|
Post by TrainboySD40-2 on Mar 11, 2007 19:27:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by RR Redneck on Mar 12, 2007 9:38:51 GMT -5
I love the black and whites and that whitetail doe makes me yearn for deer season.
|
|
|
Post by lotus098 on Mar 13, 2007 21:53:01 GMT -5
Sure makes me want to try some night shots. Good work. I do have a couple questiong though. How do you meter the snow shots? Normally if you meter your exposure off the snow if will turn it gray. In you pictures it's nice and white? And how do you decide your settings on the night shots?
|
|
|
Post by TrainboySD40-2 on Mar 14, 2007 19:23:50 GMT -5
For night shots, my digital camera's lightmeter goes up to about where the quality ends....but for night shots with film, I bracket my exposures! I usually shoot somewhere between 2 minutes and half an hour. As for metering off snow, I don't. I try to find something that's fairly average reflection wise, and if I'm using digital, I double-check. If there's nothing, I throw my coat down and meter off it, and compensate an f-stop or two because of how dark it is... And remember. if you botch it a bit, photoshop is your friend
|
|
|
Post by lotus098 on Mar 14, 2007 20:34:34 GMT -5
I was just curious if it's a sunny day I know you can use the sky. And I printed my own gray card that I carry around if I get real desperate.
|
|
|
Post by TrainboySD40-2 on Mar 14, 2007 20:48:28 GMT -5
No, NEVER meter off the sky! Back when I was taking my first manual photos in the summer of 2004, I took my first few pictures metered off the sky...waaay underexposed. Plus, I missed a really good shot of some BN GP38-2s by being on the wrong side of the tracks where I could have easily gotten to the sunny side...
|
|
|
Post by lotus098 on Mar 15, 2007 0:04:44 GMT -5
For me it has worked every time it's tried. PLUS. It's the recommended way of doing it according to the book Understanding Exposure. Here are some of the shots done that way, it gives the sky a very rich blue, but nothing that could be considered way underexposed. I do all the shots I can that way. The adjustments on my old camera are in full stops only. So in some cases the light meter reading on the sky doesn't vary by enough from the one of the object anyways.
|
|
|
Post by TrainboySD40-2 on Mar 15, 2007 0:50:57 GMT -5
That's actually quite interesting, because in my experience metering from the sky is invariably at least two stops underexposed....
|
|
|
Post by lotus098 on Mar 15, 2007 9:05:55 GMT -5
What part of the sky did you use? I meter the section right above the object I want a picture of. I have also noticed that it doesn't work when it's cloudy. Another cool trick is to get yourself a gray card, but you don't have to carry it with you. You can meter the card, then meter your hand and look at the difference. Then you merely put you hand in front of the camera, not too close, adjust a couple of stops and you know your settings. So what kind of digital are you using anyways? ------------------------------- Here's my favorite example for metering off the sky.
|
|
|
Post by RR Redneck on Mar 15, 2007 21:39:52 GMT -5
I like that derailed tanker.
|
|
|
Post by lotus098 on Mar 15, 2007 22:34:16 GMT -5
That was interesting, I had heard about it on the news the day before I got the picture. When I got there the next day you would have never know it had happened if it hadn't been for the tanker sitting there; if you looked you could see where the track had been repaired. You can see the truck in the foreground is pretty twisted.
|
|
|
Post by RR Redneck on Mar 16, 2007 10:55:15 GMT -5
Wait, that was a truck?
|
|
|
Post by lotus098 on Mar 16, 2007 19:14:19 GMT -5
The truck that goes to the tank car is sitting in the grass on the left side of the photo.
|
|
|
Post by RR Redneck on Mar 16, 2007 21:57:38 GMT -5
Och.
|
|
|
Post by sledgehammer on Mar 25, 2007 6:40:32 GMT -5
Nice shots
|
|