Nice shots Tom. I can't say I haven't gotten some myself, but here two
classic examples of how the metering works on my camera. Please! No
comments on content. Sometimes you have to use a camera for snapshots...
http://home.illicom.net/users/jsharp/personalphotos/DSC_0367%208X6.jpg
http://home.illicom.net/users/jsharp/personalphotos/DSC_0366%208X6.jpg
Both of these were shot raw, aperture priority mode, ISO 200, matrix
metering, tone comp auto, no saturation adjustments, white balance set
to cloudy, noise reduction auto, standard curve in the camera. All I did
was convert them to jpg and downsize for the web in NC.
Lens was set to f/5.6
Camera determined shutter speed on the first was 1/250
On the second one 1/60
IOW, there is a full 2 stop difference in what the camera determined was
the correct exposure, even though the shots were taken in identical
lighting less than 2 minutes apart. Can someone look at those scenes and
tell me how I could look at them and determine I needed to add *2 stops*
of EV comp to one to get an exposure that's similar to the other? If
anything, I'd think the camera would have underexposed the primary
subject in the second frame given the amount of sky showing. My OM's
sure would have using center weighted metering. What I'm seeing is the
opposite of what I'd expect. But who knows, maybe I'm just not that good
at reading a scene...;)
--
Jim
Tom Scales wrote:
> Just to give you a reference, here are a few D100 shots. The top two were
> taken with the SB80DX flash bounced on its little built in bounce card. The
> next three were with the little popup flash (all five with the 60/2.8
> Micro). The last two are just outdoor shots.
>
> All have very minimal post processing. Just levels and a touch of unsharp
> mask. The look just 'ok' on the web but are stunning in prints. I've found
> that any evaluation of the quality of the D100/D70 that is done on a
> computer monitor undervalues the camera. It takes a good print, on a
> calibrated system, to make you go WOW. It does not, in my experience, take
> a heck of a lot of effort. I took the last one in Florida in the morning,
> printed it and framed it in Harrisburg that night and it was on my wall the
> next day.
>
> The last one is a 20x32" print, matted to 24x36" on my wall at work, printed
> on my Epson 7600. I 'upsized' it to 360dpi at that size in Photoshop CS.
> The results are simply unbelievable. The third one (540) is a 16x20" matted
> to 20x24.
>
> My office is covered with my prints.
>
> Just my experience.
>
> Tom
>
>
> http://www.scalesfamily.com/images/Tom/MacroPages/pages/DSC_0308.htm
> http://www.scalesfamily.com/images/Tom/MacroPages/pages/DSC_0375.htm
>
>
> http://www.scalesfamily.com/images/Tom/NaturePages/pages/DSC_0540.htm
> http://www.scalesfamily.com/images/Tom/NaturePages/pages/DSC_0043.htm
> http://www.scalesfamily.com/images/New/pages/DSC_0542.htm
>
> http://www.scalesfamily.com/images/Tom/ArchitecturePages/pages/DSC_0035.htm
> http://www.scalesfamily.com/images/New/pages/DSC_0511.htm
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
