Phil's Exposure Challenge

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

joescrivens

Suspended / Banned
Messages
15,052
Name
Joe
Edit My Images
Yes
Ok this is a challenge for phil to see if he can apply his exposure skill to already taken photographs. Three photographs below and I've given shutter, aperture and ISO to each one to see if you can work out the missing parts. I've also put the focal length they were taken at in case that helps give you a clue. Others are welcome to play along too.

See how you get on.

1. shutter speed 1/1600s @ 85mm


1 by JoeBoyMan, on Flickr

2. Aperture f/2.2 @ 135mm


Screen Shot 2012-12-22 at 10.03.28 by JoeBoyMan, on Flickr

3. ISO 1600 @ 17mm


Screen Shot 2012-12-22 at 10.09.50 by JoeBoyMan, on Flickr
 
For 1 I would have dialed in f2.8 and ISO800.

2 I'd have stay on base ISO100 to give me a 1/500th I guess

Number 3 I'd have been dialling in f3.5 ISO1600 and something like 1/100th

Right or wrong I quite like the game.

Let's continue!
 
Phil Young said:
For 1 I would have dialed in f2.8 and ISO800.

2 I'd have stay on base ISO100 to give me a 1/500th I guess

Number 3 I'd have been dialling in f3.5 ISO1600 and something like 1/100th

Right or wrong I quite like the game.

Let's continue!
Click to expand...

1 is f/1.4 ISO 1600

2 is 1/2500 ISO 1600 - (I have no idea why I had it set to ISO1600, must have been dong a swing shot just before)

3 is 1/15s f/4.0 ISO 1600
 
1 and 3 you were quite way out with. 2 is probably pretty accurate if you come down the iso to 100.

I'll put some more up later.
 
Wouldn't it be simpler to give two out of the three (aperture, shutter, ISO) so there can only be one right answer?

We know 1/50 at ISO 800 is same as 1/100 at ISO 1600 which is the same as 1/200 at ISO 3200 but the combinations make it harder to pin down.
 
Last edited:
ernesto said:
Wouldn't it be simpler to give two out of the three (aperture, shutter, ISO) so there can only be one right answer?

We know 1/50 at ISO 800 is same as 1/100 at ISO 1600 which is the same as 1/200 at ISO 3200 but the combinations make it harder to pin down.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's necessary as they will all give the same exposure, what is necessary is to stick to one method and one person's shots to get an idea of how they would shoot.

For example:

In number 3: I said 1/100th because there's no way I'd be going much slower at a wedding so thought the room must have been brighter...evidently not the case.

Now I know Joe is more likely to drop his shutter than go above a certain ISO so it makes it easier time judge a scene...in theory.
 
2.8, ISO 800 - thinking the backing window is already blown, pretty bright ...?
 
Not sure I'm entirely up to speed with the rules for this game, but here goes:

Colonel Mustard, with the Canon, in the Aisle, at 11:30 am.

Well? How'd I do?




Oh, and btw, why's this my exposure challenge?
 
PJ S said:
Oh, and btw, why's this my exposure challenge?
Click to expand...

A renowned scientist has put forward the theory that people called Phil have a genetic disposition towards better internal light metering ability.
What genes have to do with a persons name is beyond me but then it is not my field but this test will go some way to prove/disprove that.
 
You are all suckers. This is not a game, just an ego boost for Scrivens to prove that he is right and you are wrong :lol:
 
Or a way to show a scrooge, posting in here, and not the Merry Christmas thread??
 
u8myufo said:
You are all suckers. This is not a game, just an ego boost for Scrivens to prove that he is right and you are wrong :lol:
Click to expand...

Ye of little faith. It was nothing of the sort. I don't need to be proven right we can just assume it.

This was a genuine challenge.
 
ernesto said:
A renowned scientist has put forward the theory that people called Phil have a genetic disposition towards better internal light metering ability.
Click to expand...


What a load of **** e :lol:
 
Surely this is completely futile as you could have easily messed with the exposure in PP so 1-2 stops either way is in the possible ranges if you want to be facetious. However for some reason I still can't believe that Phil had some magic light metering ability that lets him nail the exposure on a shot every time, I know people who can get it extremely close but they have been shooting for 25-30 years on film
 
jacob12_1993 said:
Surely this is completely futile as you could have easily messed with the exposure in PP so 1-2 stops either way is in the possible ranges if you want to be facetious. However for some reason I still can't believe that Phil had some magic light metering ability that lets him nail the exposure on a shot every time, I know people who can get it extremely close but they have been shooting for 25-30 years on film
Click to expand...

I tested the day put it up.

Went from inside spot metering black f4, inside metering scene at f3.5 then f8 outside metered the scene f5.6 and inside scene.

Outside was under by 0.7 inside were well exposed.

JUST now I whipped my camera out at work, evaluated the scene at f2.8, 3200iso and 1/80th and nailed the exposure.

Like I said, I didn't know what metering was or the A S modes so for the first year or so I was in full manual.

I don't and never have claimed any magic to my metering methods when shooting in manual and I have my flaws: add a flash and it takes me a while to get used to it. I'll snap off 4-5 test shots before being able to shoot well exposed...

...but I know roughly what I need to get a shutter speed in most scenes.

I don't know if it's a fair test to look at someone else's shots and guess their settings but I'm usually good with mine... if that's magic then it's magic but I just see it as well trained in manual mode I guess.

I also understand why Joe has put up this thread... but I'm not too bothered since I have 1 or 2 nice images lol.
 
Last edited:
joescrivens said:
What do you mean by this phil?
Click to expand...

I maintain that for whatever reason you are trying to belittle me, I can't see any reason other than that due to your skeptical way of talking on the matter and past threads.

And because my work is good I don't mind you trying to make me look small - because I don't think it will work...

It's a bit childish tbh but I've gone along with it to be a good sport.

I've Nefertiti had anything to prove but you've tried to prove me wrong on more than one occasion and I wish you would just let me be to be honest... if you disbelieve then disbelieve but don't set out to try and belittle me, that's not very nice.
 
:shake:

This thread stemmed from this conversation


joescrivens said:
If I showed you a photo and told you aperture and iso would you be able to tell me the shutter I used? Or does it only work in the actual scene?
Click to expand...

Phil Young said:
Don't know, never tried...you could post if you like...
Click to expand...

Nothing more and nothing less. It was simply a bit of fun that you seemed up for.

I went to the effort of finding some shots that I thought would show a good diversity stripped out the exif and posted them and this is how you repay that effort?

It's not on phil. It was harmless fun and now you have soured it. I wish you just hadn't joined in, in the first place if you were going to be like that.

:thumbsdown:
 
joescrivens said:
:shake:

This thread stemmed from this conversation

Nothing more and nothing less. It was simply a bit of fun that you seemed up for.

I went to the effort of finding some shots that I thought would show a good diversity stripped out the exif and posted them and this is how you repay that effort?

It's not on phil. It was harmless fun and now you have soured it. I wish you just hadn't joined in, in the first place if you were going to be like that.

:thumbsdown:
Click to expand...

I fully expect a retaliatory attack but I see no motive mate sorry.

Sounds more like an insult to intelligence tbh.

"Phil's exposure challenge". Come on Joe - you challenged me and I went along with it so I didn't look like I was cowering away. Whatever my motives are for approving the challenge I don't see yours for starting, and then to name me in the thread title sounds a bit inappropriate.

Who gains what - if I win I get to say "I told you so"??? I wasn't telling anyone anything in the first place.

If I fail: you get to remind me in the future of how I tried your test and failed...

It just sounds a bit spiteful mate, I think others have cottoned on to it and even though said in a jokey fasion, it's clear you didn't really need to set the thread up at all...
 
Phil - with the greatest respect -

If you had said that right from the start, I'd have somewhat agreed with you.

You were never going to get them right, for all sorts of reasons, but I read it as a bit of fun - which you accepted.

Now however, you're coming across as a sore loser.

Sorry.
 
I for one could never see how this challenge could prove anyone's skills at evaluating exposure by eye in the real world. I mean how can you tell how much light is inside the building in post 3?
 
simon ess said:
Phil - with the greatest respect -

If you had said that right from the start, I'd have somewhat agreed with you.

You were never going to get them right, for all sorts of reasons, but I read it as a bit of fun - which you accepted.

Now however, you're coming across as a sore loser.

Sorry.
Click to expand...

I didn't want to say at the start because I may have been branded scared of the challenge...if I say it later I'm branded as a sore loser... if I don't say anything, I'm sure it will come back to me in the future.

Lose lose situation really. I still maintain though - I have never claimed a special power... :)

I don't think I can really be a sore loser here - it's completely different to what I do, I'm not the one rendering the scene so it's impossible to be a good test of skill anyway. How do I know how much light there is in a scene?

It doesn't matter to me that I'm "right" or "wrong" in this thread, I just see it for what it is and the only reason I'm saying anything at all is because it's clear others can see the intent behind it...

The thread would be a good idea to see how other photographers would think to expose... but like I said: I can't be a winner, a loser or a sore loser because I wasn't there...

For the idea to be a good thread and get everyone involved, full exifwould be needed and ask "how would you expose?".

No hard feelings my side.
 
Rapscallion said:
I for one could never see how this challenge could prove anyone's skills at evaluating exposure by eye in the real world. I mean how can you tell how much light is inside the building in post 3?
Click to expand...

Hence why I can't be a sore loser lol.

It must have been pretty dark time warrant the settings used...a lot darker than how is presented but then if I were that good I would have known this from the blown areas :-P
 
You two are coming across as a right pair of pratts.

I`m sure neither of you are, so why not stop the childish antics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top