I was mistaken in my first post. The camera was set for +0.3 ev comp but
was set the same in both cases. I agree, 366 is just wrong. 367 is a
little hot but would have been closer without the added +0.3ev. I have
*many* of these shots as do others I know that own D100's. The folks at
Nikon tech told me to try spot metering. :rolleyes:
If I ever shoot another wedding and try to use my D100, I'll be sure and
tell the bride to stand still and hold that kiss, I need to spot meter
from her forehead and use my zone system calculator before this next
shot... LOL
--
Jim
James Royall wrote:
> I'm no expert but number 366 is plainly an incorrect exposure. With no
> compensation set by you it is the camera at fault. The matrix metering
> did do a pretty good job of avoiding underexposure in 367, as you say.
> Is it still under warranty?
>
> James
>
>
> On 9 Jul 2004, at 6:14 pm, Jim Sharp wrote:
>
>
>>Nice shots Tom. I can't say I haven't gotten some myself, but here two
>>classic examples of how the metering works on my camera. Please! No
>>comments on content. Sometimes you have to use a camera for
>>snapshots...
>>
>>http://home.illicom.net/users/jsharp/personalphotos/DSC_0367%208X6.jpg
>>
>>http://home.illicom.net/users/jsharp/personalphotos/DSC_0366%208X6.jpg
>>
>>Both of these were shot raw, aperture priority mode, ISO 200, matrix
>>metering, tone comp auto, no saturation adjustments, white balance set
>>to cloudy, noise reduction auto, standard curve in the camera. All I
>>did
>>was convert them to jpg and downsize for the web in NC.
>>
>>Lens was set to f/5.6
>>
>>Camera determined shutter speed on the first was 1/250
>>On the second one 1/60
>>
>>IOW, there is a full 2 stop difference in what the camera determined
>>was
>>the correct exposure, even though the shots were taken in identical
>>lighting less than 2 minutes apart. Can someone look at those scenes
>>and
>>tell me how I could look at them and determine I needed to add *2
>>stops*
>>of EV comp to one to get an exposure that's similar to the other? If
>>anything, I'd think the camera would have underexposed the primary
>>subject in the second frame given the amount of sky showing. My OM's
>>sure would have using center weighted metering. What I'm seeing is the
>>opposite of what I'd expect. But who knows, maybe I'm just not that
>>good
>>at reading a scene...;)
>>
>>--
>>Jim
>>
>>Tom Scales wrote:
>>
>>>Just to give you a reference, here are a few D100 shots. The top two
>>>were
>>>taken with the SB80DX flash bounced on its little built in bounce
>>>card. The
>>>next three were with the little popup flash (all five with the 60/2.8
>>>Micro). The last two are just outdoor shots.
>>>
>>>All have very minimal post processing. Just levels and a touch of
>>>unsharp
>>>mask. The look just 'ok' on the web but are stunning in prints. I've
>>>found
>>>that any evaluation of the quality of the D100/D70 that is done on a
>>>computer monitor undervalues the camera. It takes a good print, on a
>>>calibrated system, to make you go WOW. It does not, in my
>>>experience, take
>>>a heck of a lot of effort. I took the last one in Florida in the
>>>morning,
>>>printed it and framed it in Harrisburg that night and it was on my
>>>wall the
>>>next day.
>>>
>>>The last one is a 20x32" print, matted to 24x36" on my wall at work,
>>>printed
>>>on my Epson 7600. I 'upsized' it to 360dpi at that size in Photoshop
>>>CS.
>>>The results are simply unbelievable. The third one (540) is a 16x20"
>>>matted
>>>to 20x24.
>>>
>>>My office is covered with my prints.
>>>
>>>Just my experience.
>>>
>>>Tom
>>>
>>>
>>>http://www.scalesfamily.com/images/Tom/MacroPages/pages/DSC_0308.htm
>>>http://www.scalesfamily.com/images/Tom/MacroPages/pages/DSC_0375.htm
>>>
>>>
>>>http://www.scalesfamily.com/images/Tom/NaturePages/pages/DSC_0540.htm
>>>http://www.scalesfamily.com/images/Tom/NaturePages/pages/DSC_0043.htm
>>>http://www.scalesfamily.com/images/New/pages/DSC_0542.htm
>>>
>>>http://www.scalesfamily.com/images/Tom/ArchitecturePages/pages/
>>>DSC_0035.htm
>>>http://www.scalesfamily.com/images/New/pages/DSC_0511.htm
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>==============================================
>>>List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>>>List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>==============================================
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>==============================================
>>List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>>List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>>==============================================
>>
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
