Understanding Exposure

[kgphoto]

Kelly,

You are so off the mark for portrait print prices, it isn't even funny! I can't even make a joke. Unless you are charging hundreds of dollars to go out to shoot.

Think of a portrait assignment as at least a half day lost of shooting, and 8 hours of production (meetings, prep, sales, post work, delivery, etc.). Add into that: salary, overhead and profit and you see how much you need to make from each session.

Find out what you need per hour to make a photo business work, overhead and some staff, cause when you aren't there to do it, someone else has to, so pay yourself their salary until they are hired.

It is not about what a print costs you, it is about what the image(artistry and emotional content) is worth and what it costs you to be able to produce it (equipment, training, overhead, studio costs, continuing education, my fees, etc.).

So when all was said and done, I used to work toward $300 per hour shoot and $600 per hour for location shoots, for my average sale. If I couldn't expect to make that, it wasn't worth doing.

For schools and little leagues, where the per print sale is lower, the volume makes up for it back to the averages I mentioned. These were prices from a few years ago, so don't just use them. You need to figure your own prices out based on today's prices and your costs of living, as well as your skill level and the quality of your finished product.

It is really hard to raise prices later, so raise them now.

[Gbee]

Not foolish, just limited by the digital response.

Sometimes I want to kick my cameras into the river and be done with them. Sometimes they just can't handle the situation, usually the overcast lighting all so favoured by the film user.

I keep my trusty old ambient light meter close at all times.

To get something like the Ansel Adams zone system today one needs to employ the HDR technique.

Unfortunately, the digital ƒ-stop progression does not have the same response in all lighting conditions, and one may find a -3 exposure compensation necessary under some conditions which is somewhat outside the frame of reference.

If I'm shooting a football or rugby match I like to be in manual, fortunately the rule of thumb of metering off the grass holds good, for me at least.

Originally Posted by KellyL

Am I foolish for wanting a greater understanding? I don't know.

[jfrancho]

Unfortunately, the digital ƒ-stop progression does not have the same response in all lighting conditions

Are you sure it wasn't film latitude you are referring to. f/8 is f/8 is f/8 regardless of format.

[Gbee]

One can only work with the tools one has. As far as using the camera there are just two, plus the lens and flash if used.

Film latitude could not be controlled by the camera, one might know that any particular film could be 'pushed' a bit and so on, but that's not essentially the same as getting the exposure right, that's more tweaking the exposure to a desired area.

ƒ8 being the same has been shown to be unsound with digital and the studio, most operators say they have a one stop difference and shoot digital at ƒ11 now instead of ƒ8 for instance.

You will know from many posts that many have abandoned the old light meters, because inconsistency is shown to be present between what the digital needs against what the meter says.

I still use a light meter, particularity for areas where the camera meter fails, like white on white, black on black and heavy overcast days ~ and I still may need to tweak that a bit, but it's much closer than where the camera was.

Originally Posted by jfrancho

Are you sure it wasn't film latitude you are referring to. f/8 is f/8 is f/8 regardless of format.

[Gbee]

I would quantify what I've just written by agreeing that ƒ8 is ƒ8 regardless of format under bright hazy summer sun conditions.

Originally Posted by jfrancho

Are you sure it wasn't film latitude you are referring to. f/8 is f/8 is f/8 regardless of format.

[Brooks]

Originally Posted by Gbee

ƒ8 being the same has been shown to be unsound with digital and the studio, most operators say they have a one stop difference and shoot digital at ƒ11 now instead of ƒ8 for instance.

You will know from many posts that many have abandoned the old light meters, because inconsistency is shown to be present between what the digital needs against what the meter says.

So do a simple exposure test and determine the proper ISO for that particular camera. f8 IS always f8 no matter the format or medium.

[jfrancho]

Originally Posted by Gbee

One can only work with the tools one has. As far as using the camera there are just two, plus the lens and flash if used.

Film latitude could not be controlled by the camera, one might know that any particular film could be 'pushed' a bit and so on, but that's not essentially the same as getting the exposure right, that's more tweaking the exposure to a desired area.

ƒ8 being the same has been shown to be unsound with digital and the studio, most operators say they have a one stop difference and shoot digital at ƒ11 now instead of ƒ8 for instance.

You will know from many posts that many have abandoned the old light meters, because inconsistency is shown to be present between what the digital needs against what the meter says.

I still use a light meter, particularity for areas where the camera meter fails, like white on white, black on black and heavy overcast days ~ and I still may need to tweak that a bit, but it's much closer than where the camera was.

Ahhh, I see what you mean. That sounds more like ISO inconsistency than aperture inconsistency. ISO on digital is an equivalent, and probably varies from brand to brand. It's interesting to note that the International Organization for Standards (ISO) is working on a process by which to test and document sensor sensitivity. Until then, we can only rely on our own tests, as Brooks indicated above. ISO - International Organization for Standardization

[KellyL]

Just wanted to thank all of you for continuing this exposure discussion. Kirk, I am not ignoring you...just didn't want to digress too much from the topic of the thread. I noticed we were beginning to swing, and so I should PM you instead.

[kgphoto]

No worries Kelly,

Are you getting FUD?

[Max@Home]

Originally Posted by kgphoto

No worries Kelly,

Are you getting FUD?

Which FUD are you referring to?

Fud may refer to:

• FUD, Fear, uncertainty and doubt, a marketing or political strategy
• FUD, Female urination device
• FUD (food), a Mexican brand of cold cuts and hot dogs
• FUD, Known in CMMS Systems as Fucked Up Data
• Fud, a Scottish colloquialism for vagina
• Fud, a Scottish colloquialism for a rabbit's tail
• F*****g Utterly Dumb - Another usage for FU

(from WIKI)



Max@Home

[Gbee]

That was just too eloquent for here.

I'm off to put on my evening suit and have the butler dust my PC before I return ....

Originally Posted by Max@Home

Which FUD are you referring to?
Max@Home

[KellyL]

Max...can you say that?

Yes, I am getting FUD from Michael Tapes. I ordered it and was able to watch some of the chapters online, prerelease. I, for one, am loving it. RAW without FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) For others, it may be too basic. He has a great sense of humor. The JPEG, RAW and Brownie segment is wonderful.

But again, we digress from exposure.

[cyclohexane]

That sounds more like ISO inconsistency than aperture inconsistency. ISO on digital is an equivalent, and probably varies from brand to brand.

DPreview tests most cameras and lists their actual ISOs in the detailed review. Nikon's cameras seem to be spot-on in following the ISO sensitivities, but until recently (pre-XTi/400D) some of Canon's cameras deviated at least 1/3 stop (usually higher). Olympus also seems to test a bit off (usually lower).

[aam1234]

Agree with Michael. Somebody quoted Canon's US technical adviser (Westfall?) as saying that Canon ISO numbers are not accurate, and that Canon, along with other manufacturers, are working with ISO to develop a new system for measuring and reporting sensitivities for digital cameras.

[jfrancho]

Originally Posted by aam1234

Agree with Michael. Somebody quoted Canon's US technical adviser (Westfall?) as saying that Canon ISO numbers are not accurate, and that Canon, along with other manufacturers, are working with ISO to develop a new system for measuring and reporting sensitivities for digital cameras.

Like I said above, there is no ISO Standard for digital sensors - the ISO standardized testing procedure that measures film sensitivity to light does not apply to digital sensors. Throw in the ability to affect exposure and shadow clipping in RAW, and this becomes a lot more complicated than it sounds.

[aam1234]

That's true. Not only that but even the "iso" designation for sensitivity might be changed too. What was written was very technical so couldn't understand it much.

[jfrancho]

"iso" designation for sensitivity might be changed too

That'll be tough since they'll need end user buy in, and we all know that most photographers are not going to accept any terms that do not relate to "stops".

[aam1234]

What I said may not be very accurate as what was mentioned was on the technical side.

Let me try to find that post (it was in DPR), some people here will understand it better.

[aam1234]

Found the link. Will PM John and Max to see if there is good info to report to the Camel.

Edit: PMs sent.

[aam1234]

To JohnC:

I followed the link you posted in the Canon section about WA lenses. Other than the effect of an ultra wide lens, I was struck by the quality of those photos in terms of exposure. At first I thought they must've been taken in a light cloudy weather. But upon closer inspection, some of them were taken in a bright sunny days , in May/June nonetheless.

My question is, how did you achieve that quality of exposure.