Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2015 20:20:31 GMT
spot metering an 18% grey or equivalent) Whilst I agree that this is the approach that should be taken, it really doesn't lend itself well in most real life situations. Most often than not we photograph moving objects or as in my case animals; I can hardly say "Excuse me Mr. Bear, would you mind just hanging in there whilst I get my grey card out for some spot metering?" The grey card approach, IMHO, works well for stationary photography, but any time you have moving objects, rapidly changing conditions or spontaneously take shots, it just doesn't work. |
|
larry
New Forum Member
Posts: 14 
|
Post by larry on Aug 13, 2015 20:37:29 GMT
spot metering an 18% grey or equivalent) The grey card approach, IMHO, works well for stationary photography, but any time you have moving objects, rapidly changing conditions or spontaneously take shots, it just doesn't work. here I agree with you 100%  but I rarely use a grey card. You can still find at least a small element in just about any scene which is 18% grey or equivalent and spot meter it. That is what I do. For example, sunlit green grass is a generally acceptable 18% grey equivalent. If you're using a grey card in changing light conditions, it will still work but you would obviously need to take a new photo of it, which might not be practical depending on how quickly the lighting is changing, but the grey card will still work for each lighting condition. |
|
|
|
Post by Andy on Aug 14, 2015 0:30:07 GMT
And I am in total agreement with you, Simone. That's why Raw files are usually referred to "digital negatives"; they contain unprocessed data from your camera. I agree. A RAW file is not a processed image. It is data. All RAW needs processing. I'm in agreement that getting the shot as good as possible is important, but you can't get away from processing RAW. Otherwise, you might as well shoot in JPG. |
|
larry
New Forum Member
Posts: 14
|
Post by larry on Aug 14, 2015 1:06:20 GMT
And I am in total agreement with you, Simone. That's why Raw files are usually referred to "digital negatives"; they contain unprocessed data from your camera. I agree. A RAW file is not a processed image. It is data. All RAW needs processing. I'm in agreement that getting the shot as good as possible is important, but you can't get away from processing RAW. Otherwise, you might as well shoot in JPG. Another "must do" to help reduce post processing time is to calibrate the screen properly. Without a properly calibrated screen then for sure I would expect every RAW file to need processing as it would be very unlikely for an uncalibrated screen to display an image properly. I have a calibrated screen and even with that, only a very small number of photos I take are acceptable and usable SOOC in RAW without processing - usually in the circumstances I described earlier. All other photos now take me only 1-2 mins. each to process unless I am trying to create a special effect. |
|
|
|
Post by kdcintx on Sept 29, 2015 23:16:44 GMT
Ansel Adams would love Photoshop. He made dodging and burning an art form. Many of his prints were manipulated in the darkroom as discussed in his book, The Print.
|
|
but I rarely use a grey card. You can still find at least a small element in just about any scene which is 18% grey or equivalent and spot meter it. That is what I do. For example, sunlit green grass is a generally acceptable 18% grey equivalent.
