impossible exposure


Status
Not open for further replies.

noblerot

New Member
May 3, 2003
173
0
0
44
#1
recently, i read a book on creative photography as i was going through all the different exposure settings i realised the settings are unrealistic at least to me it is.

there are alot of landscape outdoor shots, taken at F16 1/125 to 1/250, disbelief i decided to bring my camera out during the brightest time of the day
i was happy to get away with F8 1/60 to 1/125. There are no flash used in those shots i read. anyone has any inkling what else he did to achieve that, i am sure i miss out something here.

the images are all very crisp i dont think he pushed up his iso in this case.
 

Darren

ClubSNAP Admin
Staff member
Jan 16, 2002
8,606
25
48
Melbourne
#2
Exposure depends a lot on the subject matter at hand.

For example, right now (4:45pm) i just poked my camera out of the window, and i get the following exposure :-

ISO 200 ::: 1/125s @ f/11

And i have to underexpose by say another half-stop or one stop since there is a overbright highlighted block of flats, thus I could go 1/180s @ f11 or 1/125s @ f/16.
 

showtime

New Member
May 2, 2003
984
0
0
39
Singapore
Visit site
#3
i just shot a couple of shots from my window and they recorded 1/320 at f13 using iso 200...
time - 1840hrs

it is possible and not unrealistic.
 

theITguy

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2003
3,142
0
0
In this small world
Visit site
#4
So what is your unrealistic part? Too unrealistically bright or dark? For F16 and 1/250 you can get the same/similar exposure at F4.0 and 1/4000 if I am not wrong. I do not really get your question please explain, want to know more about it. :think:
 

sequitur

Senior Member
Apr 17, 2003
3,267
0
0
flickr.com
#5
what's so unrealistic about that

i use 1/250 tv and av can get pushed all the way to f/22 on iso400.
 

noblerot

New Member
May 3, 2003
173
0
0
44
#6
i mention no pushing of iso to achieve that because i have the impression that the images set on iso200 onwards on my camera lose the crispness and often look grainy.

i think i know the difference, you guys are probably right, he did push up the ISO but because it was captured on film and not digital, it fare alot better.
 

clive

Senior Member
Oct 9, 2002
2,537
0
0
Visit site
#7
really, its not unrealistic

i share my classic example of the impossible exposure:

9pm nite at chijmes, outdoor cocktail function (i happen to passby) , 50mm, aperture at f2, nikon f100,matrix metering film=>kodak TCN400 set at ISO400, with minus one stop exposure compensation, and the metered shutter speed turned out to be:

two second.

i was standing. and i just held steady and got a pretty good nightime sneak streetshot. under a powerful magnifying glass u can see slight signs of camera shake of the print. viewed with naked eye, it looks perfectly fine :)

sometimes u just got to blank out ur mind and do it! the aftermath will be something of an experience
 

noblerot

New Member
May 3, 2003
173
0
0
44
#8
hi clive

can see your classic example? hmmm... am curious how much shake visible to us at 2 sec, i know my hand will surely tremble without tripod even if a 50mm feels light.

at F2, the dof is extremely shallow, did you just concentrate on one small subject like a wine glass only??


clive said:
really, its not unrealistic

i share my classic example of the impossible exposure:

9pm nite at chijmes, outdoor cocktail function (i happen to passby) , 50mm, aperture at f2, nikon f100,matrix metering film=>kodak TCN400 set at ISO400, with minus one stop exposure compensation, and the metered shutter speed turned out to be:

two second.

i was standing. and i just held steady and got a pretty good nightime sneak streetshot. under a powerful magnifying glass u can see slight signs of camera shake of the print. viewed with naked eye, it looks perfectly fine :)

sometimes u just got to blank out ur mind and do it! the aftermath will be something of an experience
 

clive

Senior Member
Oct 9, 2002
2,537
0
0
Visit site
#9
i was 20~30m away from the mingling guests. it was qt hard to to pick an "average" point to lock AF on...so i choose a part of the silhouette where ther was a shape of sombody's head against bright ligtht from the other side..alternatvely i could have locked AF upon a lampost or other "significant" stationary object in the same distance range of the mingling guests so that the guests stay in the region of acceptable focus. i also figured that f2 will give shallow DOF but what is there to discern i a nighttime shot? ;) ie even "nearby objects" you already can't see clearly at night, let alone determine if it is in acceptable focus..so i decided in favour of a faster shutter speed given by f2 as opposed to the shallow DOF which wont make much of a visible difference when viewed on print.

alas! i dun have scanner :bsmilie: :D :embrass: so apologies for inability to share the pic online.
 

noblerot

New Member
May 3, 2003
173
0
0
44
#10
thanks for sharing clive

will experiment with your suggestion when i got a chance. :)




clive said:
i was 20~30m away from the mingling guests. it was qt hard to to pick an "average" point to lock AF on...so i choose a part of the silhouette where ther was a shape of sombody's head against bright ligtht from the other side..alternatvely i could have locked AF upon a lampost or other "significant" stationary object in the same distance range of the mingling guests so that the guests stay in the region of acceptable focus. i also figured that f2 will give shallow DOF but what is there to discern i a nighttime shot? ;) ie even "nearby objects" you already can't see clearly at night, let alone determine if it is in acceptable focus..so i decided in favour of a faster shutter speed given by f2 as opposed to the shallow DOF which wont make much of a visible difference when viewed on print.

alas! i dun have scanner :bsmilie: :D :embrass: so apologies for inability to share the pic online.
 

sequitur

Senior Member
Apr 17, 2003
3,267
0
0
flickr.com
#11
and now i know what's the problem


he's using a digital point and shoot

maximum aperture f/8

since "iso 200 and above looks grainy"

and p&s don't usually let the aperture go beyond f/8.


correct ?
 

noblerot

New Member
May 3, 2003
173
0
0
44
#12
it really took me a while to figure out the idiosyncrasy of my camera.

things like LCD (not calibrated)forever brighter than image churned out.

even when i read the greys, my image still appears underexpose by about 2 stops relative to what i see on LCD, finally i got out of my stubborness by compensating every single time.

;p








noblerot said:
thanks for sharing clive

will experiment with your suggestion when i got a chance. :)
 

noblerot

New Member
May 3, 2003
173
0
0
44
#13
sure a not? he is cream of the crop kind of pro :D i would imagine his equipment to be alot more sophisticated but you are right cant rule that out :D , good try Sequitur




noblerot said:
it really took me a while to figure out the idiosyncrasy of my camera.

things like LCD (not calibrated)forever brighter than image churned out.

even when i read the greys, my image still appears underexpose by about 2 stops relative to what i see on LCD, finally i got out of my stubborness by compensating every single time.

;p
 

#14
noblerot said:
recently, i read a book on creative photography as i was going through all the different exposure settings i realised the settings are unrealistic at least to me it is.

there are alot of landscape outdoor shots, taken at F16 1/125 to 1/250, disbelief i decided to bring my camera out during the brightest time of the day
i was happy to get away with F8 1/60 to 1/125. There are no flash used in those shots i read. anyone has any inkling what else he did to achieve that, i am sure i miss out something here.

the images are all very crisp i dont think he pushed up his iso in this case.
Well, that's the sunny f/16 rule. It usually works most of the time. I think he might be using ISO 100/200 film to get 1/125 or 1/250 at f/16. This exposure is for a very sunny day, no clouds. If you are in a bright but nevertheless cloudy day, exposure will be different.

Regards
CK
 

noblerot

New Member
May 3, 2003
173
0
0
44
#15
ckiang said:
Well, that's the sunny f/16 rule. It usually works most of the time. I think he might be using ISO 100/200 film to get 1/125 or 1/250 at f/16. This exposure is for a very sunny day, no clouds. If you are in a bright but nevertheless cloudy day, exposure will be different.

Regards
CK
is time for me to load my F65 with film and try.
 

#16
noblerot said:
is time for me to load my F65 with film and try.
That's one way. But if all you want is to measure exposure, then there's no need to load film. One thing I forgot to mention is that ISO equivalencies of digital cameras may not match that of their "real" film counterparts. The actual sensitivity might be higher/lower than rated. (e.g. ISO 50 might turn out to be ISO 64).

Regards
CK
 

sequitur

Senior Member
Apr 17, 2003
3,267
0
0
flickr.com
#17
noblerot said:
sure a not? he is cream of the crop kind of pro :D i would imagine his equipment to be alot more sophisticated but you are right cant rule that out :D , good try Sequitur

no i meant
YOU
are using a digital p&s camera

where the max aperture is f/8

NOT THE LANDSCAPE SHOOTER
 

chriszzz

New Member
Jan 17, 2003
633
0
0
Visit site
#18
noblerot said:
it really took me a while to figure out the idiosyncrasy of my camera.

things like LCD (not calibrated)forever brighter than image churned out.

even when i read the greys, my image still appears underexpose by about 2 stops relative to what i see on LCD, finally i got out of my stubborness by compensating every single time.

;p
1. If you are compensating every single time, something's wrong with either your camera or your eyes.

2. Learn to use the histogram on your digicam. It'll tell you if highlights are being blown or shadow details are lost.

3. The LCD is for quick and dirty review, not for critical focus and exposure checking. It's too inaccurate and resolution too low for that unless you have a top notch camera with top notch LCD. Even then, it's too small.
 

noblerot

New Member
May 3, 2003
173
0
0
44
#19
i dont know how to cut and paste the histogram

but attached is the http://www.pbase.com/noblerot/inbox

tell me what you see,

1st picture : ISO100 norm
2nd picture : ISO100 overexpose by two stops
3rd picture : ISO200 norm
4rd picture : ISO200 overexpose by two stlops

my camera needs cleaning pardon all the inclusions.thanks



chriszzz said:
1. If you are compensating every single time, something's wrong with either your camera or your eyes.

2. Learn to use the histogram on your digicam. It'll tell you if highlights are being blown or shadow details are lost.

3. The LCD is for quick and dirty review, not for critical focus and exposure checking. It's too inaccurate and resolution too low for that unless you have a top notch camera with top notch LCD. Even then, it's too small.
 

Zerstorer

Senior Member
Jul 8, 2002
3,437
0
0
#20
Didn't you notice that the sunlight was changing in those 4 shots, not to mention that the framing is different?

Sunny vs overcast conditions is more than sufficient to offset 2 stop EV compensation.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom