Timeline for How can I get perfect sharpness when shooting still art?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 18, 2014 at 19:47 | comment | added | rob j crowe | I said iso 200 because on my amateurish Rebel there is a noticeable difference between iso 200 and 400, so 95% of the time iso 200 seems like a sweet spot. I was thinking under a second exposure to cut down on noise. | |
| Jul 18, 2014 at 19:45 | comment | added | rob j crowe | I'm not an expert on the inner workings of sensors, but you're right two stops is two far... I was thinking that underexposing by a stop would help a person's eye better see the shape of the piece. IMHO, The first 5 pictures on his page all look a stop or so underexposed and I think they all do a good job of showing the shape of the works. I guess I'm more used to shooting snow than pieces of near white stone, the snow being more reflective could use a -1 or -2 adjustment. | |
| Jul 18, 2014 at 14:01 | comment | added | Matt Grum | @user28116 Firstly "don't overexpose" is shorthand for don't push the exposure so far you run into problems of clipping and nonlinearity (in any case avoiding nonlinearity in no way requires underexposure by 2 stops!). If you start with the camera's 18% metering reading and go down two stops from there you really are going to lose quality. Finally I will "ride" that answer until the laws of physics and mathematics change to render it incorrect :) | |
| Jul 18, 2014 at 12:16 | comment | added | user28116 | @MattGrum - Not when you get close to clipping, they aren't. You're just going to ride that one answer for ever and never actually think about what you're saying, aren't you? | |
| Jul 18, 2014 at 12:14 | comment | added | Matt Grum | @user28116 Digital sensors are very linear with respect to incoming light vs. recorded value (unlike film) so provided you don't overexpose you'll capture the full range of details no matter where you place the exposure. Reducing the exposure, on the other hand, will absolutely increase noise in all circumstances. | |
| Jul 17, 2014 at 15:51 | comment | added | user28116 | @MattGrum - in this case, it's underexposing white on white (or near-white on near-white); underexposing would bring the subject down into a range more likely to capture the full range of details, but still at least at Zone VI for the mass of the image. The image can be "rewhitened" after as much as possible has been extracted from the RAW. Agreed, underexposing something closer to a normal tonal range would have negative consequences. | |
| Jul 17, 2014 at 15:23 | comment | added | Matt Grum | Likewise, why less than 1 second exposure and ISO200, can you provide any more details? | |
| Jul 17, 2014 at 15:09 | comment | added | Matt Grum | I'm not sure what underexposing is going to do to help detail (if anything it's going to increase noise) unless you're getting problems with mirror slap at certain shutter speeds. | |
| Jul 17, 2014 at 14:38 | history | answered | rob j crowe | CC BY-SA 3.0 |