larrycooper

It should be obvious that there is no such thing as an "objective" photograph, but no one would argue that a photograph should never be allowed as evidence in court, and I think it should be up to the court to decide if the photo is evidence or not (which it is, fortunately). It is also obvious that, in many situations, the level of "objectivity" in a photograph is completely irrelevant. Some good pictures are completely surreal, and that's what makes them interesting. Unless one is a police photographer, or doing "science", or trying to prove something to someone, I say edit away to your heart's content because the question is moot. I may not like what results, but no photographer should care.

Then I would get a light meter I could trust. Maybe someone already suggested that.;)

If it was my situation, I would get an external light meter and use it instead because of the issues rodeo_joe points out. There could be lots of reasons the meter is unreliable, not to mention you may have shutter speed and aperture inaccuracies as well. You need to get some measurements you can trust.

I did that once and she hit me on the back of my head with a purse.

You've raised some fair points, Larry, and I haven't said that I would never go digital. But I think my concerns have some validity. I also have a few others that I didn't mention in my previous replies. One of them is that I don't have the money that I feel like I should tie up in something like that. I probably could pull it off, and I'm not picky about buying used equipment as long as it's not used up. A vendor like KEH could probably be used for something like that. But money is money, and I try to be smart with it. I don't see that a DSLR, used or new, is a smart purchase right now.

 

On top of that, think about the lenses. We all know that the statement that any Nikon lens will work on any Nikon camera is a myth. While I can use my grandfather's old AI lenses on my F90X, a few features are non-functional. With the newer DSLRs, they require a different set of glass entirely to fully take advantage of what they'll do. And that's where some serious cheddar can come in. It's almost like razors and blades...

 

But please also keep the following in mind: I didn't come here to be told that I needed to change over to digital in order to get the images that I want for this particular situation. I came here to find out how to use what I have to best get what I want. Telling me to go digital isn't really all that helpful.

 

You're right. It was an "off topic" post, but I think you should really consider going digital. The advantages for just what you are concerned about are real.

 

JDMvW has your "film" answer. I totally agree with that advice for film, but ....... think about digital.

Sorry, william, but your understanding of digital is very weak.

 

There are lots of "full frame" sensors. Constant improvement will always be the case for ALL technology. If you get a camera that does what you want, you can easily ignore the constant upgrade process until you want to get back in. The fact another camera has been introduced does nothing to negate the one you already own. There are HUGE advantages to digital beyond simply not having to buy film. The fact you are unaware of them is not a condemnation of digital, nor an argument for the superiority of film. You may have noticed that there are very few photographers, professional and amateur, who have made the switch to digital long ago, and who would never go back to film. Film has become an "artistic choice" that some still make, but I know of almost no one who doesn't think that digital is empowering and liberating for their photography.

 

For your problem with the balloon photography, my advice is also to think digital as a real solution to the issues you are concerned about. I shot film professionally years ago, so I'm not without perspective, and I know that getting the shots I think you are after is far more likely with a good digital camera system than with film. And shooting at high ISO values (likely necessary for what you want) is many, many times better with modern digital systems than with film. Re-think your "objections" to going digital.

People....... they are ALL post processed. By either an algorithm, or an algorithm over which you have some levels of creative control, but they are all post processed by someone. I often like to do it myself for mostly self centered reasons. ;)

For people who manage to find a camera whose engineers and programmers had the same "vision" as they did, in camera processing may work very well. For people who have a different vision than the engineers and programmers (or perhaps different from everyone else) post processing is a source of freedom and enjoyment that adds to the experience of photography. There is nothing wrong with no wanting to do post processing; but there is nothing wrong with seeing post processing as part of your photographic work flow that is empowering to your particular "vision".

 

There is no "right in camera" that is right for everyone, and there is no moral or technical superiority to believing the engineers and programmers are "righter" than someone who post processes. If you don't want to post process, then don't. But expect a long search for a camera built by people with whom you agree completely. If you want to pursue your individual vision of "right", then post processing is a lot of fun. The argument about in camera is best, or in post is best, is just silly.

It seems to me that "legal" and "ethical", although they can overlap at times, have little to do with each other. At one time it was legal to own slaves; that did not erase the ethical and moral hideousness of the behavior. It may be perfectly legal to stick a camera into the face of a mother who just lost a child to some disease, but I think the ethics of doing so have nothing to do with the legality of it. If you want to be famous or rich from your photography, it may well be necessary to act unethically (think paparazzi). But I think being unethical is unethical, and I try do avoid it in my photography and other aspects of my life.

Isn’t mindfulness a focused attention on the present/current moment and experience? This includes an awareness of one's physical as well as emotional states, in this moment. I actually think preparation for serendipity would be a distraction to mindfulness. Thinking one can somehow prepare for serendipity would be a projection into the future, not an attentiveness to the present, IMO.

 

I'm in favor of preparation and having a prepared mind. That has served my life and my photography quite well. It hasn't affected my experiencing serendipity. The thing I love about serendipity is that it happens when I’m LEAST prepared. It shocks my system. Serendipidity feels to me like it comes from without, not within. It’s the universe aligning in a certain way, regardless of me, not because of me.

 

You're starting to sound like someone with whom I was discussing the role of "luck" in sports. I suggested that about the only sport I could think of that didn't involve luck was chess. She disagreed with me because, "Lots of times, I'm looking at the board and a good move just appears to me. That's how luck works in chess." It sort of shocked her system when she realized what she could do.

 

I think your understanding of living mindfully and mine are very different.

Some call the preparation for it "mindfulness".