Exposure and WB ~

[ConradM]

Was just looking at this thread and it reminded me of how awesome Sony's are. :mrgreen:

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...-light-meter-expose-properly-help-please.html

I didn't realize for quite some time that people with OVF's actually have to figure out and or guess at Exposure and WB....

 

[Ysarex]

Edit: I just looked up the SLT-A33 specs. You're chimping an EVF for exposure and WB and you consider that an advantage?!

 

[AlexanderB]

OVF days are numbered, it's for sure.

 

[ConradM]

Edit: I just looked up the SLT-A33 specs. You're chimping an EVF for exposure and WB and you consider that an advantage?!

Hmm... You call shooting in real time "chimping"? I thought chimping was when you take a shot then check the histogram after...

 

[Ysarex]

Edit: I just looked up the SLT-A33 specs. You're chimping an EVF for exposure and WB and you consider that an advantage?!

Hmm... You call shooting in real time "chimping"? I thought chimping was when you take a shot then check the histogram after...

I don't know your camera well, but if the EVF is an unprocessed and entirely unmodified translation of the image through the lens then I'll buy that it's real time. In that case it's just a poorer quality version of an OVF and gives you no advantage relative to exposure and WB. On the other hand, if that EVF is in any way processed by software in the camera then the delay, however slight, that it takes to complete that processing means you're chimping. To me chimping means you're examining an already processed image.

Joe

 

[The_Traveler]

One of the major advantages of EVF, imo, is particularly when the lighting is difficult and variable is that you see the exposure and any exposure compensation in the EVF.
It's real WYSIWYG.

 

[Kolia]

Only messes up one eye ! Lol (A post vanished here !)

EVF processing delay with no mirror to move up vs OVF instantly showing what's in the frame before you start moving your mirror up ? Either type, you need to anticipate the timing because your nerves cannot transmit the signal to your finger in time to catch what you see.

I do not miss my OVF from older film cameras.

 

[The_Traveler]

If I shot landscape or nature, I would probably stick with the OVF, large bodied, FF cameras, just for that last bit of IQ.
But, AFAIK, that stuff is over.

 

[ConradM]

Edit: I just looked up the SLT-A33 specs. You're chimping an EVF for exposure and WB and you consider that an advantage?!

Hmm... You call shooting in real time "chimping"? I thought chimping was when you take a shot then check the histogram after...

I don't know your camera well, but if the EVF is an unprocessed and entirely unmodified translation of the image through the lens then I'll buy that it's real time. In that case it's just a poorer quality version of an OVF and gives you no advantage relative to exposure and WB. On the other hand, if that EVF is in any way processed by software in the camera then the delay, however slight, that it takes to complete that processing means you're chimping. To me chimping means you're examining an already processed image.

Joe

I guess you can label it however you want... But the fact remains, when I look through the viewfinder, I see what the picture is going to look like before I press the shutter button.

On a related note... I couldn't figure out what gray cards were for when I registered here, then I realized it's because they would be of no use to me.

 

[Ysarex]

Hmm... You call shooting in real time "chimping"? I thought chimping was when you take a shot then check the histogram after...

I don't know your camera well, but if the EVF is an unprocessed and entirely unmodified translation of the image through the lens then I'll buy that it's real time. In that case it's just a poorer quality version of an OVF and gives you no advantage relative to exposure and WB. On the other hand, if that EVF is in any way processed by software in the camera then the delay, however slight, that it takes to complete that processing means you're chimping. To me chimping means you're examining an already processed image.

Joe

I guess you can label it however you want... But the fact remains, when I look through the viewfinder, I see what the picture is going to look like before I press the shutter button.

No you don't. You see the photo as it will be interpreted by the processing software in your camera. That's a critical distinction.

Joe

 

[Kolia]

No you don't. You see the photo as it will be interpreted by the processing software in your camera. That's a critical distinction.

Joe

You've admitted yourself you don't' have EVF experience. How can you argue that point ?

The EVF on the Sony camera will display WB and exposure as it will look on the RAW file. And can also display the effects selected that will be output to JPEG if you want.

Having an histogram always available is also neat.

 

[Ysarex]

No you don't. You see the photo as it will be interpreted by the processing software in your camera. That's a critical distinction.

Joe

You've admitted yourself you don't' have EVF experience. How can you argue that point ?

I said I wasn't familiar with the A33, not that I don't have EVF experience.

The EVF on the Sony camera will display WB and exposure as it will look on the RAW file.

It most certainly will not -- not possible.

And can also display the effects selected that will be output to JPEG if you want.

That I'll believe.

Having an histogram always available is also neat.

All my cameras have histograms available whether they're EVF or not. Just like the LCD/EVF image that histogram is generated by the camera processing software and represents that software's interpretation of the image.

--------------------------------------------

I took a quick look at the A33 manual. The EVF displays a software processed image just like the image you get from a typical camera LCD. So using that camera is like using a typical P&S with a back LCD (like my compact for example). No big deal as long as you understand that you're seeing an image interpreted by the camera software. I like using my compact camera and I've adapted to it just fine -- I know what it's doing and I remain in control. What I don't do is use the camera's LCD to chimp exposure; that's too limiting a methodology. In the original post the OP is boasting that being able to chimp exposure off the A33's EVF is an advantage. I don't think so.

Joe

 

[Kolia]

More information sooner is certainly not a bad thing.

You realize that the RAW file your camera creates is also an interpretation of what was actually in front of you. The camera made an educated decision when assigning colors to each pixels. The picture you saw in your view finder, you will never see it exactly rendered the same.

Why do you say it is impossible to get real time WB and exposure with my EVF equipped camera ? What is it that I'm seeing when I'm setting my WB manually and the color changes ? Or when the image gets brighter when I increase the exposure ?

Is it cheating to preview our own images ? Whatever the answer, I don't care, I want a good picture now. Because the moment to capture is now. WB is pretty much irrelevant since I can adjust the raw file. Exposure on the other hand, it has to be right. Or close to right.

The EVF helps with selecting your correct exposure. It also permits a return to manual focusing by highlighting sharp contours over the whole image. Not just at focus points. I like that too.

 

[Ysarex]

More information sooner is certainly not a bad thing.

In today's world of info-glut what counts is your ability to separate out the useful, important info from the worthless and misleading info.

You realize that the RAW file your camera creates is also an interpretation of what was actually in front of you.

No, the raw file is what the sensor actually physically records. It has it's physical limits but it is not an interpretation and most especially not a software interpretation.

The camera made an educated decision when assigning colors to each pixels.

No, a raw file is not demosaiced and individual pixel color is not yet assigned.

The picture you saw in your view finder, you will never see it exactly rendered the same.

Why do you say it is impossible to get real time WB and exposure with my EVF equipped camera ?

I didn't say that. I said you're not getting it from the EVF. I'm more concerned about exposure here than WB. A raw file has no WB, it's determined during conversion. Your EVF will show you the WB that you'll get in a camera JPEG and if you set a custom WB it will show you that. Here's the important point: The EVF will only show you the exposure after processing. What you see in terms of exposure is the result of the camera's metering system plus the camera's software processing engine.

What is it that I'm seeing when I'm setting my WB manually and the color changes ? Or when the image gets brighter when I increase the exposure ?

If you use a preset or custom WB then the EVF is showing you that WB, but remember it has no effect whatsoever on the raw file. More importantly when you alter exposure to increase or decrease brightness you're seeing the camera's processing software's interpretation of the exposure and not what the raw file would actually record.

Is it cheating to preview our own images ?

It would be nice if you could, but the only thing you can preview is what the software in the camera is going to produce. There is no facility at this point to visually preview what the camera sensor will in fact record as a raw file.

This ultimately breaks down into: are you recording and using the raw capture capacity of your camera or are you shooting SOOC JPEGs and relying on the camera's JPEG processor. Sony cameras are equipped with Sony's Bionz image processor. The EVF in a Sony camera will show you what the Bionz processor is going to do with the sensor raw data. If you can't do any better, then the output from that Bionz processor determines the limits of what you can photograph. With access to the raw data from the sensor in a Sony camera it's possible to do much better than the Bionz processor. In which case the info you're getting from the EVF isn't all that valuable -- it's questionable information.

Whatever the answer, I don't care, I want a good picture now. Because the moment to capture is now. WB is pretty much irrelevant since I can adjust the raw file. Exposure on the other hand, it has to be right. Or close to right.

The EVF helps with selecting your correct exposure.

Yes, exposure has to be right. And here it is: Since the EVF shows you only what the Bionz processor thinks is the appropriate way to handle the exposure, it does not show you the actual exposure of the sensor that will be recorded in the raw file. And that's my point. Why chimp exposure based on what a collection of software algorithms spit out when it's possible to be more accurate and do a better job?

It also permits a return to manual focusing by highlighting sharp contours over the whole image. Not just at focus points. I like that too.

-----------------------------------

Let's do an example. If you have an easy shot -- easy lighting contrast and a single color (light) source, the camera processing software will do a fair job and relying on the EVF will get you both a good raw file exposure and useable JPEG. It's when the going gets tough that the photographers get separated from the fauxtographers. Here's a camera JPEG from a photo I took. This is what the software in my camera did with the photo:



This is a real high contrast image. The contrast range between the sky in the background and the water and reeds in the foreground is way beyond average. The foreground is my point of focus and my subject and I was standing on a weathered wood boardwalk. I pointed the camera at the boardwalk in front of me and pressed the AEL button to get this exposure. Looking through the EVF on a Sony A33 you'd see the above image. Would you then assess that to be a near perfect exposure? Or would you think it's overexposed and then reduce the exposure? There was a blue sky; do you see a blue sky there or is it overexposed? That exposure is just a 1/2 stop short of clipping the highlights in the raw file -- f***ing nailed it!

Standing there I of course saw the color in the sky and the thin clouds just above the horizon. You wouldn't see that in your EVF unless you reduced the exposure. But reducing the exposure would be a huge mistake. The foreground is the subject; it's the darkest part of the scene and needs as much exposure as possible. I gave it that and I would have ignored the EVF in my A33 if that's what I was using. I saw this photo and I took this photo:



I saw the color in the sky (and yes through my OVF) and I saw those thin clouds and I knew the sensor in my camera would capture those clouds and that color at the exposure I set. Your Sony EVF would have told you the sky was overexposed. I would have known better.

Joe

 

[Stevepwns]

The only thing the EVF does is let you see what the picture will look like before you hit the shutter. It is a JPEG representation, but you still have to learn to interpret what you are looking at. The A33 isnt the best example of how this benefits you, as it is the entry level model and in no way is the best implementation of the this new technology. The higher end models give you a better EVF and better sensor combining for an easier experience and better overall implementation of the idea of an EVF. I can adjust aperture, ISO, exposure time, WB and focus all independently of the next and see exactly what the changes to picture will be at each increment. It is still up to me to determine what needs to be changed and how much to create the best possible shot. Where people make the mistake with Sonys is on the meter, whether it be center weighted, overall average or spot. You cant simply look at the light meter and decide its going to be a perfect picture, you still have to have a clue. What The EVF does, is for people that are new to the art, is give them an example and allows them to make needed changes before the shutter is tripped. It helped me a lot before I understood what each change does to a image. I still use it and enjoy the advantage.

The idea that you don't need to understand what you are doing to produce perfect pictures just because you can see it in real time is ridiculous. You still have to know what you are looking at and what you are doing, it doesn't do it for you. If your eye isnt trained to understand what you are looking at, you arent going to take good pictures.