andrew_fedon

<p>Thank you to those kind enough to mention my effort of last week. Matt, indeed you are so right to mention backlog of images. I know exactly what you mean. Pictures taken during one day can take weeks to sort out and process. Sometimes i think it was indeed quicker when we processed film, and got the prints in our hand and that was the end of the matter.<br>

This again harks back from Christmas Day. There's nothing quite like landing on a Troodos mountain top landing site, jumping out 'Vietnam style', snapping a few photos, and then jumping back in to carry on. Great fun. My friend Moss keeping the engine running waiting for me to take photos. <strong>D700, iso 500 1/125sec, f/14, 62mm on my Nikkor 24-120mm.</strong><br>

On hindsight maybe I would have used a slightly slower shutter speed, but in these rush-rush situations I usully forget something or another.<br>

<img src="http://i496.photobucket.com/albums/rr327/eurocypria/DSC_3885.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Then you have 100% confirmation that the aperture mechanism is buggered. No quibbling, no more discussion, it has to go in for repair.</p>

<p>Should be easy enough to see. Stop down, hold it up to the light and flick the the aperture lever. You'll see it jamming if there's the slightest problem.</p>

<p>Although "Understanding Exposure" is a good book, I have it, its very old now. Just looked at the publication date and its 1990, thats 20 years old. Pre-digital. You need something that maybe takes into account the digital age. Honestly, look at "The Digital SLR Handbook" by Micheal Freeman. You can't go wrong.</p>

<p>Taken over the christmas period, its amazing some of the views you get to see whilst flying low in the chopper. Don't do this if you can't stand heights.<strong> D700, iso 800, f/11, 1/400 sec, 78mm</strong><br>

<img src="http://i496.photobucket.com/albums/rr327/eurocypria/DSC_3953.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Anything by Micheal freeman or John Hedgecoe is good. "The Digital SLR Handbook" by Micheal Freeman is an exellent all rounder to digital photography.</p>

<p>Yes indeed Cory, you did mention that it was metered from the sky, sorry. Its got to the point where you can't see the wood for all the trees. Slightly also kicking myself for not realising what you said waaaay back, about stopping down for depth of field but leaving a high (underexposing) shutter speed. OF COURSE its all going to be grossly underexposed, then why did we spend a week or so trying to explain why you generally are underexposed ?? I thought you meant you just forgot to note down what shutter speed you used, grrrr. Maybe you should have posted your original question when you had at least made a correct first frame exposure and the other frames had varying exposures, not when you knowingly had wrong shutter speeds, which makes it a wild goose chase.</p>

<p>Now to the fact of the slight variations , Douglas, again, I know he didn't adjust exposure for each frame, but the one single exposure reading he wrongly took ( because of spot metering, because of knowlingly using wrong shutter speed), he carried on to the other frames which <em><strong>DO NOT HAVE UNIFORM LIGHT</strong> <strong>AS FAR AS SPOT METERING IS CONCERNED</strong>. </em>If you still cannot understand this, I cannot say anything further. I'm signing off on this discussion with the following picture :<br /><img src="http://i496.photobucket.com/albums/rr327/eurocypria/00VOVb-205821584.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Ok, here it is. Two separates as thats the only way to read in detail.<br>

<img src="http://i496.photobucket.com/albums/rr327/eurocypria/metering1.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i496.photobucket.com/albums/rr327/eurocypria/metering2.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Douglas thanks for explaining what i was trying to illustrate, and that it was not a pano. I thought that was obvious.<br />Incidentally, on the subject of Auto exposure changing the camera settings in my 4 shot sequence, assuming in that rapid fire situation I actually had the time to manual expose each frame, thay would still the same because i would be setting manually the settings based on the same light meter readout. Get it ? If I exposed manualy for the right hand frame, and caried that same exposure through to the left, the shots would become more and more underexposed.</p>

<p>Gary's panos are perfectly exposed. They feature a uniformly lit sky from one end to the other, perfectly proportioned sky to land percentage from one end to the other, and uses Matrix Metering which takes in to account sky and ground luminocity. Nothing in common with Cory's original underexposed pano, with a graduated sky that gets lighter from left to right, water that gets lighter from left to right and becomes almost a total glare. And, despite all the discussion about his spot metering Cory has still not told us where exactly he spot metering from. Incase anyone still has any doubts about the effect of the various metering methods and their effect on the picture, here is the explanation from "The Digital SLR handbook" by Micheal Freeman ( not the Micheal Freeman who posts on these forums apparently) . Post come up a few minutes as it wasn't readable.</p>

<p>I think if there is damage it will be obvious from the first time you take some photos. If there is nothing obvious then consider yourself lucky and don't keep looking for problems. It all depends how it landed, where the impact was.<br>

The good thing about it is when it happens to you once, you become EXTRA carefull after that. I dropped an F3 once onto a London sidewalk with resulting bent prism housing and all sorts of other internal problems. I learned my lesson. Never place the camera where it might be in position to fall, never leave it lying about where there are kids running about, never with the strap hanging down where it get hooked on something and dragged, never on a table where there is food or drink that can get spilled, etc. Storing it on the ground is a no no for me as you'll probably end up kicking it by mistake !</p>

<p>Thank you Gary. MATRIX METERING. Five or seven exposure zone calculation, averages out the scene. Technically, you are not exposing just for the sky, but it is taking the rest of the metered scene into the calculation. Nice panos by the way. It is definately not the same as spot metering from a point on the sky or a bright reflection off the water.</p>

<p>Just to illustrate a point about how dramatically the sky can influence the scene, especialy when it becomes the predominant feature, and is not taken into account, I am posting this four exposure sequence I took over Xmas. As I am flying alongside this airplane and the ground and runway are the dominant feature the exposure is correct, with a slightly bright sky. But watch what happens as the airplane peels upwards and the sky progressively becomes the dominant feature in the scene. The ground becomes darker and darker from being underexposed because the meter is now exposing soley for the sky. I was centre weighted metering, on shutter priority. The left frame began at 1/160 sec f/7.1, then second frame became f/11, f/14, lastly f/16. Three stops difference just because the sky was fooling my meter into thinking it was becoming a progresively brighter scene and causing it to close the aperture more.<br>

<img src="http://i496.photobucket.com/albums/rr327/eurocypria/DSC_3809.jpg" alt="" /></p>

 

<p>Also, GARY, you have explained in a very round a bout way to expose for the sky, and I notice that your two examples have both nicely exposed, very uniform skies, unlike the sky in question. You fail to mention which metering method you used ????</p>

<p><strong>CORY :</strong> <strong><em>"if the camera is set on manual exposure, the meter is basically nullified due to not being able to adjust exposure. Am I not correct in this? "</em></strong></p>

<p><strong><em></em></strong><strong>DOUGLAS<em> :</em></strong> <strong><em>"Cory, your understanding is correct. Good luck"</em></strong></p>

<p><strong><em></em></strong><strong>DOUGLAS to ME :</strong> <em><strong>"Who said it was (nullified) ? The meter still meters.</strong></em></p>

<p><strong><em></em></strong>Douglas, do you read your own statements ? You are contradicting yourself. Is Ramon and me the only ones here that understand the basic photographic principle that if you expose for the sky, and spot meter, the overall photo will be not only underexposed, but very severly underexposed ? Look at Cory's reference shot, the one taken as a single exposure. From the left the clouds are dark grey, to the right they graduate to almost white. If you split that scene up into three separate meter readings I guarantee you will have three different exposures. The only red herring here is the fact that some people are trying to tell him that he has a faulty camera when its simply a case of not understanding basic fundamental exposure ! <strong><em></em></strong><em><strong></strong></em></p>

<p>Welcome to the helm Capt Laur, and a happy new year to everyone. Per Christian, at least you are getting to test your Sigmonster and D300 in Arctic conditions and they still work. I hope you were wearing thick gloves to handle all that freezing cold heavy metal.<br>

Todays entry is from an air to air session we did on Christmas eve. Andy wanted to do some aerial photos of his new Decathlon aerobatic airplane for his website so I was flown in another light airplane while Andy formated up to us. Its not easy for the pilots flying in close formation or the photographer. Very careful briefing between the pilots is necessary so they know what each is doing at any time. With the photos you have to contend with reflections off the canopy, bumps and shakes, little time to think or make adjustments, etc but I got enough decent ones. Here Andy is in one his closer formations and concentrating hard to maintain a safe distance. He had a second chap with him who was taking a few shots of us, but on closer examination of the photo I noticed he was holding onto the sicky bag instead of his camera !<br>

<img src="http://i496.photobucket.com/albums/rr327/eurocypria/DSC_3752.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<strong>D700, iso 800, f/7.1, 1/125, nikon 24-120mm at 120mm</strong><br>

Up this afternoon again so just enough time to dust off the camera. Have a good week.</p>

<p>Cory, Douglas,......the meter is NOT nullified in manual exposure due to not being able to adjust exposure. The meter is the tool that tells you how much light is coming from the metered area. It is you, your brain, your infinate wisdom of photography, to decide what combination of aperture and shutter speed to set to allow the correct amount of that light to reach your sensor/film plane based on that reading, and in the case of auto exposure, the camera's brain decides. In your case you have metered from an itsy bitsy teeny tiny small infinidecimal minute microscopic spot the size of the central focusing point, and applied that one single itsy bitsy teeny etc.. light value to the entire ginormous super wide angle three shot scene.<br />Use matrix or centre weighted, allow for one auto parameter such as aperture, and take the three frames. You will probably find when you check your three EXIFs later, that the first frame was at 1/125 at f/16 the second 1/125 at f/14 and the third at 1/125 at f/11. Besides, the cameras system is not 100% foolproof. Your brain is supposed to be more intelligent. Even in matrix or centre weighted metering your brain should say " ah ,.. lots of sky, maybe my meter will get fooled into thinking lots of light and underexpose, maybe I should compensate a little, ahh I have a digital camera and maybe I should take a couple of test exposures...." Your brain is cleverer than that of the camera, remember that.<br>

For the record, I also am very old school photography, over thirty years, starting with Zenit E, Pentax KX, Nikon FE, Nikon F3, Nikon F4, Nikon D700, and I understand exposure, and manual exposure quite well.</p>

<p>Thanks guys, you answered my basic question. I thought that maybe Olympus had retained its basic same mount through to the digitals, like Nikon, but apparently not. My advise to my friend will be to get rid of the camera with the lenses as a package, and get a complete digital package with its appropriate lenses. Adapters and incomplete functions are too much hassle. thanks for the advice.</p>

<p>Walter, my definition of 'manual exposure', is, adjusting shutter speed manually and adjusting aperture manually until you zero your meter so that you know what shutter speed and aperture you are using at any given time. If light conditions change nothing changes on your camera until you manually and physically change aperture or shutter speed according to the light indication given by your meter. This is my definition of manual exposure. "by hand - period" - what does that mean ?<br>

Stuart, there seem to be two issues here, the overall underexposure of the entire scene, and the different exposure between the three shots. I'll say it again, the overall underexposure is probably caused by the spot metering method which is wrong for this scene, he needs and average exposure not a spot exposure. What spot, WHERE, did he expose for, he doesn't say ???? a spot on the the sky, a spot on the the tree on the left, what ?? ... and secondly in a wide angle scene like that by taking three separate frames, the light could be different from the left shot to the right shot. If he was manual metering , then he should have tried taking a exposure reading for each of the three frames. As I said, I've checked on panoramas I've done, I use shutter priority and let the aperture adjust automatically, that there is at least a one aperture stop difference between the left to the right hand shot.</p>

 

<p>Also I checked the EXIF's of three frames of a panorama I did a few days ago, and there is a one stop aperture difference from left frame to the right frame. Setting a fixed manual exposure on the left hand frame will result in a wrong exposure by the right hand frame.</p>

<p>Douglas, spot metering has a lot to do with it. He is taking an exposure reading from a circle approximately 4mm in diameter or only 1.5% of the frame area, and then exposing the whole scene based on the reading of that 1.5% area, that 'spot' reading being in all likelyness the murky patchy sky. Spot metering is only for exposing for a specific area or spot, hence why its called 'spot metering' . The fact that he set the exposure in manual mode is irrellevent because he still set the exposure in manual mode according to the reading of the spot meter. Spot metering is the wrong method in his example of photo subject.</p>

<p>Hi. Being a Nikon user all my life I am a little ignorant of Olympus matters, and I need to ask an Olympus question. A friend of mine has an Olympus OM1 and asked me if he got a digital body will his lenses work with a digital body ? So my questions are, is the lens mount the same and will it work ? and, which Olympus model digital bodies are worth looking at (second hand), for someone who is just an occasional snapper ? Thanks.</p>

From failing shutter to (almost) little green men being the cause of his problem. Guys !

You are spot metering, why ? On which 'spot' are you metering off ? This is a wide scene with predominantly sky. You are spot metering off a small spot on one of the totally non consisitant clouds. Your entire scene is given an illumination value of that one spot on the cloud. And yes, there will be exposure value difference between scenes, especially in a wide angle scene. Put it on centre weighted or matrix metering, put it on Auto Exp to compensate in exposure difference between the scenes and try again.

<p>Just to clarify something, because the OP says "its hard for me to spend upwards of $800 on ebay for a used unit", and is slightly misleading, and got me thinking what kind of madness is this, and how can people be such suckers ?, I checked the 'sold' prices of SB800's on ebay. Upwards of $800 (almost $900 with postage) is for <strong>NEW</strong> units, either on ebay or via Amazon. The used units on ebay have sold in a range from $250 to $450. Even though I noticed that the new units offered on ebay at that price were remaining unsold, which means that most buyers are not as dumb as the sellers hope.</p>

<p>As long as there are suckers out there willing to pay $800 for a discontinued flash, when the newer version SB900 is only $450, the SB800 will stay in that price range and not worth even considering. Get a SB900. What about the Vivitar 383 at $130 ?</p>

<p>Lots of time in the air over the Christmas hols, and lots of photos shot, enough to keep me sifting through for many days to come, and material for a few Wednesdays also. This was taken on Christmas Day, and is my friend and pilot Moss concentrating hard on keeping the big fan above our heads rotating smoothly as we cruise over the Cyprus countryside. <strong>D700 at f/9 , 1/200 sec , Sigma 17-35 mm at the 17mm end</strong>, on live view and above my head to get maximum coverage. Still a few days of festivities, so carry on enjoying yourselfs everyone.<br>

<img src="http://i496.photobucket.com/albums/rr327/eurocypria/DSC_3911.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Time for a couple of quickies.<br>

Aquinaldo P, beautiful sky shot, as usual.<br>

Sen C, Excellent Lion photo, thats about as close as you want to get.<br>

Jeannean B, beautiful.<br>

Rick D, good action shot, why did you have to smuggle the camera through ?<br>

Jennifer M, very nice Xmas card photo<br>

Greg K , only thing missing is a pair of glasses on his nose.<br>

Sanka H, very nice, well timed.<br>

James K, Just beautiful, and razor sharp as always. What lens ?<br>

Tiffany B, beautiful, as always.</p>