Except that the 2/3 stop increased exposure in the 21mm image (as
indicated by the EXIF data) is about what I guessed visually.
Chuck Norcutt
On 11/23/2013 5:24 AM, Jez Cunningham wrote:
> But hitting 'auto' in LR is so extreme that you'd be hard pressed to
> make meaningful comparison.
>
> On 23/11/2013, Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I was mistaken about equivalent exposures on the EXIF data. Now that I
>> take another look at it I see that they both have the same aperture but
>> the 21mm has a 2/3 stop greater exposure than the 35mm. It's 1/3 stop
>> more sensitive on ISO and 1/3 stop greater exposure time on shutter
>> speed. I'd have thought the exposure bias would be in the opposite
>> direction. I'd expect the wider angle lens to see more sky and give the
>> scene less exposure. From the EXIF data:
>>
>> Focal Length 35 mm 21 mm
>> Exposure Time 1/125 sec 1/91 sec
>> Aperture f/4.8 f/4.8
>> ISO Equivalent 160 200
>>
>> Chuck Norcutt
>>
>>
>> On 11/22/2013 6:40 PM, Tina Manley wrote:
>>> LR didn't do much at all. The 21 mm lens brings in a lot more light than
>>> the 35 and the 50 dims it even more. I didn't have any exposure
>>> compensation set on any of the three cameras. I think it's just the
>>> difference in the amount of light the various lens lengths let in. I
>>> normally have all cameras set on center-weighted exposure which would
>>> make
>>> difference over averaged exposure.
>>>
>>> Tina
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 12:35 AM, Chuck Norcutt <
>>> chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Both color images have equivalent exposures recorded in the EXIF data
>>>> but the 21mm image is *much brighter* than the 35mm image. What do
>>>> these things look like before LR was allowed to play with them?
>>>>
>>>> Chuck Norcutt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 11/22/2013 3:22 PM, Tina Manley wrote:
>>>>> PESO:
>>>>>
>>>>> I've just now started downloading all of the photos from my trip to
>>>>> Italy
>>>>> but I thought it would be fun to compare the three cameras that I took.
>>>>> Each one had a different lens which will also make a difference!
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.pbase.com/tinamanley/image/153485285
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.pbase.com/tinamanley/image/153485286
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.pbase.com/tinamanley/image/153485287
>>>>>
>>>>> They were all three processed minimally in LR by just hitting Auto and
>>>>> adding a small amount of Clarity and Vibrance. I'm sure I'll work on
>>>> them
>>>>> some more but I wanted to compare the cameras, not the processing.
>>>> Maybe I
>>>>> should post a 100% crop from each?
>>>>>
>>>>> C&C greatly appreciated.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tina
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>>>> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
>>>> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
>> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>>
>>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|