It looks like when taking photos under an uncontrolled or are the mercy of natural light, even a pro can't produce well exposed photo. Am correct to say this ?
Even Pros Can't Do Much When Taking Photos..
- Thread starter singdude
- Start date
- Status
pros also rely on metering....
pros must understand how the metering works... and take picture on the given condition...
but 1 thing that pros can do nothing about is that if the metering **** up, and there is no other light meter around... unless he is a walking light meter... otherwise most likely he sure kena f already...
pros must understand how the metering works... and take picture on the given condition...
but 1 thing that pros can do nothing about is that if the metering **** up, and there is no other light meter around... unless he is a walking light meter... otherwise most likely he sure kena f already...
Is technicalities all there are to a shot? You mean the picture must be brightly lit, exposure zhun, colours match Gretab MacBeth colour chart, no noise, sharp then it's a PRO shot? :dunno:
Waffle said:of course! isn't that what 99.99% of "photographers" in singapore think?? then of course it must be true! :dunno:
UNDEREXPOSED SHOTS ARE EVIL! BLUR SHOTS ARE THRASH! OVEREXPOSED SHOTS ARE COW DUNG!
eh, u guys must listen to the guru master... what he say is always right...
time to throw my lightmeter away... :bsmilie:
a think a pro will produce a pic that
HE wanted to produce.
be it correct expose, over, under, sharp, etc..
...or so he claim when pic is correct expose, over, under, sharp, etc..
jude
HE wanted to produce.
be it correct expose, over, under, sharp, etc..
...or so he claim when pic is correct expose, over, under, sharp, etc..
jude
zaren said:
Second that.
Ask Cartier-Bresson, and the Westons, to name just a few. These photographers do not use meters at all.
OK, for "pro" photographers who photograph under the mercy of "uncontrolled" natural lights, with or without meters - photojournalists, street photographers, landscape photographers, wildlife/nature photographers. etc
Do you really want me to name names? I am not sure if there are enough pages in CS to contain these names!
student said:
by looking can know exposure? like shooting studio with strobes?
hmm maybe i should stop relying on my metering... use the force...
A true professional in such a situation would probably do one or both of the following;
1. Expose for the subject and sacrifice the rest
2. Create better light by;
a) moving him/herself to a different angle
b) moving the subject into better light
c) creating light where there is none, e.g. flash, strobe, reflector, etc
Basically a pro needs to be resourceful and do what it takes to get the shot.
I was the subject for a story in an IT publication some years back and the photographer that was doing the job was a relative newbie. The problem with the shot that he wanted was that there wasn't enough light on the background (which made the shot so was required). he didn't have any off-camera flash equipment, so I hunted around and found a spare overhead projector which worked great to light up the background - he got the shot and learned something in the process.
1. Expose for the subject and sacrifice the rest
2. Create better light by;
a) moving him/herself to a different angle
b) moving the subject into better light
c) creating light where there is none, e.g. flash, strobe, reflector, etc
Basically a pro needs to be resourceful and do what it takes to get the shot.
I was the subject for a story in an IT publication some years back and the photographer that was doing the job was a relative newbie. The problem with the shot that he wanted was that there wasn't enough light on the background (which made the shot so was required). he didn't have any off-camera flash equipment, so I hunted around and found a spare overhead projector which worked great to light up the background - he got the shot and learned something in the process.
CYRN said:Add to your list....
3. Change location
4. Dun shoot
add 1 more... Photoshop.... :thumbsup:
singdude said:
I can't agree with that trail of thought. Given he is a professional photographer which would mean someone who has been shooting for a relative lengthy period of time commercially and pressure to produce results, I would wager he/she would still be able to do better then the "regular sunday shooter" and maybe even your "above average shooter" Again it will depend on a number of other factors too. But time and again, a professional photographer would do better given his experience and years of trouble shooting and improving ways around tricky situations. Just like I think the above average shooter would be better at then your newbie.
The ideal being that the more you shooot and practice will make you better at anticipating and overcoming bad situations like lighting. Lighting is just one of many factors that is always a constant challenge to all level of photography. If I may add...anyone can buy a light meter but if you don't know how to use one, it is of no use to anyone too.
Let me give you any example, if you take your regular "joe" hobbist photographer and team him with Steve Curry who shoots war pictures in Afghanistan. Send them both into a battle zone with the assigment to shot pictures of the enemies in action against their own forces. Who do you think would most likely come back with the most pictures? We are not talking just quality of the shots but also how much is shot. Your hobbist who have never shot pictures while under fire would most likely be ducking behind barrier to avoid bullets and bomb then shoot most of the time as this scenario is new to him/her. Curry would still be nervous and fearful too but he is use to performing under fire in those kind of situation...thus he should and IS expected to come back with not just lots of shots but quality ones. Would the hobbist ever be as good? Sure. Throw him/her into as many as those situation enough times he too would be just as good. But we are talking from a controlled point of view and if so....well that is why I can't agree with your statement
That's my CNY two bits.....heheh
Anybody who thinks the eye and brain is a reliable lightmeter is kidding himself. The nature of the eye is to adapt to ambient conditions such that it provides as optimal a viewing condition to the brain as possible. I.e., it tries hard to provide a steady signal to the brain over a wide range of lighting conditions. It does this by altering the size of the pupil and increasing the sensitivity of the rods in the retina.
http://webvision.med.utah.edu/light_dark.html
http://www.cs.bris.ac.uk/Publications/Papers/2000126.pdf
Therefore, the sensitivity of the eye changes according to ambient lighting. If the sensitivity changes, how on earth can a person reliably judge the exact intensity of ambient light just by looking?
http://webvision.med.utah.edu/light_dark.html
http://www.cs.bris.ac.uk/Publications/Papers/2000126.pdf
Therefore, the sensitivity of the eye changes according to ambient lighting. If the sensitivity changes, how on earth can a person reliably judge the exact intensity of ambient light just by looking?
sammy888 said:I can't agree with that trail of thought. Given he is a professional photographer which would mean someone who has been shooting for a relative lengthy period of time commercially and pressure to produce results, I would wager he/she would still be able to do better then the "regular sunday shooter" and maybe even your "above average shooter" Again it will depend on a number of other factors too. But time and again, a professional photographer would do better given his experience and years of trouble shooting and improving ways around tricky situations. Just like I think the above average shooter would be better at then your newbie.
The ideal being that the more you shooot and practice will make you better at anticipating and overcoming bad situations like lighting. Lighting is just one of many factors that is always a constant challenge to all level of photography. If I may add...anyone can buy a light meter but if you don't know how to use one, it is of no use to anyone too.
Let me give you any example, if you take your regular "joe" hobbist photographer and team him with Steve Curry who shoots war pictures in Afghanistan. Send them both into a battle zone with the assigment to shot pictures of the enemies in action against their own forces. Who do you think would most likely come back with the most pictures? We are not talking just quality of the shots but also how much is shot. Your hobbist who have never shot pictures while under fire would most likely be ducking behind barrier to avoid bullets and bomb then shoot. Curry would still be nervous and fearful too but he is use to performing under fire in those kind of situation...thus he should and IS expected to come back with not just lots of shots but quality ones. Would the hobbist ever be as good? Sure. Throw in into those situation enough times he too would be as good. But we are talking from a controlled point of view and if so....well that is why I can't agree with your statement
That's my CNY two bits.....heheh
i think we can start by throwing stones at the hobbits... :bsmilie: see how they duck... then bb guns... finally... matrix style shooting... then send them to the field...
A professional photographer is a human being. Bright, sharp, well-exposed photos isnt everything. The subject matters.
That is why the camera's metering system is better than our eyes. Matrix metering or centre-weighted metering or even spot metering. Nikon and Canon have poured in millions of manhours of R&D to give you great results in terms of exposure. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: So use it.dkw said:
The metering system frees us from it and we can concentrate on composition, on triggering at the right moment or other creative aspects.
- Status
