> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kotsinadelis, > Peter (Peter) > Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 3:47 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: EOS ETTL flash metering and proper exposure > > > > > Chip Louie wrote: > One of the beauties of going digital is that you can "Polaroid" your > shots > and adjust exposure values. I've done this once in a while when > shooting > digital with the 550. Exposures seem to be all over the place with the > EOS > 1D and 550EX so I review and adjust to get a good balance and histogram. > Everything else is minor and adjusted in PS. > > As to gray cards I have always carried one and still do! I also carry a > handheld incident meter that I use pretty regularly. It seems odd to me > that using a Minolta Autometer cordless handheld I can get absolutely > dead > on exposure with studio flash and EOS 1D but with the dedicated 550EX > initial exposures are a crap shoot not to be trusted. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ------------------------ > Yes, but there is very little latitude in digital. Its much like > shooting > transparency film so you have to be far more careful when exposing. > For me I like -1 under and +3 over latitude and will stick with film > because of that for now. Plus no focal multiplier and very sharp wide > angle images that are usually softer when using a wide angle on a > digital camera. > > Peter K >
Hi Peter, I don't know if digital is quite as bad as tranny film, less latitude than print film it seems but at least 1 stop better than trannies. I mostly used to shoot chromes and rarely had an exposure problem if I made any effort at all to consider exposure. Mind you, I mostly shot sports at that time. I'm still shooting sports (but less lately), and shooting almost all RAW and Adobe RGB gamut and can always get a good image even when exposure looks really off. It's easier to shoot on the fly, kind of like shooting print film. Print film's latitude is convenient but not the best way to get full range images. Tranny films are much less tolerant of exposure errors than neg. films as you know, this may be why I get along with digital's slightly more narrow exposure latitude. I find that the EOS 1D has about 5 good stops of contrast range, this is not as wide a range as the newer low-contrast print films out there. But still better then tranny films for the most part. One of the very attractive reasons for going digital with a 1D (aside form the lab costs), is the shorter lenses I can use now. For a motor sports, field sports, portrait, action, table top and sometime event shooter there is no problem with the slight lens growth, it's a blessing actually. I think that the issue of lower apparent sharpness when used with WA lenses is limited to small pixel sensors like the Nikon's and D30/D60/10D cameras. The EOS 1D seem to suffer less from the WA issue and seems to show the weaknesses of a lens more for some reason. I can't quite figure that one out yet. I think the larger photo sites in the 1D makes a difference in image quality due to the angle that formed images strike the photo sites. This seems like the reason the 1D's suffer less than cameras with smaller photo sites. I'm using an EF 16-35 2.8L and the edge and center sharpness is very good on the 1D. My D60 seems to have a slightly less sharp images when used with the same EF 16-35 2.8L even though it is using the very best of the image circle and at a lower angle on the sensor. This of course is resolved with a little bit of "L" layer sharpening. I can't find a way to fix the chromatic aberrations seen with some lesser lenses though. Does anyone know of a way to resolve this in PS? Cheers/Chip * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
