Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] ( OM ) Indecent exposure

Subject: Re: [OM] ( OM ) Indecent exposure
From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 06:22:27 -0500
No, I think the heart of the problem is your unwillingness to adapt to 
the new medium.  You want to continue to shoot like the E-3 is an OM-4. 
   The problem is that it isn't an OM-4 although in some respects it's a 
bit like an OM-4 with slide film.  While the E-3 doesn't have the 
dynamic range of negative film it easily exceeds the dynamic range of 
slide film.  And for the image that caused all this trouble (the vinyard 
with sky), an inspection of the histogram on that image shows that the 
camera actually comes very close to containing the full dynamic range. 
Had the shot been exposed at 1/2 to 2/3 stop less the sky details would 
have been fully captured and only some small amount of shadow detail 
pushed to black.  Had the shot with reduced exposure also been made in 
raw form likely all of the tonal detail would have been retained.

All of our cameras using reflected light meters are going to have some 
idiosyncracies in measuring exposure.  But these idiosyncracies can be 
understood by comparing the meter's recommendation with the histogram of 
the resulting image.  Like Moose, I find that the 5D usually wants a 
correction of -2/3 stop to avoid blowing highlights.  Furthermore, for 
any truly important shot one can always review the histogram immediately 
after the shot and make appropriate adjustments.

This is an absolutely lovely shot 
<http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=186819&l=be8beb2d85&id=1027725807>
and works because the limited dynamic range is fully contained.  But for 
those that are not contained one must decide what to do with the tails 
of the distribution.  Graduated filters are certainly one solution for 
cases of extreme dynamic range but are a film solution.  I think 
blending multiple exposures is a better solution for digital.

Chuck Norcutt



Brian Swale wrote:
> On thinking about discussion of my landscapes, it strikes me that the heart 
> of the matter (problem, if there is one) lies with the inability of OM 
> digital to 
> cope with a wide range of illumination.
> 
> Thinks of Ansel Adams who pioneered and rationalised thought on this 
> topic. Hence his Zone System.      Zone 10??
> 
> Allied with this is the clever or not so clever computer programming inside 
> the E-3 and E-510.  The E-1 is a camera I relate to more; pity Olympus 
> didn't offer an option for 10+ megapixels inside the E-1 body ...
> 
> Take for example, Nathan, CH Ling, Jim Nichols, Marc, and often Wayne 
> Harridge; their photos frequently exclude sky. They are of concrete, tarseal, 
> buildings, people, indoors, closeup flowers.  There is not a wide range of 
> illumination where the viewer might expect good detail in all parts - dark 
> and 
> light. 
> And their images have good exposure in part (I suggest) because there is 
> no or little sky.
> Ansel Adams managed this with B&W which generally has far greater 
> latitude than digital or colour transparency, but even he developed a system 
> to get the most out of the range..  
> And incidentally, the wider range that colour print film copes with is the 
> main 
> reason I shoot so much print film rather than transparency film.
> 
> For my sins and preference, I shoot mainly landscape; though my g/f prefers 
> my flower shots and a set I took of male-female flowers (see this lot on 
> facebook)
> http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=9275&id=1027725807&l=cc7871c
> adf
> 
> so for landscapes I have to do better with managing the cameras which 
> have the most pixies.
> Among the options I am considering currently, I include: (a) the Ambico 
> system of graduated filters to darken the sky. I have found all the filters 
> and 
> holders but can't find the shade box. There are some on eBay. This will 
> lessen the "range of illumination" emanating from the bright sky problem.
> 
> (b) Using something like the OM4 to set exposure as I already do for my 
> manual film cameras - if I have an interesting scene where I will want to try 
> a 
> range of compositions (and I know that the E-3 will alter the exposure for 
> every composition even though the illumination of the scene has not 
> changed one iota), I will want to set one reliable combination of speed and 
> aperture on manual and leave that constant through the set of shots.
> 
> (c) avoid including sky -  but there are many times when I might want to 
> have 80% sky but still require to see detail on the ground.
> 
> (d) and having stabilised exposure, I also have to simultaneously find a way 
> to cause the camera to focus on a spot I decide upon - be it near or far - 
> while I move the frame to get the composition I want. Easy with film - but 
> digital ?
> 
> As an aside, if you wondered why I spent two hours photographing Mt Cook 
> et al; here's a shot in the exact same area, under very different weather 
> conditions. A good view is NOT guaranteed.
> http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=186819&l=be8beb2d85&id=10277
> 25807
> 
> I guess I am feeling grumpy this morning about several sets of issues where 
> computers are at the core; this Windows machine- the other day it said I had 
> just 900MB free -  and now it has 3.3 Gb free. What has it deleted??
> Digital cameras and their computer management, and last but not least, I 
> have just taken my 4x4 to hospital because at least in part one or more of 
> its 
> durned computers is/are misbehaving - AGAIN !! I bought that thing to 
> reliably take me to where the scenes are.  Rant over.
> 
> Brian Swale. 
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz