized by most digital photographers. It is immaterial when the you look at it, an hour later or a week later. The FACT is that is what most folks do after most shots. If you think I have believe that the approach to crafting an image described tha twe are led to employ with film is somehow superior technically, you are absolutely right. It has nothing to do with some old debate about film/digital, it has to do with crafting an image. And guess what, when I have the time and the shot calls for it, I do it with digital. I don't have that option at $ 2 a click with film. Is glancing at the lcd and blinkies strike you as technically rigorous? Do you really think Ansel used a meter only to get an incident reading and set his camera? No he was taking many reflective readings and placing a particular tone in a particular zone. Hmm, But he did look at the image on that huge piece of glass at the back of his camera before taking the shot. It was like looking at the image on an 8x10 lcd. I wonder if he said ooh and aah then? So the gratification from large format could actually take place BEFORE the shot is taken. Now that should be good for 5 pages of discussion.

Ilkka, got an interesting comment on my "Kodachrome yellow" t shirt from Dwaynes Photo indicating they made history 12/20/10 when they developed the last roll of Kodachrome. I was told it was a roll from Steve McCurry. Now need to get a couple of rolls of MF film off to them for development.

If the subject is in the same light 100 feet away, the incident reading will be the same at arms length as walking over there. My sekonic 758 has a 1 degree spot and keep in mind, change lenses and the size of the spot in a camera changes, tightest with long lens, largest with wide angle. I agree using a reflective meter is hopefully making an educated guess if you are trying to take a reading off something not middle gray in the image and at worse, a wag, wild ass guess. But another way to use it t is to meter the brightest area that you want to hold detail, that puts it at zone 5 then adjust the exposure to make it zone 7. Now you have detail in the highlights with no clipping and the shadows pushed as far to the right as possible minimizing noise and muddy blacks. My prior camera sensor is calibrated to the meter and will show the exact highlight and shadow clipping points and you can move them to precisely place the highlight just inside the clipping point, maximizing shadow quality at the other end of the histogram. Remember, a camera reflective light meter won't take strobe readings. My meter allows me to precisely place background tone and quickly change from pure white, light gray, dark gray to pure black all from my stool.

Fred was surprised after my post moments ago that this went on for so many more posts. Didn't see this next page! Looking at the lcd doesn't give instant gratification? Do you know why it is it called chimping? It was called that because of photographers looking at it and saying Oo, Oo. Sounds like someone gratified to me. Not quite imploring the deities, but gratification none the less. I did not say the digital process is automatically inferior because it is digital. I wouldn't be actually waiting in line for a new digital camera body with $4k burning a hole in my pocket if I did. But I am also waiting for the UPS man so I can down load my MF scans (digitally by the way) and hopefully say, Oo, Oo, gratification delayed a week. Note I was drawing a comparison of the difference of the mystery of whether you have the shot to the instant gratification of confirming you do and enjoying the accomplishment right then. Do you deny that exists? You disagree with what I said about lcd's? Allow me to retort. (Pulp Fiction) The lcd is a jpeg of the raw, inaccurate. Same for the histogram. Depending on the brightness setting on the lcd and the ambient light, more inaccuracy. The lcd on my d500 is about half the size of my cell phone. Hard to see what is actually there, like focus and often leads to not catching out of focus shots. It is why I shoot tethered to a large monitor when ever possible. I am offended by your uncalled for personal attack speculating about insecurity. Was that just intended to instigate the multi post argument that you got? I have no insecurity about my photography. I know the quality of my work and other pros have agreed awarding me ribbons and honoring me to head a mentor program for pros. Shooting and chimping has nothing to do with shallowness. Sorry, but winging capture is not the same level of craft as taking the time forced by film to carefully make the capture. If you thought that was disrespectful, sounds to me like insecurity.

Fred, gratification is the pleasure from satisfaction of a desire. When we click the shutter, we desire the joy of capturing our vision. With the lcd, we know immediately if we have captured that vision, hence the satisfaction of that desire, ie, gratification. Now for some that may not be the ultimate goal as we may be shooting for post, but none the less is one for most photographers. Without the proper capture, post capture may not be nearly as "gratifying." . With film, wait a week or two for that moment. Fred, shooting, chimping and moving on IS a more superficial or simple method than taking the time to place tones using the zone system. Most folks don't even know what that is, much less use it in digital. Last week I shot with over 20 digital photographers and not a meter was there but mine as I placed tonality and with my MF film, $2 a click has a way of making you more deliberate and accurate. I even used a split ND to pull down the sky/water. Absolutely necessary with film,? Maybe not, but I am hoping that I have the best possible file to work with when I get it back. I'm not saying it's more noble or moral, just that fact is, most folks shoot, chimp, and accept the jpeg of their raw on the back of the camera. Good enough for horse shoes and hand grenades, but not for some photographers. Is Ansel revered for his shooting and chimping? He didn't view the capture as the end of his vision, but considered the print was his symphony, but he strove for a good score to start. Shooting film helps slow down the process.

Ed speaking of images lost, I wonder how many folks in the early 2000's stored images on floppy discs? I wonder how many of those have been lost or have no means to be viewed for the owners?

Mark, just shot a few rolls and the mystery is refreshing, unlike the instant gratification of an lcd. Not to mention slowing down to craft the image, spot metering the scene, placing tones, not just checking for blinkies.

OMG there is an Uncle Bob besides me? Personally, I always liked Uncle Buck. John Candy was fantastic. I think uncle harry has a visual, a hairy guy, that uncle bob lacks. Uhooru, why do you think they are flooding the market more than they did in the early 2000's with the advent of digital cameras that took sharp well exposed images leading folks to believe they did "professional" work ? Are they leaving in just as high numbers when they discover how little shooting is involved and how much actual work there is running a business. Do they leave when they realize how much they don't know about photography, that their work sucks even though\ they were told by non photographer friends before that they had a "good eye" and after that are too lazy to do the work to master the craft? I think "photographer" is the kind of job that a youngster thinks is cool, like fashion designer, model, pro athlete or rock star but get left behind when reality sets in. What makes up for all of the down sides of photography is the groupies. I once asked a model if she had a boyfriend and she said she hadn't yet met her dream man. I thought, hey, I'm a photographer, aren't we every woman's dream man? sarc Another fantasy shattered for the young, and sometimes the elderly, models usually don't date photographers. So they can forget it if they think shooting models, even if they get most of their clothes off for the shoot, is going to get them laid. That alone should discourage a bunch of them.

With the advent of digital, photographers who earned a living only because they could take sharp well exposed images when most folks with a camera couldn't, quickly went out of business. Uncle Harry can do that now. But I'd like to see Uncle Harry make a simple 3 light shot like my profile photo. I'd like to see Uncle Harry consistently produce flattering poses and genuine expressions other than holding up some booze and yelling woo hoo. Does every bride, senior, sporting event, business have quality images of themselves "free from the internet?" Photography became easier for the masses with digital. I'll bet folks said the same thing when Kodak introduced the Brownie film camera for the masses. Funny, after it was released in 1900, for 100 years til about 2000 when digital took off, photographers still made a living using film.

Ben, the d500 frame rate is fantastic at 10 fps. The higher usable iso combined with the relocated iso button brings the third point of the exposure triangle all quickly changeable. What has blown me away is the increased dynamic range over my d700. Scenes that I know would require sacrificing one end of the histogram or the other now fall comfortably within the histogram. The tilt screen makes extremely low or extremely high camera positions easy.

Fred, here's one taken a bit west at El Capitan. Had a chance to photo a full moon over Half Dome that evening but hiked in a mile over 3' deep snow with breakable crust to try for a firefall shot. The moon is a "Folsom, CA moon." Shot not from the usual scrum of photographers copying Rowell's grab shot. I think the composition is better here, sitting in the parking lot under the deck lid of my jeep with ice chest at hand. I like the geometry from this location, 2 right triangles, a parallelogram. It cried out for another shape and since it is an homage to Rowell but also Ansel and Ernst Hass, all instructors at the park, I added a circle, the moon, as a tip of the hat to Ansel's Moon Over Half D ome. creating what Haas wanted to shoot, not new things but old things shot in a new way. I have never seen it shot this way. It is an homage to all Yosemite photographers.

Mark, my ME is on my desk. It produced 60k in earnings and still works fine though bears some dents and dings.

With earlier digital dslr's, like the d200, I only had one stop that I was comfortable increasing 200-400 and with the d700 maybe 2, 200-800. But with the d500 and soon I hope, the d850 pushing to 1600 or 2000 is no problem so I find myself finally using the third point of the exposure triangle more frequently, especially in darker conditions when trying to keep shutter speed up on longer lenses. It makes sense now to put the iso button in the same area where shutter speed and aperture is controlled without having to move the left hand from supporting the camera to reach it. I am looking forward to the 64 optimized iso for shooting outdoors. It is nearly 2 stops less than a d 700 and will reduce the need to crank the vari nd as much or instead, substitute a polarizer to knock down a couple of stops. I will be reprogramming the movie button to be able to go between FF and crop and another to change the size of raw files.

Paint stirrer? You give a whole new meaning to painting with light.

Fred, sorry to hear that. It has an incredible history of visitors including heads of state from all over the world. Living 3,000 miles away instead of 4 hrs by car, I no longer make my annual trek there for the Firefall. This time of year isn't crowded but I found that early May, all the falls were wonderful and the summer crowd had not yet arrived.

Fred, please tell me they haven't renamed the Awhanee. For folks first visiting, Ansel Adams was a pianist there before he became a photographer and his piano is still played in the restaurant. I thought "Kodachrome" was an appropriate request. The Ansel Adams gallery has wonderful guided photo walks full of great information and insights into Ansel like the reason he was first contacted by the government to make images for train station advertisements of the National Park was he was cheap.

A polaroid type shot of the potatoes and the wall.

When I lived in northern CA, I made a yearly trip to try to capture the fire fall. There are 500 to 1000 photographers there daily all in a small area trying to recapture Galen Rowell's iconic photo. They are drawn irresistibly to this huge rock and all have cameras on tripods all pointing at the same spot on the wall where hopefully there will be a falls and hopefully It will turn cherry red. I thought all it needed was those notes from Close Encounters with all the folks drawn irresistibly to Devils Tower. Yes I did play the music during this shoot. In the movie Richard Dreyfus had been obsessed with the rock formation and at the dinner table for an unknown reason fashioned Devil's Tower from mashed potatoes. Here is the 3 lbs of mashed potatoes I fashioned into El Capitan with ketchup as the red falls. Lit with 2 lights and had a dozen folks who wanted their photo taken with it. Once they realized what it was about, we all had a great time with it. Of all the tens of thousands of fire fall photos, I guarantee this one has never been taken before.

Twin delivery system

In my experiment, the on camera flash would bounce of a wall, with the wall becoming the source and the light coming off the wall at a particular angle to the subject. I can replicate that angle by placing a studio strobe on a stand coming in at the same direction as the bounced light. If I set the ttl bounced light at one stop under, the ratio should be pretty close to my strobe with a 30% contribution per the sekonic meter. This is only a test for ratio, direction with strobe on a stick is easily placed in the direction of the ambient. Learned a technique at PPA I had never seen before to determine direction of light. With your forearm and hand going straight up, with fingers straight up, relax the fingers and drop the middle finger part way to the palm. The other fingers will drop a bit. When the middle finger shadow is directly below it on the palm, the ring finger is pointing in the direction of the light. Helpful in overcast days when direction of the light is difficult to determine.

It is possible to take photos that no one has taken before while on vacation. The wall at Tunnel View in Yosemite is always lined with tripods taking the billionth cliched shot down the valley. Saturated or converted to b&W or with fog, still the same shot from the same place. How many folks put a subject on the wall, light her with off camera light/u mbrella on a stick? Not many. One of my favorite comments on my work, her ex husband was ticked I made her look so good. I took 50 lbs off her with lighting and posing seated sideways on the wall. Not heavy or bulky gear, actually lighter than a tripod, I had humped it all over the valley for 3 hours before shooting. However if tourists are simply trying to capture a reminder of the place, their shots fulfill their purpose of the shot.

Tim, Those impressionists, what were they drinking? Absinthe? Did it alter their vision? That guy Ansel Adams just took the negative and printed it...not. Had a lady tell me what I was doing shooting for planned major transformation in post was not "real." Told her, that is not a photographic term of which I am familiar. If I want something that apes reality, I use a copy machine. Like seasoning, post is to the taste of the individual.

Great idea to compare on camera flash with your studio strobe experiment. How about bouncing the strobe off a light wall with a 1 stop under setting? I will try that myself and compare to see if the ratio is similar. I'll try it with a studio strobe then bounce a flash off the light wall of my house. Probably a difference in shadow edge transfer, but might confirm I am close on the ratio with the 35-30% sekonic reading.