Auto Vs Manual control

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tom Harper
  • Start date Start date
Tom Harper said:
Does anyone ever use exposure braketing to make sure they get the shot or do you just rely on RAW processing to make fine adjustments to the exposure if needed?
Click to expand...

I've a mate who does this often - bracketing that is.

Click-click-click...
Click-click-click...

Drives me nuts to think of all the actuations he's wasting by not being a bit more prudent. It's true that digital can make people sloppy...
 
trencheel303 said:
I've a mate who does this often - bracketing that is.

Click-click-click...
Click-click-click...

Drives me nuts to think of all the actuations he's wasting by not being a bit more prudent. It's true that digital can make people sloppy...
Click to expand...

I didn't think bracketing wsas a digital thing. :thinking:
 
No, but being able to waste shot after shot pretty much is, with regards to the cost and constantly changing film otherwise.
 
Actually that's the one bit I don't understand. What do you mean by a zone you know the tone of and how do you know whether to set +1, -1 or whatever?
Click to expand...

If you have a look for the zone system (ansel adams) you will find he had 11 zones. its easier to use about 5 the centre of your meter is mid grey tones... green grass is -2/3ish white with some detail in is about +1.5 etc etc .. black with some detail in is about -1.5ish.. once you master this everything falls into place.

You can read this in Understanding Exposure by Bryan Petersen too. Its the basis of everything really. :)
 
fabs said:
Actually that's the one bit I don't understand. What do you mean by a zone you know the tone of and how do you know whether to set +1, -1 or whatever?
Click to expand...

Experience...I can look at something and 'guestimate' pretty accurately if it's brighter or darker than the 17% grey that the camera is looking for in an average exposure.
I then set the exposure accordingly...99% of the time it's right...

In ye olden days I only had a hand-held meter, so had to rely on incident, reflected or substantive light readings...'substantive' meaning that I couldn't go up to the subject for a variety of reasons - you take a light reading either in similar light to the subject, or where you're standing and compensate if it's lighter or darker where the subject is.

You soon become very adept at guaging the exposure of a subject within the scene...
 
Janice said:
If you have a look for the zone system (ansel adams) you will find he had 11 zones. its easier to use about 5 the centre of your meter is mid grey tones... green grass is -2/3ish white with some detail in is about +1.5 etc etc .. black with some detail in is about -1.5ish.. once you master this everything falls into place.

You can read this in Understanding Exposure by Bryan Petersen too. Its the basis of everything really. :)
Click to expand...

I was going to mention the Zone System, but if people can't get a decent exposure with a TTL matrix-metering system and a manual, what hope will they have getting to grips with Adams' Zone System?
It took me a while to get my head round it 30 years ago...lol
 
I found Michael Freeman's book Perfect Exposure a very good source of information such as this. I found it much better than Bryan Petersen's which I'm not a huge fan tbh. He makes a compelling argument that a strict implementation of the Zone system as invented by Ansel Adams has more limited value in a digital world but certainly thinking in terms of zones or brightness helps you to focus on the areas that you want to expose for as Janice is saying.
 
Arkady said:
I was going to mention the Zone System, but if people can't get a decent exposure with a TTL matrix-metering system and a manual, what hope will they have getting to grips with Adams' Zone System?
It took me a while to get my head round it 30 years ago...lol
Click to expand...

Yes it did take a bit of getting to grips with! :) But I am always very determined to find out how things work!! :D

Once it clicks in your head it is SO easy isnt it. I just get it to the point on the meter that I want it to be... end of.
 
Janice said:
Yes it did take a bit of getting to grips with! :) But I am always very determined to find out how things work!! :D

Once it clicks in your head it is SO easy isnt it. I just get it to the point on the meter that I want it to be... end of.
Click to expand...

I remember the first time it all made sense - it was one of those "why couldn't I see it before?" moments... I had a roll of HP-5 with 36 perfect exposures - every one of them - gorgeous negatives...almost impossible to make a bad print from them...

Since then, although I've probably forgotten most of the mechanics, I reckon I'm still doing it subconciously...
 
fabs said:
Actually that's the one bit I don't understand. What do you mean by a zone you know the tone of and how do you know whether to set +1, -1 or whatever?
Click to expand...

This is known as guessmatic metering.

fabs said:
I didn't think bracketing wsas a digital thing. :thinking:
Click to expand...

Yes, bracketing is a film thing. Because the guessmatic mode is prone to errors.

dfawkes said:
I found Michael Freeman's book Perfect Exposure a very good source of information such as this. I found it much better than Bryan Petersen's which I'm not a huge fan tbh. He makes a compelling argument that a strict implementation of the Zone system as invented by Ansel Adams has more limited value in a digital world but certainly thinking in terms of zones or brightness helps you to focus on the areas that you want to expose for as Janice is saying.
Click to expand...

He's right. Picking the zone is only half of the Zone System principle. The full Zone System only really applies to negative film, which is exposed and developed individually. Strictly speaking you can't even apply it to more than one image at a time. I don't see how it is relevant to digital photography.
 
I never knew bracketing was a digital only thing, actually, but the way it is used makes sense because it could get very costly on film!
 
HoppyUK said:
I don't see how it is relevant to digital photography.
Click to expand...
To be fair, that's actually what he says in his book and I toned it down a bit with "less relevant" so as not to offend. :)

But ye, he says the only thing that has merit in a digital world is the appreciation of different areas of brightness and exposing correctly for them. And I think (I spend so much money on books you'd think I'd remember!) he says that your exposure decisions are different, where in negative film days you expose for the shadow detail whereas in digital you need to expose for the highlights (or allow them to blow - which is a valid decision, but one that should be conscious).

Typically rather than trying to get the "correct exposure" in camera, I'm exposing as far to the right as I can but maintaining highlights, and pulling it back to "correct" (or desired) to maximise digital information, where in the past I guess you were doing the opposite and presume that's what Adams invented the Zone system for.
 
Janice said:
Ah that's where you are wrong.. I hardly EVER have my pointer in the middle. If you have the pointer in the middle for 80% of your shots you shouldnt be using manual.

I spot meter from a zone i know the tone of and set that on the meter as +1, -1, -2 or whatever. That way 95% of my shots come out perfectly exposed first time without the need for a second shot.
Click to expand...

Can you please explain this in a bit more detail for us thickies :bonk::bonk::bonk: I think I know what you are saying but need it explaining a bit more.

Ta :clap:

Whoa !!! Where did all those posts come from ? How long was I on the phone for ? I think my question is answered thanks
 
Did you mean this as in zones ???

 
ZoneSystemErikHeyninck.gif


0 Pure black
I Near black, with slight tonality but no texture
II Textured black; the darkest part of the image in which slight detail is recorded
III Average dark materials and low values showing adequate texture
IV Average dark foliage, dark stone, or landscape shadows
V Middle gray: clear north sky; dark skin, average weathered wood
VI Average Caucasian skin; light stone; shadows on snow in sunlit landscapes
VII Very light skin; shadows in snow with acute side lighting
VIII Lightest tone with texture: textured snow
IX Slight tone without texture; glaring snow
X Pure white: light sources and specular reflections


Somewhere between Zone VI and VII is the 17% average reading that centre-weighted metering tries to achieve... It's why you occasionally saw photographers take a TTL 'incident' reading from the palm of their hand in the same light as the subject they were shooting.


This is the key bit (lifted from another source)

Exposure

A dark surface under a bright light can reflect the same amount of light as a light surface under dim light. The human eye would perceive the two as being very different but a light meter would measure only the amount of light reflected, and its recommended exposure would render either as Zone V. The Zone System provides a straightforward method for rendering these objects as the photographer desires. The key element in the scene is identified, and that element is placed on the desired zone; the other elements in the scene then fall where they may. With negative film, exposure often favors shadow detail; the procedure then is to:
  1. Visualize the darkest area of the subject in which detail is required, and place it on Zone III. The exposure for Zone III is important, because if the exposure is insufficient, the image may not have satisfactory shadow detail. If the shadow detail is not recorded at the time of exposure, nothing can be done to add it later.
  2. Carefully meter the area visualized as Zone III and note the meter’s recommended exposure.
  3. Adjust the recommended exposure so that the area is placed on Zone III rather than Zone V. To do this, use an exposure two stops less than the meter’s recommendation
 
dfawkes said:
To be fair, that's actually what he says in his book and I toned it down a bit with "less relevant" so as not to offend. :)

But ye, he says the only thing that has merit in a digital world is the appreciation of different areas of brightness and exposing correctly for them. And I think (I spend so much money on books you'd think I'd remember!) he says that your exposure decisions are different, where in negative film days you expose for the shadow detail whereas in digital you need to expose for the highlights (or allow them to blow - which is a valid decision, but one that should be conscious).

Typically rather than trying to get the "correct exposure" in camera, I'm exposing as far to the right as I can but maintaining highlights, and pulling it back to "correct" (or desired) to maximise digital information, where in the past I guess you were doing the opposite and presume that's what Adams invented the Zone system for.
Click to expand...

In digital terms, expose to the right (of the histogram) is close to the theory behind the zone system, in that it attempts to optimise the exposure in terms maximising the data according to the recording medium. ETTR works very well, but that's where any similarity ends.

With film, the optimim exposure varies according to film type. Typically transparency film (slides) is most difficult as there is no opportunity to recover or make any adjustment at the printing stage. Incident light metering is favourite for that - nail the highlights and leave the rest to fate.

Negative black & white film is where the zone system really scores, exposing so that the most important tones (not necessarily 18% grey) fall in the middle of the tone curve with maximum gradation either side. Or where ever you want them for that matter. It usually invloved a degree of over exposure to pull up the shadows with the subsequent development process then modified to hold back the highlights and prevent them blocking up. Obviously the developing bit isn't going to work very well with a roll of film if you've got different scenes with different exposures on it, but Ansel Adams always shot on huge large format cameras, one sheet of film at a time, and processed them individually.

Negative colour film kind of has this process built in with things called DIR couplers in the emulsion - development inhibitors. Basically over expose by as much as you like and the highlights will only go so far, without too much blocking, event with severe abuse. It is this technology that made disposable cameras possible, with their fixed exposure settings and fixed flash output. They are set up to give a good result in quite low light, in the knowledge that even in bright sun it won't get too bad and you'll always get a result of sorts.

Edit: you could also say theat the zone system is similar to HRD technique. If you look at some of Ansel Adams' wonderful prints, there is a hint of HRD about them!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top