[nilanjanray]

Originally Posted by architect

Actually, I don't see it at as a 'counter point'.

What you are saying is that modern sensors allow you to pull up shadows so you can shoot according to the brightest and post-process.

What Ansel Adam's zone system says is that you define zones...

So, the post-processing you intend to do in photoshop is similar to the pulling / pushing of the negatives.

You are practising the zone system without realising it. It is not complex and you have been using it.

Another point: everybody is not using 'Exmor' sensors.

Thanks for the lucid post, I am sure will help many.

I was arguing about how deep one needs to go, not about the basics. I do know about the zone system at this basic level e.g.: http://clickitupanotch.com/2013/01/z...em-the-basics/
And use the concept, knowingly, not unknowingly, given the sensor and metering capabilities . I would shoot a little differently with a D7100 (my camera) vs a rented D810, given the latter's capabilities. One can't pull up shadows with a D7100 too much, leads to banding. Here is what I would do - I would quickly take a couple of shots, see if what I am getting is what I wanted (keeping the post processed, end photo in mind), and make appropriate adjustments. Takes a few seconds.

Note: If I were a landscape or portrait or street shooter, I would do a deeper dive (theory and practice). I am a wildlife (occasional landscape) shooter, so I do deeper dives into AF and other areas.

And yes, based on what you have (pluses and limitations), you need to use appropriate techniques to get the shot you want.

Originally Posted by Samurai

I do use the zone system when lighting is challenging. During car reviews, sometimes we end up shooting a black car in harsh sun. Normal tendency is to underexpose... but I knew to overexpose thanks to the understanding of zone system. I shot the following with +1 EV to get the true color of the black car.

https://www.team-bhp.com/carpics/Hyu...-sonata-13.jpg

The rule appears to be same for both digital and film. The most advanced expert I know (Rudra Sen), says you need to underexpose even for digital shots. It is easier to recover from shadows than whiteout. I have found it to be true.

Samurai, Architect was talking about ETTR - maximizing signal to noise ratio while retaining important data. FRom DPReview:
"we have seen that there is nevertheless a fully valid justification for ETTR provided by signal-to-noise. What makes ETTR effective, then, is not added data detail and gradations, but rather the fact that the larger the actual exposure, the higher the signal-to-noise, and the higher the signal-to-noise, the better the resulting IQ (presuming, of course, the data are properly processed). And therefore the best potential IQ comes from capturing the scene on the sensor with the largest possible amount of light, the highest actual exposure the sensor can accommodate, i.e., ETTR."
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/664...ettr-exposed/2

The previous page on the DPReview article has a few examples.

So, if shooting RAW - as long as one is not blowing the highlights, one should aim for maximum exposure - one has more leeway when processing a RAW file.

[NetfreakBombay]

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/About-Nik...rsatility.html

Awesome new lens from Nikon.

1. 16- 80 mm, Wide Angle to Almost ideal Portrait length
2. F2.8 aperture throughout the length

[condor]

NetfreakBombay : http://www.nikonusa.com/en/About-Nikon/Press-Room/Press-Release/ibhog81l/An-Everyday-Lens-That's-Anything-But-Ordinary%3A-The-AF-S-DX-NIKKOR-16-80mm-f%252F2.8-4E-ED-VR-Lens-Offers-Advanced-Photographers-Powerful-Versatility.html

Awesome new lens from Nikon.

1. 16- 80 mm, Wide Angle to Almost ideal Portrait length
2. F2.8 aperture throughout the length

It is not a fixed aperture, but a a F2.8 - 4.

The previous iteration of this one, the 16-85 F3.5-5.6 VR wasnt very popular, though sharp. The new version is a little shorter, but faster. And it is still a DX. I dont see much happening with this one either. The one shortcoming of the older lens was the bad bokeh. Hopefully, this version sees an improvement.

[architect]

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

Thanks for the lucid post, I am sure will help many.

I was arguing about how deep one needs to go, not about the basics...

A basic working knowledge of these principles is good to have for 'advanced amateurs' That's how I feel. Of course, its a personal choice.

E.g. If I know that each stop is "twice" the exposure of the previous one, or say, about the inverse square law of lighting, then it allows us to understand how to 'adjust' exposure quickly or how much flash power is required. Most importantly it allows us to understand the tonality, the general illuminance or the contrast of the scene in front of us. It is slow progress in the beginning but speeds up later. An old trick is to meter your hand vis-a-vis a grey card and always know how many stops + or - your hand is. Then you always have your 18% grey card (adjusted to your complexion) with you!

Originally Posted by Samurai

During car reviews, sometimes we end up shooting a black car in harsh sun. Normal tendency is to underexpose...
https://www.team-bhp.com/carpics/Hyu...-sonata-13.jpg

Here is what I understand I would do for this shot (a lovely, well exposed shot, BTW):

1. Matrix / Evaluative metering: black car will dominate the frame and photo will overexpose. You have to add exposure compensation accordingly.

2. Spot metering (using '0') on car might also overexpose as black bonnet is definitely darker than zone V (18% grey).

3. We analyse the scene and realise that brightest spot is some of the highlights on the headlamps and the white sticker on the windshield. Darkest is the part of the bumper under shadow below the number plate. We can probably afford to lose details in both areas.

4. You check the spot metering in the interiors of the car and some of the large parts of the car which are dark. You also check for the sky and some reflections in the water. Adjust to retain detail in both areas.

5. You shoot.

6. You can also by-pass all the above and shoot by bracketing...

7. Or by using exposure compensation based out of experience.

By all these (and other) ways one can reach the same results. Up to 2 stops of correction can easily be dialed in while doing post-processing.

please correct me if I am wrong anywhere in the above.

Zone has been terribly criticised for being slow and tedious and irrelevant as well. So if you can achieve without it, equally great.

Originally Posted by Samurai

The most advanced expert I know (Rudra Sen), says you need to underexpose even for digital shots. It is easier to recover from shadows than whiteout. I have found it to be true.

Like nilanjan mentioned, ETTR is about capturing maximum information on the right hand side of the histogram (zone V, VI, VII) because of better signal to noise ratio (but keeping highlights from blowing). One can adjust exposure later according to creative requirements (i.e.reduce if photo is overexposed). One can call ETTR as "always over-expose as much as possible without losing highlights, then adjust in processing". It is also a subtle application of zone by trying to retain as much detail as possible.

[Aroy]

My experience has been that at least for my Nikon D3300, is that, when shooting RAW, there is at least 1 stop buffer for white highlights. When viewing in post, the reds may seem to be extremely over exposed, but that (in my experience) is due to colour balancing algorithms which boost red, and you can easily recover upto 2 stops of over exposed red.

As the sensor in my case gives 12 bit RAW and only 8 bits are displayed, you can recover upto 4 stops of shadows easily. So in effect if you meter for highlights, you can definitely get the darker details easily. In case of FF sensors - D750 and D8xx you have another stop of DR and 2 bits (14) in RAW, so even deeper shadows get recovered.

For shooting cars, I use a polarizing filter and rotate it till objectionable reflections are subdued (they rarely disappear), meter for highlights and then process RAW files to balance the highlights and the darker regions.

[nilanjanray]

Originally Posted by architect

Here is what I understand I would do for this shot

There are many ways to do something. WHat would you use, and why? :-)

Originally Posted by Aroy

As the sensor in my case gives 12 bit RAW and only 8 bits are displayed, you can recover upto 4 stops of shadows easily. So in effect if you meter for highlights, you can definitely get the darker details easily. In case of FF sensors - D750 and D8xx you have another stop of DR and 2 bits (14) in RAW, so even deeper shadows get recovered.

D7xxx series allows you to shoot 14 bit RAW.

IQ after shadow pulling also depends on the sensor. With the D7100, banding appears if I pull shadows from low exposure shots. It seems that the new D7200 is far better in that regard.

I had a tough time processing this leopard shot from Satpura. ISO 3200, 360mm (540 mm equiv), handheld at 1/40s. Shot with a D7100 at 6.51 PM. I would have had more leeway to use a higher shutter speed if the sensor were better regarding ISO invariance.

SOOC - jpeg from RAW


After some pp


And yes, as I keep arguing, sensors are getting better, it is easier to take certain shots nowadays. Your D3300 has a very nice sensor.

[Aroy]

The sensor has a fixed DR (dynamic range). All that you are doing by upping the ISO is to amplify the low signal in camera, in effect you are decreasing the DR by using the lower parts of the DR.

So, pulling out shadows works best at lower ISO. As you up the ISO, the DR goes down. As per DXO, the DR at ISO 100 is 13.72, at 1600, 10.71 and at 3200 10.09. So if you could pull out shadows at -5EV at ISO 100, you will be able to pull out only -2EV (for the same noise). That means that at higher ISO you have to be spot on in your exposure. The Nikon FF sensors have at least a couple of stops of DR at higher ISO compared to DX sensors. So if you have to shoot at higher ISO, an FF sensor is your best bet,

[nilanjanray]

Originally Posted by Aroy

The sensor has a fixed DR (dynamic range). All that you are doing by upping the ISO is to amplify the low signal in camera, in effect you are decreasing the DR by using the lower parts of the DR.

So, pulling out shadows works best at lower ISO. As you up the ISO, the DR goes down. As per DXO, the DR at ISO 100 is 13.72, at 1600, 10.71 and at 3200 10.09. So if you could pull out shadows at -5EV at ISO 100, you will be able to pull out only -2EV (for the same noise). That means that at higher ISO you have to be spot on in your exposure. The Nikon FF sensors have at least a couple of stops of DR at higher ISO compared to DX sensors. So if you have to shoot at higher ISO, an FF sensor is your best bet,

I know that.

I was already shooting at ISO 3200 with a cropped sensor. And at 1/40s at a long focal length. I was talking about a challenging field situation, and impact of sensor characteristic. Not of theoritical situations. But even at ISO 100, the Toshiba sensor of the D7100 is not that good (relatively speaking) at pulling shadows.

When shooting wildlife one doesn't have the luxury of doing many things. It's a matter of optimization given the constraints.

[NetfreakBombay]

Originally Posted by condor

It is not a fixed aperture, but a a F2.8 - 4.

The one shortcoming of the older lens was the bad bokeh. Hopefully, this version sees an improvement.

Hope newer one does better with wider aperture. Basically looking for a lens that I can keep with DSLR all the time.

[condor]

@NFB, If you dont mind the range, then it will be a nice lens to have. Like the 16-85, the new 16-80 would be very nicely balanced on the newer DSLRs like the D5xxx & D3xxx series.

As per the info provided by Nikon, the aperture blades have been changed and bokeh has improved.


p.s: I moved from the 16-85 to a 24-120 F4 recently, for my D5200

[NetfreakBombay]

Originally Posted by condor

@NFB, If you dont mind the range, then it will be a nice lens to have.

I am primarily looking to replace 18-55mm kit lens (have 70-300 VR for other uses).

Originally Posted by condor

p.s: I moved from the 16-85 to a 24-120 F4 recently, for my D5200

Do you feel need for wider lens ? 24 would be ~35 mm on DX.

[condor]

Originally Posted by NetfreakBombay

Do you feel need for wider lens ? 24 would be ~35 mm on DX.

I can understand your points ! When I went for the 16-85, my logic was that the 16-85 can be paired with a 70-300 to give a good range overall. If you currently have a 18-55 & a 70-300, then replacing the 18-55 with a 16-85 may work just right for you. You would not really need anything wider than 16mm (see last point below).

When I got my first DSLR, I had got the 24-120 f3.5-5.6 (no VR) (first gen) and a 70-300. What I found was that I rarely used the 70-300. Pretty much all I shot was with the 24-120.

So when I got the d5200, I tried the 16-85. The 16mm end was a boon. But I frequently wanted something more than 85. That is the reason I went in for the 24-120. I had no immediate plans for a 70-300 though.

Regarding the need for something wider, I have also picked up a used Sigma 10-20mm f3.5-5.6. This helps me when I want something wider. But more often than not, the 24-120 is sufficient. Like the experienced guys will tell you, the 10-20 has a different approach to be used. It is not just about going wide. I am working on that ..

[sachinj12]

Guys, a quick question. I will be relocating to Chicago this September and I plan to carry my entire gear with me (a body, 3 lenses and a flash). Should I be buying a dehumidifier box once I land there? A dry cabinet might not be feasible at this point for me. Or should I just continue doing what I am doing here- an air tight box with lot of silica packets?

[nilanjanray]

Finally took the plunge, and signed up for the 30 day trial version of Adobe Creative Cloud (LightRoom + Photoshop). Now need to figure out how they work, the pros and cons, and see how they fit within my workflow (which is currently Capture NX2 + GIMP based).

[R2D2]

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

Finally took the plunge, and signed up for the 30 day trial version of Adobe Creative Cloud (LightRoom + Photoshop). Now need to figure out how they work, the pros and cons, and see how they fit within my workflow (which is currently Capture NX2 + GIMP based).

I have gone back to my copy of PS 6 Extended and LR 5 The ever evolving PS CC is seriously overkill for me. That said, PS CC wont disappoint you in terms of performance and features.