The penny dropped

divamum

So for years, I"ve relied predominantly on aperture priority. Sure, I shoot manual with studio lights (and an external lightmeter), but otherwise, have generally stuck to Av. My first camera was a Pentax ME super, and I got accustomed to shooting that way, and stuck with it because I didn't trust myself to choose a shutter/aperture combo quickly enough in manual.

Not sure if it's cuz I got new glasses and can see it better or what, but about three days ago the in-camera manual meter-bar SUDDENLY MADE SENSE TO ME. :barb I finally GET the whole "expose to the right" thing (thanks, Kerry, for reinforcing it in the other thread! :thumb) and have been having BALL playing around with it.

Also have been practicing AFing accurately with supershallow DOF to see if I can figure out my own way of guaranteeing it a bit more often (I love the look, but am frustrated by my low keeper rate when I do this).

In-house-model was sitting near the big windows in the LR and I grabbed a few just to play. This was the 50mm 1.4 at 1.4 and ISO 1600 - not shabby performance from either lens or camera... proving that "even" an xsi can look good at high ISO when you .... EXPOSE TO THE RIGHT!! :ivar

Elaine

Go Di-va, go Di-va!
Love this shot!

kidzmom

That is awesome that is is all "clicking" no pun intended of course, lol! I too have been feeling many more moments where it all seems to make sense. THis is a super cute shot! I love the shallow DOF and her expression is so genuine and fun A keeper for SURE! Just wondering about something though, because this happens to me a lot with my 50 mm at lowest aperture (for me 1.8 lucky YOU to have the 1.4). Anyway, I often only can get one eye in crystal focus. I noticed this happend to your shot too. Wondering what can be done about this...and WHY it happens. I did a bunch of extreme close ups with the baby the other day and managed to get a few with both of his eyes perfect. I'd love to be able to get that consistently. Is there a trick for this? On many of my shots I get just the dominant eye crisply (like in this shot). It usually happens when the face is at an angle and one of the eyes is more deeply seated. Congrats on going M.. and on getting the bigger picture! You GO! :ivar

D'Buggs

kidzmom wrote:

That is awesome that is is all "clicking" no pun intended of course, lol! I too have been feeling many more moments where it all seems to make sense. THis is a super cute shot! I love the shallow DOF and her expression is so genuine and fun A keeper for SURE! Just wondering about something though, because this happens to me a lot with my 50 mm at lowest aperture (for me 1.8 lucky YOU to have the 1.4). Anyway, I often only can get one eye in crystal focus. I noticed this happend to your shot too. Wondering what can be done about this...and WHY it happens. I did a bunch of extreme close ups with the baby the other day and managed to get a few with both of his eyes perfect. I'd love to be able to get that consistently. Is there a trick for this? On many of my shots I get just the dominant eye crisply (like in this shot). It usually happens when the face is at an angle and one of the eyes is more deeply seated. Congrats on going M.. and on getting the bigger picture! You GO! :ivar

Less angle or perhaps try a selective focus.


Good goin there Diva!
I like the shot too. :photo

Elaine

kidzmom wrote:

That is awesome that is is all "clicking" no pun intended of course, lol! I too have been feeling many more moments where it all seems to make sense. THis is a super cute shot! I love the shallow DOF and her expression is so genuine and fun A keeper for SURE! Just wondering about something though, because this happens to me a lot with my 50 mm at lowest aperture (for me 1.8 lucky YOU to have the 1.4). Anyway, I often only can get one eye in crystal focus. I noticed this happend to your shot too. Wondering what can be done about this...and WHY it happens. I did a bunch of extreme close ups with the baby the other day and managed to get a few with both of his eyes perfect. I'd love to be able to get that consistently. Is there a trick for this? On many of my shots I get just the dominant eye crisply (like in this shot). It usually happens when the face is at an angle and one of the eyes is more deeply seated. Congrats on going M.. and on getting the bigger picture! You GO! :ivar

Yep, you nailed it..."It usually happens when the face is at an angle and one of the eyes is more deeply seated." When shooting with wide apertures, especially up close, your Depth of Field is very narrow, sometimes paper thin. So, it doesn't take much for one eye to be a bit soft. I think the only ways to combat this are to make sure both eyes are on the same plane and therefore the same distance away from your camera, and/or shoot with a narrower aperture to increase the DOF. I personally don't usually mind it if one eye is a bit OOF, as long as the nearest one to the camera is nice and sharp.

It's kinda fun to play with a DOF calculator.
For instance, a 50mm lens at f/2.8 and four feet from the subject will only provide 2.4 inches in focus. F/2 at three feet provides less than 1 inch!

adbsgicom

Very cute shot, and her eye looks razor sharp! Very nice job!!

There was this thread under Technique that has been going on for a while about AF adjust (don't know if the Xsi has it or not). I noticed that my 50 is off by quite a bit so since it is actually a new lens, it is on its way back to Canon for calibration -- I had chalked things up to my inability and not the lens just being out of whack.

lilmomma

Nice job Diva...1600 can surpise you sometimes, huh?! I've noticed that recently too! I always thought that it was never even an option (on my level of camera)...but if the exposure is right it works wonderfully!

divamum

Thanks all!

By the way, as an addedum (in case it helps anybody else who may read this and is hesitating), one of the things that kept me from embracing full manual for so long is that in my mind I thought I needed to be able to see any given scene and immediately know what shutter/ap combo to give it, like old-time press photographers who would just pull an exposure out of thin air. I've often said, "I can't think of the numbers fast enough" but I now realise there's nothing to think about! Big fat . Really, the in-VF meter isn't that different from the -priority modes, except for that visual representation of where the "right" exposure is. I will also say that shooting manual is when you start to feel the limitations of a Rebel's handling - in -priority modes, it's great; in manual, without a 2nd dial, it's a pain since ap adjustment requires hold-button-with-thumb-then-turn-dial. I now can't WAIT till I get the rest of the savings built up for that 7d I'm planning!

@kidzmom - yup, very VERY shallow DOF - according to DOF master, I had about 1.25" of dof at 1.4/4ft. Yikes! It's extremely easy to "miss" and, even if the shutter is fast enough that you don't get typical visible camera shake, I'm beginning to think that sometimes minor motion might knock my focus point just off that sliver. I'm going to keep practicing though - I'm determined to get this more consistent if possible, because it's a look I love in portraits.

@Andrew - what's interesting is that according to Canon's software (which I used to check the focus points, since I was doing this as an exercise for myself), the AF was over her LEFT eye, ie, camera right. Even stranger, is that on magnification to 100%, they're both sharp even though they don't give that impression at full size. My guess is that the AF in fact focused on her eyelashes (which are super long) and there was just enough DOF to keep the eye behind them in the slice, and her head was angled just enough that the eyes were closer to being on the same plane with each other than we perceive, helped because I was above her and the camera tilted down slightly. There were several in the series and they were all sharp in the eyes, although which eye dominates varies, presumably due to minor momvent of her head (and my hands)! I don't THINK the lens is front-focusing although the xsi does not have mfaf, so I'll have to wait until the next body to know for sure. For now, I"m just pleased to be able to get it to do what I want more consistently; there weren't too many in this series that were tossers due to missed-focused-point, so I think it will be a case of practice makes perfect.....

Mitchell

Nice shot!

Expose to the right made sense to me when I read somewhere that the sensors detect most of their signal on the right. Hence, if you want to improve your signal:noise ratio (with higher ISO) you should push your exposure which allows you sensor to detect more signal.

This clicked for me with indoor volleyball shots played in a dungeon with no flash allowed.

divamum

Mitchell wrote:

Nice shot!

Expose to the right made sense to me when I read somewhere that the sensors detect most of their signal on the right. Hence, if you want to improve your signal:noise ratio (with higher ISO) you should push your exposure which allows you sensor to detect more signal.

Thanks Mitchell. I was thinking about your garage as I took these. Seems I may have found my own magic lighting spot, even though there it's not wonderfully bright, thus necessitating higher ISO than I'd like. Still, the effect of the diffused light through the large windows is similar

I've always understood ETTR as "expose as high as possible without overexposing" but the lightbulb moment these past few days is realising that it LITERALLY means moving the ticker to the right of the metering line. I still think this is at least partly a visual thing; Even with diopter adjustmentsI've always had trouble reading info in the VF, so have tended to ignore it because it was so difficult to make out the symbols. However, I think I've hit that ::cough:: "changing vision" point in my life and apparently there are some things I can see better now!!

RBrogen

Good for you Divamum. I like the shot. I know I had a heck of a time with that as well and I switched to shooting RAW - Manual Mode only about a year and a half ago and it really has forced me to learn the details of what the camera is doing so that I can get the exposure that I want for a particular image. You seem to have run into one of the things that pushed me into a 5D series with the need to efficiently control the 3 axis of light (shutter speed, ISO and f/stop). The 5D controls are laid out really nice. The other limitation I ran into was frames per sec...I was always waiting and missing shots and that was very frustrating.

craig_d

divamum wrote:

I've always understood ETTR as "expose as high as possible without overexposing" but the lightbulb moment these past few days is realising that it LITERALLY means moving the ticker to the right of the metering line.

What I find is that it is generally safe to spot-meter on the brightest thing in the image that you are not willing to blow out and then expose one stop or so above that (1.67 stops usually works). Whether this is actually the right thing to do or not depends on other factors, like whether you're trying to avoid motion blur, but purely from a digital exposure standpoint it seems to produce good results.

divamum

RBrogen wrote:

Good for you Divamum. I like the shot. I know I had a heck of a time with that as well and I switched to shooting RAW - Manual Mode only about a year and a half ago and it really has forced me to learn the details of what the camera is doing so that I can get the exposure that I want for a particular image. You seem to have run into one of the things that pushed me into a 5D series with the need to efficiently control the 3 axis of light (shutter speed, ISO and f/stop). The 5D controls are laid out really nice. The other limitation I ran into was frames per sec...I was always waiting and missing shots and that was very frustrating.

Sigh. Sadly, a 5d2 is not in my future.... I wish! In actuality, the only thing the Rebels are lacking for decent manual handling is the thumbwheel - I've missed it since my ElanIIe film camera, so the long-range goal has always been to get back up to that design. The 7d is the closest to my "wishlist" Canon have produced so far and I'm anticipating making a move to that in a few months; that said, maybe I'll get lucky and a 60d will appear between now and then that has the features I need without the price-raising ones I don't....

Thanks for the kind words! (Oh, and I've been shooting Raw for the last year.... I made that jump a while back, fortunately!)

divamum

craig_d wrote:

What I find is that it is generally safe to spot-meter on the brightest thing in the image that you are not willing to blow out and then expose one stop or so above that (1.67 stops usually works). Whether this is actually the right thing to do or not depends on other factors, like whether you're trying to avoid motion blur, but purely from a digital exposure standpoint it seems to produce good results.

I tend to spot-meter a lot anyway - I seem to find myself in high contrast situations fairly often, and I've always found the spot meter to be the most reliable indicator of what exposure SHOULD be, then I chimp and work from there (which has, in fact, been my previous method of shooting manual - meter in Av, then switch and tweak. But using the metering bar is so much easier! ~facepalm~ still can't believe it took me that long to clue into this )

jeffreaux2

Congrats on the grasp!!!


Its fun when we can finally make it to our own way of understanding a new concept in our art. Enjoy the buzz.


BUT!!!!


The heck with the in camera meter. Use it to get close....then set up your camera so that when you shoot....and the image pops up for a few seconds on your LCD it is accompanied by the histogram. Push THAT to the right ....and maybe a tad beyond if shooting RAW. Fine tune the black point in Lightroom.


.....yeah baby!!!

Scott_Quier

A couple of notes that may, or may not, be worth the time time it takes to read them:

• With the focus point used being indicated by the Canon software as being over MiniDiva's left eye, I would be concerned that your camera/lens combination is not quite as finely calibrated as it might be. Sadly, as the camera is without AF Microadjustment (that, all by itself is worth the price of admission to the 5DII/7D/50D club), there's not much to be done about it without sending both into Canon and paying them to calibrate them (and then, it's a crap-shoot as to whether the pair would come back better or worse). What you can do is perform some carefully controlled tests to determine the performance characteristics of that combination. Once you've done that, you will know how it will perform under most situtations and make allowances for that when you're shooting.
  
  
• Something else I've learned in my reading (and confirmed in practice) .... the camera AF in the xxxD/xxD/5D cameras only get's the focus close. The lens focus is moved from where ever it might be to where the contrast of the light/dark areas under the focus point is greatest. This means, since the AF doesn't, usually, reverse course when focusing, it has a tendency to over-shoot the critical focus by >< that much. If you then cause the camera to AF a second time, this is like a fine tuning. So, when I have the time, I've found that it's a good practice (especially when shooting at close distances) to do the AF twice ... my keeper rate (for focus issues) is much better using this technique.
  
  
• Pay attention to what Jeff's saying here. As usual, he knows what he's talking about. Use the light meter to get close, take a test shot and evaluate the histogram, make exposure adjustments as needed, and take the final shot. That works very well when you have the time, like you did here. It's also good to know how to read a scene and understand how your camera will meter it so you can make appropriate exposure adjustments before you take the shot. And it sounds like that's the direction you are heading in here. Fun ... ain't it?

divamum

jeffreaux2 wrote:

BUT!!!!


The heck with the in camera meter. Use it to get close....then set up your camera so that when you shoot....and the image pops up for a few seconds on your LCD it is accompanied by the histogram. Push THAT to the right ....and maybe a tad beyond if shooting RAW. Fine tune the black point in Lightroom.


.....yeah baby!!!

Thanks, Jeff. All points duly noted!! Will be adding that into the soup next. It's just so weird how this week these things that I've understood in theory but not practice suddenly made useable sense all at once. Let's hear it for lightbulbs!!

divamum

Scott_Quier wrote:

A couple of notes that may, or may not, be worth the time time it takes to read them:

• With the focus point used being indicated by the Canon software as being over MiniDiva's left eye, I would be concerned that your camera/lens combination is not quite as finely calibrated as it might be. Sadly, as the camera is without AF Microadjustment (that, all by itself is worth the price of admission to the 5DII/7D/50D club), there's not much to be done about it without sending both into Canon and paying them to calibrate them (and then, it's a crap-shoot as to whether the pair would come back better or worse). What you can do is perform some carefully controlled tests to determine the performance characteristics of that combination. Once you've done that, you will know how it will perform under most situtations and make allowances for that when you're shooting.
• Something else I've learned in my reading (and confirmed in practice) .... the camera AF in the xxxD/xxD/5D cameras only get's the focus close. The lens focus is moved from where ever it might be to where the contrast of the light/dark areas under the focus point is greatest. This means, since the AF doesn't, usually, reverse course when focusing, it has a tendency to over-shoot the critical focus by >< that much. If you then cause the camera to AF a second time, this is like a fine tuning. So, when I have the time, I've found that it's a good practice (especially when shooting at close distances) to do the AF twice ... my keeper rate (for focus issues) is much better using this technique.
• Pay attention to what Jeff's saying here. As usual, he knows what he's talking about. Use the light meter to get close, take a test shot and evaluate the histogram, make exposure adjustments as needed, and take the final shot. That works very well when you have the time, like you did here. It's also good to know how to read a scene and understand how your camera will meter it so you can make appropriate exposure adjustments before you take the shot. And it sounds like that's the direction you are heading in here. Fun ... ain't it?

Thanks Scott! Yes, I too was surprised by the focus but, as I say, in a 100% blowup both eyes look acceptably sharp; I suspect your "almost accurate" theory plays into it all, and I'll for sure be trying your double-focusing technique <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/thumb.gif&quot; border="0" alt="" > I'm not sure it's worth a calibration trip at this point, especially since I'm planning to get a new body as soon as I can - I have to say I can't WAIT to get afma so I can tweak any given combo for those specific units - will be very nice. I will be doing a more controlled test on the 50mm at some point, however - I'm pretty happy with the results it's giving me (although I have to say that I think the 1.8 was actually sharper, just less responsive) but never hurts to look at it more scientifically.

Thanks!