Wow, I didn't expect this thread to grow so quickly.

To answer one of the posts, I didn't say anything against using auto modes. I use the flash off auto mode all the time when I just want to chill and take photos really quickly, with relative accuracy. Sometimes I just don't have time to dial in settings.

1st let me say hello to all and now to surprise some.
I am in my final year studying a photography degree here in Scotland and would prob never even use an automatic mode as manual manual manual has been drummed into me by my tutors, until 2 days ago I couldnt have even told you how to put my d300 or my f100 into a P mode( gf wanted to take pics of our cat). The results were not to bad but for me i would have over ruled the camera by abt 1 stop and used a custom white balance. Auto modes can give you good results but your brain is still the best auto mode.
Now for the upsetting bit girl in my class mummy and daddy just forked out for a canon 5d mark II and 24-70 plus a 70 -200 f2.8 and can we all guess what mode she shoots in ? Yup you got it P Almost 5K of point and shoot.
On the upside her overall grade last year she just scrapped a C. As no matter what your gear is or what mode you shoot in when it comes down to brass tacks you still choose how and when to frame and press shutter.

Now that was a long first ever post eh lol
regards H

Can't imagine what being an issue on the D700? Exposing left being noisier than exposing right? If that is what you mean it is objectively just as true on the D700 as it was on the D100. Subjectively you're quickly moving out of the range of visibility, especially if you use any of the "better" noise-reduction routines (than what Nikon gives us) - neatimage for example does better, IMHO, than Nikon and maybe even better than Lightroom / Photoshop. (I say maybe as I've been using it so long perhaps I'm just more used to its "look")

Can't imagine what being an issue on the D700? Exposing left being noisier than exposing right? If that is what you mean it is objectively just as true on the D700 as it was on the D100. Subjectively you're quickly moving out of the range of visibility, especially if you use any of the "better" noise-reduction routines (than what Nikon gives us) - neatimage.com for example does better, IMHO, than Nikon and maybe even better than Lightroom / Photoshop. (I say maybe as I've been using it so long perhaps I'm just more used to its "look")

Can't imagine what being an issue on the D700? Exposing left being noisier than exposing right? If that is what you mean it is objectively just as true on the D700 as it was on the D100. Subjectively you're quickly moving out of the range of visibility, especially if you use any of the "better" noise-reduction routines (than what Nikon gives us) - http://www.neatimage.com for example does better, IMHO, than Nikon and maybe even better than Lightroom / Photoshop. (I say maybe as I've been using it so long perhaps I'm just more used to its "look")

Can't imagine what being an issue on the D700? Exposing left being noisier than exposing right? If that is what you mean it is objectively just as true on the D700 as it was on the D100. Subjectively you're quickly moving out of the range of visibility, especially if you use any of the "better" noise-reduction routines (than what Nikon gives us) - http://www.neatimage.com/ for example does better, IMHO, than Nikon and maybe even better than Lightroom / Photoshop. (I say maybe as I've been using it so long perhaps I'm just more used to its "look")

@soap, sorry missed earlier posts, I sometimes adjust the shutter speed for artistic effect, but largely to compensate for blur. . .your exposure points are interesting, and I have seen that cranking my ISO to 1600 in certain situations, despite the noise, usually cleans up better than keeping the ISO low, lowering the f-stop, and cranking up the shutter speed. . .I guess it depends on what I'm going for when. . .

I just can't imagine this being an issue for me with a D700. . .or maybe I'm wrong?!

If you read the expose to the right page, they demonstrate opposite is the case.

@ soap : I dont exactly remember all the logic for underexposing.. but I think it has something to do with the exponential nature of the way light is measured. ie 1 ev = 2x and 2 ev = 4x ... etc. while the sensor sensitivity is more linear so there is more "space" at the lower/darker end for the sensor to record details. Nope ..sorry no links that I can remember..

@ Bmxdad : Cool! yeah, I forgot about that... When I get my D400 I will need to set them up... 8-)

heartyfisher: On the D300 you can upload profiles, 4 at the time. I usually use portrait setting on mine, I have found many other on-line but could get none of them to work on camera. I think one was called Fuji Velvia

Have any of you worked with HDR programs???

Pete

heartyfisher - the S5's hybrid sensor is a beast of another feather - so I can grok that quickly (Though I would expect exposing to the right to still work).

For ANY sensor, though (for both the reasons I cited before), underexposing equaling better noise profile makes no sense to me - do you have something I could read on this subject - I'm curious what's going on. Regardless of the native dynamic range of a sensor, "wasting" any of it by leaving parts of your limited range unused seems counterproductive so long as PC side formats have more potential dynamic range than the cameras.

Soap: This is why I use manual for night scenes

to close down my aperture to get bright points a star effect

to have long exposures that show movement

Overall I just find it easier to start with certain camera setting work with my playback

Anyway check my pictures I will add some night shots

Pete

Oh come on, threads go off topic on every forum, its just that one some forums people are afraid of it as if it were the eighth deadly sin as MODs are more than happy to wield their banhammer.
I think that a little off topic never hurt anyone, it is the nature of conversations.

For me I am lazy.. If I had a D3(s?) I would stick my 18-200vr on it. use it in P mode. !! :-) LOL
(Would be great for general low light shots).. Still I would go manual for panoramas etc..

Yes there is a fair gap in knowledge between a casual user and technicaly capable user.. but thats the same with all fields. I dont change the oil in my car I take it to the garage even though I could probably strip a car down and re-bore the cylinders, change the gaskets and piston rings. I just am not interested.

@Soap: Cool idea !! RE: 2 polarising filters! OK I am off to get my second one this weekend !!

@all: This is the weirdest forum. Almost no thread stays on topic !! LOL.. I really like that we meander around comfortably like old friends chatting on a varanda sipping a brew as the sun sets. :-)

About "pushing" or "pulling" it depends on the sensor. With Fuji S5 sensor you can overexpose quite a bit and still pull back detail. With the Sony sensors its better to underexpose. The best (extreme) example is here .. http://www.flickr.com/photos/carpeicthus/450812330/ (appologies for those who have seen this before.. its quite well known..) ( Yeah, I love my S5pro )

re the modes.. Sports mode or Flower mode is not just 1/500. Its a bit smarter that that. If I had a D90 I would use those modes.. wish they were on the D300S class of cameras. These modes tweek the saturation and auto iso settings a well as the Auto WB and shutter release(continous mode) and autofocus settings, in camera sharpening etc.... That's why I always advocate a new keen photographer to get that class(D90) of cameras and learn to duplicate those modes manually.

Ok I think I am uptodate .. :-) time to go to sleep .. :-)

That's why I'm afraid of them!

Oh, and we got far off-topic a while back, I think on this post: http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=672&page=2#post-9673 . Partly my fault for encouraging it.

Dude, a polarizer is like crack. Once you try it you'll be hooked.
;)

(far enough off-topic yet?) ;)

Nope. Don't have one of those either. I don't want to purchase any filters because I know as soon as I get a chance I'm going to dump all of my current lenses.

I dig. (Now) ;)
(I was probably editing my post when you replied - might want to look at it again) ;)

Not to go TOO far off topic - but has anyone here used two polarizers as a variable ND filter? Isn't this all a fricking twice-as-expensive variable ND IS?

I looked at the chart—I get it now. Thanks soap.

No, no, no, you misunderstood me.

I do not have an ND filter, so I want to shoot slight overexposures at *ISO 100* to get the effect that I want—silky water, panning, whatever.

I glanced at the expose to the right page—looks interesting. Give me a chance to read. Thanks for your own explanation though.

No. (Assuming you're pushing the edge of your shutter speed and are worried about blur) Don't shoot in any ISO with a ND to increase exposure time, shoot in the next ISO up with the exposure compensation kicked up .3, .7, or 1 stop (whatever it takes to push your histogram to the edge w/o going over.*

Once you clip you're losing data forever. The trick is to use all 12/14 bits (depending on camera) you've been given (since they are linear) and when you convert from RAW to JPG** they'll be 8 bits, but logarithmically storing intensity values - which actually does a better job of matching our perception. The issue is that the higher bits are storing "more" information, and by leaving them "empty" in RAW you're wasting more information than is stored at the lower (least significant) bits.

Google "expose to the right" and you'll find better explanations than I could ever give.

*Even if you're not shooting on the edge of your comfortable shutter speed exposing to the right has real advantages, just mentioned it in that context as it is what we were talking about.

**heck, even a 16 bit (linear) TIFF, etc will take advantage of the situation.

Thanks soap!

I don't have a ND filter, so I have been considering overexposing a little and pulling back in PP when necessary. I wasn't sure what the noise would be like though.

So it looks like to keep ISO 3200 nice and clean I'll shoot in 6400 instead!

alphanikonrex - actually on most digital cameras underexposing and "pushing" will be much noisier appearing than using the higher (and naively noisier) ISO.

and a 1 stop overexposed photo pulled will TEND to look better than even a normally exposed one. (assuming you don't clip that potion of the image you are most concerned with)

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml
for the math involved in point #2

The corollary of point #2's math is actually most the reason for point #1, the other part being that the human eye is more sensitive to noise in dark subjects than in bright ones. (and it is the dark detail you're doing a bastardized recovery of when pushing)

By exposing to the right you're not only taking advantage of the math, you're taking advantage of human perception.

Question:

I know that a 1 stop underexposed photo taken at ISO 800 pushed 1 stop in PP will look the same as a photo correctly exposed at ISO 1600 without any pushing.

However, how about a 1 stop overexposed photo taken at ISO 1600. When it's pulled (presuming you recover highlight detail because you're shooting RAW). Will that look like a correctly exposed image taken at ISO 800?

Hear! Hear! better to change film than push (or pull) what you have! That's old equivalent to ISO. Somethings seem to never change.