Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (
More info?)
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 12:37:39 +0000, Owamanga wrote:
> While this is good advice in a perfect world, my preferred metering in
> these situations (scrambling in undergrowth after green monsters) is to
> allow matrix metering to do it's job. It's hard enough keeping focus,
> maintaining balance and breathing quietly without having to ah heck about
> trying to spot meter.
I have been using centre-weighted metering with the D70 a lot lately and I
find it works well for me. Using matrix metering means leaving it up to
the camera to figure out what you are trying to accomplish. In a lot of
the work I have been doing lately I am using existing light indoors and
matrix metering seldom gives me what I want.
> Better advice in this situation might be switch to motor drive and bracket
> like crazy.
>
> Still, since switching to RAW and yet maintaining my style of metering for
> this type of picture I've not had this problem happen again.
>
> BTW, if you look through the rest of my 'wildlife' images, they were all
> shot RAW (with the exception of the lizard above). Although in some of the
> jpegs here they have very slightly blown highlights, that was done by me
> on purpose during post-production - my personal preference for these
> images is a high contrast, fairly saturated punchy look. The lizard image
> is 'too blown' for my liking.
>>For me the joy of photography is getting out and taking the pictures.
>
> I respect that point of view, and it's one lots of people share.
>
> For me, the joy is shared between that, and looking at the pictures /
> processing them afterwards. I don't *love* photoshopping stuff, and
> prepping images for a on-line service to print is very boring, but I think
> the difference in the quality of what you end up with is worth it. 80% of
> the 'artwork' hanging in my house originated from my camera - some slide,
> some film and now lots of digital. The newer stuff is noticeably superior
> to the old, due in part to better lenses, improving technique and of
> course, better post-processing.
>
> Even now, I'm tempted to dig out the negatives from some of those old
> pictures, scan them and re-print them. This time having done the darkroom
> stuff myself in the digital domain.
>
> As someone else pointed out, shooting RAW is a bit like keeping the
> negatives. One day, you, or someone else may want to go back to that
> image, make some tweaks and reprint it on whatever fantastic equipment
> exists in the future.... JPEG/RAW longevity arguments aside, RAW has the
> edge.
>
> I'd also note that a good working environment is essential to being able
> to put up with sitting in front of Photoshop for any significant amount of
> time. A laptop on a rocking chair beside the pool in varying lighting
> conditions is far from perfect. A PC in it's own room with controlled
> lighting, full-size keyboard, mouse and a high quality screen in a
> configuration that's physically comfortable for periods of 3 or 4 hours is
> a must-have.
Funny you should mention that, because just this morning I have been
searching through my business shots to find some imagery for a new
advertisement I am placing on the front page of a magazine next month. I
came across some RAW images I had shot a few months ago, but the pain in
the ass was that I couldn't see any thumbnails of these images in Windows
Explorer - I had to open each shot individually in Nikon Capture to see
what it was. There probably is a better way of looking at thumbnails than
using Windows Explorer, but that's my current method of working. RAW just
slows down the process too much for me.
--
Save photography | shoot some film today!
email: drop rods and insert surfaces
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram