Nikon D90 defective Matrix metering

[Focus]

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=31436871

I was looking over the reactions as some folks seem to think that it's OK
for Nikon to over expose in MM. But is it really?

Here what they promise in their advertisement about the D90:


"Nikon 3D Color Matrix Metering II with Scene Recognition System: Nikon's
renowned 420-pixel RGB 3D Color Matrix Metering II, teamed with the
exclusive Scene Recognition System, evaluates images, referencing an
on-board database of over 30,000 photographic scenes, for unmatched exposure
accuracy."

A database of 30.000 photos? None of them had a clear, sunny sky in them?


That hardly sounds like a camera that would blow out skies like a P&S
shooter, does it?

So, Nikon: explain yourself.

[Gemini]

Post by Focus
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=31436871
I was looking over the reactions as some folks seem to think that it's OK
for Nikon to over expose in MM. But is it really?
"Nikon 3D Color Matrix Metering II with Scene Recognition System: Nikon's
renowned 420-pixel RGB 3D Color Matrix Metering II, teamed with the
exclusive Scene Recognition System, evaluates images, referencing an
on-board database of over 30,000 photographic scenes, for unmatched
exposure accuracy."
A database of 30.000 photos? None of them had a clear, sunny sky in them?
That hardly sounds like a camera that would blow out skies like a P&S
shooter, does it?
So, Nikon: explain yourself.
--
---
Focus

I don't know what you are doing wrong Focus but both my D90s are spot on
with exposure.

[Ockham's Razor]

Post by Gemini

Post by Focus
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=31436871
I was looking over the reactions as some folks seem to think that it's OK
for Nikon to over expose in MM. But is it really?
"Nikon 3D Color Matrix Metering II with Scene Recognition System: Nikon's
renowned 420-pixel RGB 3D Color Matrix Metering II, teamed with the
exclusive Scene Recognition System, evaluates images, referencing an
on-board database of over 30,000 photographic scenes, for unmatched
exposure accuracy."
A database of 30.000 photos? None of them had a clear, sunny sky in them?
That hardly sounds like a camera that would blow out skies like a P&S
shooter, does it?
So, Nikon: explain yourself.
--
---
Focus

I don't know what you are doing wrong Focus but both my D90s are spot on
with exposure.

Sounds like he needs a polarizing filter. Nikon sells them also.

[Doug Jewell]

Post by Ockham's Razor

Post by Gemini

Post by Focus
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=31436871
I was looking over the reactions as some folks seem to think that it's OK
for Nikon to over expose in MM. But is it really?
"Nikon 3D Color Matrix Metering II with Scene Recognition System: Nikon's
renowned 420-pixel RGB 3D Color Matrix Metering II, teamed with the
exclusive Scene Recognition System, evaluates images, referencing an
on-board database of over 30,000 photographic scenes, for unmatched
exposure accuracy."
A database of 30.000 photos? None of them had a clear, sunny sky in them?
That hardly sounds like a camera that would blow out skies like a P&S
shooter, does it?
So, Nikon: explain yourself.
--
---
Focus

I don't know what you are doing wrong Focus but both my D90s are spot on
with exposure.

Sounds like he needs a polarizing filter. Nikon sells them also.

Not really - polarisers are not a cure-all for skies. They
only make a significant difference when you are shooting
with the sun at a 3 oclock or 9 oclock position relative to
you and the camera. With the sun directly behind you they
make practically no difference whatsoever. In the middle of
an Australian summer with the sun near directly overhead
they also have minimal impact (although your best
photography times come later or earlier in the day, when the
polariser will work better). I have witnessed the Nikon
overexposure issue, and I doubt a polariser would make much
of an improvement.

[Mark Thomas]

Post by Ockham's Razor

Post by Gemini

Post by Focus
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=31436871
I was looking over the reactions as some folks seem to think that
it's OK for Nikon to over expose in MM. But is it really?
Nikon's renowned 420-pixel RGB 3D Color Matrix Metering II, teamed
with the exclusive Scene Recognition System, evaluates images,
referencing an on-board database of over 30,000 photographic scenes,
for unmatched exposure accuracy."
A database of 30.000 photos? None of them had a clear, sunny sky in them?
That hardly sounds like a camera that would blow out skies like a
P&S shooter, does it?
So, Nikon: explain yourself.
--
---
Focus

I don't know what you are doing wrong Focus but both my D90s are spot
on with exposure.

Sounds like he needs a polarizing filter. Nikon sells them also.

Not really - polarisers are not a cure-all for skies. They only make a
significant difference when you are shooting with the sun at a 3 oclock
or 9 oclock position relative to you and the camera. With the sun
directly behind you they make practically no difference whatsoever. In
the middle of an Australian summer with the sun near directly overhead
they also have minimal impact (although your best photography times come
later or earlier in the day, when the polariser will work better). I
have witnessed the Nikon overexposure issue, and I doubt a polariser
would make much of an improvement.

While your overall point is correct, I would argue the details there..

Yes, polarisers work best at 3:00 and 9:00, ie when the sun is at 90
degrees to the direction you are pointing the camera. *But* that means
when the sun is directly overhead, the polariser will work best on the
sky near the horizon. Ie, where you are normally pointing the camera..
Yes, the effect gradually fades as you go upwards..

But to say that a polariser has 'minimal' impact at midday, is to miss
the time when it is actually *very* useful.

[Doug Jewell]

Post by Gemini

Post by Focus
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=31436871
I was looking over the reactions as some folks seem to think that it's
OK for Nikon to over expose in MM. But is it really?
Nikon's renowned 420-pixel RGB 3D Color Matrix Metering II, teamed
with the exclusive Scene Recognition System, evaluates images,
referencing an on-board database of over 30,000 photographic scenes,
for unmatched exposure accuracy."
A database of 30.000 photos? None of them had a clear, sunny sky in them?
That hardly sounds like a camera that would blow out skies like a P&S
shooter, does it?
So, Nikon: explain yourself.
--
---
Focus

I don't know what you are doing wrong Focus but both my D90s are spot on
with exposure.

When I was selling cameras, it was a very common scenario
that people would bring back Nikon cameras (D40, 50, 70, 80,
90) claiming the exposure was faulty because they were
getting white skies.

There were 2 ways to correct it and get exposures that one
would consider normal - use centre-weighted average, and
take a reading with the horizon exactly in the middle of the
frame, or on matrix use minus 1 to minus 2 EC.

The matrix metering put far too much emphasis on the land
part of a landscape, and would blow the sky every time. In
fact I would call the land part over-exposed too - medium
greens became insipid yellow greens etc. As you say, the
database of 30,000 images obviously didn't include a sunny
landscape scene.

To be fair to Nikon, my own Canon 450D & Samsung GX10 also
overexpose landscape scenes when on their equivalents of
matrix metering - although not as severe as the Nikon. The
Canon & Samsung give washed out but still blue skies, and
only need -1/3 to -2/3 EC to get acceptable results.

[Focus]

Post by Gemini

Post by Focus
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=31436871
I was looking over the reactions as some folks seem to think that it's
OK for Nikon to over expose in MM. But is it really?
Nikon's renowned 420-pixel RGB 3D Color Matrix Metering II, teamed with
the exclusive Scene Recognition System, evaluates images, referencing an
on-board database of over 30,000 photographic scenes, for unmatched
exposure accuracy."
A database of 30.000 photos? None of them had a clear, sunny sky in them?
That hardly sounds like a camera that would blow out skies like a P&S
shooter, does it?
So, Nikon: explain yourself.
--
---
Focus

I don't know what you are doing wrong Focus but both my D90s are spot on
with exposure.

When I was selling cameras, it was a very common scenario that people
would bring back Nikon cameras (D40, 50, 70, 80, 90) claiming the exposure
was faulty because they were getting white skies.
There were 2 ways to correct it and get exposures that one would consider
normal - use centre-weighted average, and take a reading with the horizon
exactly in the middle of the frame, or on matrix use minus 1 to minus 2
EC.
The matrix metering put far too much emphasis on the land part of a
landscape, and would blow the sky every time. In fact I would call the
land part over-exposed too - medium greens became insipid yellow greens
etc. As you say, the database of 30,000 images obviously didn't include a
sunny landscape scene.
To be fair to Nikon, my own Canon 450D & Samsung GX10 also overexpose
landscape scenes when on their equivalents of matrix metering - although
not as severe as the Nikon. The Canon & Samsung give washed out but still
blue skies, and only need -1/3 to -2/3 EC to get acceptable results.

Thanks for sharing that.
Nobody can make a point better than someone who sells or sold camera's,
because you're at the receiving end of the problem car.
I had other camera's as well, like the D300 (much better with MM) and even
the cheaper Sony 350 was much better at their version of MM. I would still
have that camera if:
1. the noise wasn't so terrible and
2. if the flash wouldn't close peoples eyes

The tilting screen for liveview is a blessing in a lot of situations and
much under estimated by pro's. It also sports a liveview histogram that's
very accurate and helpfull in decision making.

[Paul Furman]

Post by Focus

Post by Gemini

Post by Focus
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=31436871
I was looking over the reactions as some folks seem to think that it's
OK for Nikon to over expose in MM. But is it really?
Nikon's renowned 420-pixel RGB 3D Color Matrix Metering II, teamed with
the exclusive Scene Recognition System, evaluates images, referencing an
on-board database of over 30,000 photographic scenes, for unmatched
exposure accuracy."
A database of 30.000 photos? None of them had a clear, sunny sky in them?
That hardly sounds like a camera that would blow out skies like a P&S
shooter, does it?
So, Nikon: explain yourself.
--
---
Focus

I don't know what you are doing wrong Focus but both my D90s are spot on
with exposure.

When I was selling cameras, it was a very common scenario that people
would bring back Nikon cameras (D40, 50, 70, 80, 90) claiming the exposure
was faulty because they were getting white skies.
There were 2 ways to correct it and get exposures that one would consider
normal - use centre-weighted average, and take a reading with the horizon
exactly in the middle of the frame, or on matrix use minus 1 to minus 2
EC.
The matrix metering put far too much emphasis on the land part of a
landscape, and would blow the sky every time. In fact I would call the
land part over-exposed too - medium greens became insipid yellow greens
etc. As you say, the database of 30,000 images obviously didn't include a
sunny landscape scene.
To be fair to Nikon, my own Canon 450D & Samsung GX10 also overexpose
landscape scenes when on their equivalents of matrix metering - although
not as severe as the Nikon. The Canon & Samsung give washed out but still
blue skies, and only need -1/3 to -2/3 EC to get acceptable results.

Thanks for sharing that.
Nobody can make a point better than someone who sells or sold camera's,
because you're at the receiving end of the problem car.
I had other camera's as well, like the D300 (much better with MM)

Perhaps the D90 is tuned for snapshooters who want to expose for the
people in the center of the frame rather than the sky?

Post by Focus
and even
the cheaper Sony 350 was much better at their version of MM. I would still
1. the noise wasn't so terrible and
2. if the flash wouldn't close peoples eyes
The tilting screen for liveview is a blessing in a lot of situations and
much under estimated by pro's. It also sports a liveview histogram that's
very accurate and helpfull in decision making.

[Focus]

Post by Paul Furman

Post by Focus

Post by Gemini

Post by Focus
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=31436871
I was looking over the reactions as some folks seem to think that it's
OK for Nikon to over expose in MM. But is it really?
Nikon's renowned 420-pixel RGB 3D Color Matrix Metering II, teamed
with the exclusive Scene Recognition System, evaluates images,
referencing an on-board database of over 30,000 photographic scenes,
for unmatched exposure accuracy."
A database of 30.000 photos? None of them had a clear, sunny sky in them?
That hardly sounds like a camera that would blow out skies like a P&S
shooter, does it?
So, Nikon: explain yourself.
--
---
Focus

I don't know what you are doing wrong Focus but both my D90s are spot
on with exposure.

When I was selling cameras, it was a very common scenario that people
would bring back Nikon cameras (D40, 50, 70, 80, 90) claiming the
exposure was faulty because they were getting white skies.
There were 2 ways to correct it and get exposures that one would
consider normal - use centre-weighted average, and take a reading with
the horizon exactly in the middle of the frame, or on matrix use minus 1
to minus 2 EC.
The matrix metering put far too much emphasis on the land part of a
landscape, and would blow the sky every time. In fact I would call the
land part over-exposed too - medium greens became insipid yellow greens
etc. As you say, the database of 30,000 images obviously didn't include
a sunny landscape scene.
To be fair to Nikon, my own Canon 450D & Samsung GX10 also overexpose
landscape scenes when on their equivalents of matrix metering - although
not as severe as the Nikon. The Canon & Samsung give washed out but
still blue skies, and only need -1/3 to -2/3 EC to get acceptable
results.

Thanks for sharing that.
Nobody can make a point better than someone who sells or sold camera's,
because you're at the receiving end of the problem car.
I had other camera's as well, like the D300 (much better with MM)

Perhaps the D90 is tuned for snapshooters who want to expose for the
people in the center of the frame rather than the sky?

I would assume that's what center weight is for.
Otherwise Nikon should call it "center people happy faces with blown sky
mode" and not "3D color matrix II with database of over 30.000 pictures
mode"
Anyway it's stupid of them not to have matched the D300's MM, because a lot
of pro's might concider taking a D90 as a backup, due to the fact that it's
also 12 MP and has a lot in common.

[ASAAR]

Post by Focus

Post by Paul Furman
Perhaps the D90 is tuned for snapshooters who want to expose for the
people in the center of the frame rather than the sky?

I would assume that's what center weight is for.
Otherwise Nikon should call it "center people happy faces with blown sky
mode" and not "3D color matrix II with database of over 30.000 pictures
mode"
Anyway it's stupid of them not to have matched the D300's MM, because a lot
of pro's might concider taking a D90 as a backup, due to the fact that it's
also 12 MP and has a lot in common.

It's not wise for those that lack a good understanding of the many
things Nikon to make accusations of stupidity. There are too many
differences between the D300 and D90 (other than exposure modes) to
qualify the D90 as an acceptable backup camera, unless money (or the
photographer) is really tight.

[PDM]

Post by ASAAR

Post by Focus

Post by Paul Furman
Perhaps the D90 is tuned for snapshooters who want to expose for the
people in the center of the frame rather than the sky?

I would assume that's what center weight is for.
Otherwise Nikon should call it "center people happy faces with blown sky
mode" and not "3D color matrix II with database of over 30.000 pictures
mode"
Anyway it's stupid of them not to have matched the D300's MM, because a lot
of pro's might concider taking a D90 as a backup, due to the fact that it's
also 12 MP and has a lot in common.

It's not wise for those that lack a good understanding of the many
things Nikon to make accusations of stupidity. There are too many
differences between the D300 and D90 (other than exposure modes) to
qualify the D90 as an acceptable backup camera, unless money (or the
photographer) is really tight.

Acording to Nikon a lot of newspapers (in the UK) are giving the D90 to
their staff photgraphers as they can use it to record movies for their
websites at the same time as taking still for the actual paper.
PDM

[ASAAR]

On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 12:55:10 +0100, "PDM"

Post by PDM

Post by ASAAR
It's not wise for those that lack a good understanding of the many
things Nikon to make accusations of stupidity. There are too many
differences between the D300 and D90 (other than exposure modes) to
qualify the D90 as an acceptable backup camera, unless money (or the
photographer) is really tight.

Acording to Nikon a lot of newspapers (in the UK) are giving the D90 to
their staff photgraphers as they can use it to record movies for their
websites at the same time as taking still for the actual paper.
PDM

That's a reasonable thing to do from the newspaper's
bean-counter's point of view, but it's not quite the same as
choosing the D90 as a D300 backup. It may also be an unwise
decision as shooting good videos isn't necessarily what most good
still photographers are capable of doing. It may also overload many
of them, interfering with what they do best.

[PDM]

Post by ASAAR
On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 12:55:10 +0100, "PDM"

Post by PDM

Post by ASAAR
It's not wise for those that lack a good understanding of the many
things Nikon to make accusations of stupidity. There are too many
differences between the D300 and D90 (other than exposure modes) to
qualify the D90 as an acceptable backup camera, unless money (or the
photographer) is really tight.

Acording to Nikon a lot of newspapers (in the UK) are giving the D90 to
their staff photgraphers as they can use it to record movies for their
websites at the same time as taking still for the actual paper.
PDM

That's a reasonable thing to do from the newspaper's
bean-counter's point of view, but it's not quite the same as
choosing the D90 as a D300 backup. It may also be an unwise
decision as shooting good videos isn't necessarily what most good
still photographers are capable of doing. It may also overload many
of them, interfering with what they do best.

But it's what newspapers expect from there staff these days.
PDM

[Focus]

Post by ASAAR

Post by Focus

Post by Paul Furman
Perhaps the D90 is tuned for snapshooters who want to expose for the
people in the center of the frame rather than the sky?

I would assume that's what center weight is for.
Otherwise Nikon should call it "center people happy faces with blown sky
mode" and not "3D color matrix II with database of over 30.000 pictures
mode"
Anyway it's stupid of them not to have matched the D300's MM, because a lot
of pro's might concider taking a D90 as a backup, due to the fact that it's
also 12 MP and has a lot in common.

It's not wise for those that lack a good understanding of the many
things Nikon to make accusations of stupidity. There are too many
differences between the D300 and D90 (other than exposure modes) to
qualify the D90 as an acceptable backup camera, unless money (or the
photographer) is really tight.

So you think making a MM worse than a cheaper D40, D40x or D60 is a wise
decision?

[ASAAR]

Post by Focus

Post by ASAAR
It's not wise for those that lack a good understanding of the many
things Nikon to make accusations of stupidity. There are too many
differences between the D300 and D90 (other than exposure modes) to
qualify the D90 as an acceptable backup camera, unless money (or the
photographer) is really tight.

So you think making a MM worse than a cheaper D40, D40x or D60
is a wise decision?

Prejudging a bit here, aren't you? Many D300 users don't share
your opinion. Users of all cameras have to deal with learning
curves, and it should be assumed that the D300's will be steeper
than that of the D40/D60. Those that master the D300's toolset will
be able to get better results than if they chose to use an entry
level DSLR instead. Different doesn't mean worse, except for those
that don't want to, or can't take the time to learn to use their
cameras well. If you're less pleased with the D300, by all means
sell it and switch to a D40 or D60, or maybe to another Sony.

Or you could try to see what others have to say about the D300's

Post by Focus
Metering has changed on the D300, as has autofocus, and the two
are now having relations together. Yes, we still have the same
1005-pixel CCD in the viewfinder doing the metering, though its
position has changed (still vulnerable to light coming through the
viewfinder, by the way) and it's now linked in real time to the AF
system. The critical change comes for matrix meter users: the D300
pays more attention to what's under the autofocus sensor being used
than the D200 did. Enough so that you need to pay closer attention
to your histograms. Some have said that the D300 exposes "hotter"
than the D200, but that's not actually true in my experience. Nikon
has changed the mid-tone gamma at the default settings, which gives
the appearance of brighter images, but in a stable, moderate contrast
scene with something neutral under the AF sensor, both my D200
and D300 give the same exposure. But be careful if you've got bright
or dark objects under the focus point--you'll get more variation of
the metering in such cases than the D200 gave.
. . .
Not only does the D300's focus system track as well as any previous
Nikon system, it also has tricks up its sleeve that make it better--far
better--than the D200's. First is the size of the area covered by the
focus system: it's enormous compared to the D200. You have to be
framing very off center to not have a sensor on your subject. Second,
in the Auto Area AF mode (and 3D tracking mode) the AF sensor
and matrix meter get together in interesting and useful ways. The
system works unusually well on anything that has a flesh tone in it,
even if the subject moves off the autofocus sensors. There's some
serious computational stuff going on in the focus system now, and it
has more "magic" than before. On the other hand, magic isn't
foolproof, so when the system flops, it flops. I'll repeat what I said
before: spend time studying your options. With practice you'll start
to understand the situations where the magic won't happen and
where you need to step in with a different AF choice. Once you get
to that level of understanding, you'll have no problems at all with
the system. But it is enough different than anything that came before
it that you must spend time learning it.

And similarly, learn to recognize situations where you might not
want to use the D300's matrix metering. You don't think the
D40/D60's M-M is foolproof, do you?

I do get the strong feeling that what would suit you best is a
camera that could be described as a P&S DSLR. Maybe you should
consider using Fuji's S100fs. But if you do, it's almost certain
that you'll be complaining about *many* stupid Fuji decisions. :)

[Savageduck]

Post by Focus

Post by ASAAR

Post by Focus

Post by Paul Furman
Perhaps the D90 is tuned for snapshooters who want to expose for the
people in the center of the frame rather than the sky?

I would assume that's what center weight is for.
Otherwise Nikon should call it "center people happy faces with blown sky
mode" and not "3D color matrix II with database of over 30.000 pictures
mode"
Anyway it's stupid of them not to have matched the D300's MM, because a lot
of pro's might concider taking a D90 as a backup, due to the fact that it's
also 12 MP and has a lot in common.

It's not wise for those that lack a good understanding of the many
things Nikon to make accusations of stupidity. There are too many
differences between the D300 and D90 (other than exposure modes) to
qualify the D90 as an acceptable backup camera, unless money (or the
photographer) is really tight.

So you think making a MM worse than a cheaper D40, D40x or D60 is a wise
decision?

I am still baffled as to your reasons for the camera odyssey you have
taken over the last 12-18 months D300 to Sony to D300 to D90????

I can see having a D90 as a D300 backup lifeboat with a video feature,
but not as a replacement if your primary purpose is still photography.

I know you have this plan of buying in one country and selling for a
profit in Portugal as justification for some of this. I would have a
dedicated vid-cam for those motion picture moments rather than the
mind-set compromise of making that switch with the D90. That makes me
think of all the potentially good/great still image captures missed
while fiddling around deciding whether to shoot still or video. Then
the moment is gone.

[Atheist Chaplain]

Post by Gemini

Post by Focus
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=31436871
I was looking over the reactions as some folks seem to think that it's OK
for Nikon to over expose in MM. But is it really?
"Nikon 3D Color Matrix Metering II with Scene Recognition System: Nikon's
renowned 420-pixel RGB 3D Color Matrix Metering II, teamed with the
exclusive Scene Recognition System, evaluates images, referencing an
on-board database of over 30,000 photographic scenes, for unmatched
exposure accuracy."
A database of 30.000 photos? None of them had a clear, sunny sky in them?
That hardly sounds like a camera that would blow out skies like a P&S
shooter, does it?
So, Nikon: explain yourself.
--
---
Focus

I don't know what you are doing wrong Focus but both my D90s are spot on
with exposure.

didn't you say recently that you bought a brace of them for upcoming work
Douggie ??
hopefully that HUGE expense will help your hobby finally qualify for the
collection of the GST :-)

[Savageduck]

Post by Focus
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=31436871
I was looking over the reactions as some folks seem to think that it's OK
for Nikon to over expose in MM. But is it really?
"Nikon 3D Color Matrix Metering II with Scene Recognition System: Nikon's
renowned 420-pixel RGB 3D Color Matrix Metering II, teamed with the
exclusive Scene Recognition System, evaluates images, referencing an
on-board database of over 30,000 photographic scenes, for unmatched exposure
accuracy."
A database of 30.000 photos? None of them had a clear, sunny sky in them?
That hardly sounds like a camera that would blow out skies like a P&S
shooter, does it?
So, Nikon: explain yourself.

Just to clarify, you are just remarking on something that came up in
dpreview forums, aren't you?

I thought you were back to shooting a D300.

[Focus]

Post by Savageduck

Post by Focus
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=31436871
I was looking over the reactions as some folks seem to think that it's OK
for Nikon to over expose in MM. But is it really?
"Nikon 3D Color Matrix Metering II with Scene Recognition System: Nikon's
renowned 420-pixel RGB 3D Color Matrix Metering II, teamed with the
exclusive Scene Recognition System, evaluates images, referencing an
on-board database of over 30,000 photographic scenes, for unmatched exposure
accuracy."
A database of 30.000 photos? None of them had a clear, sunny sky in them?
That hardly sounds like a camera that would blow out skies like a P&S
shooter, does it?
So, Nikon: explain yourself.

Just to clarify, you are just remarking on something that came up in
dpreview forums, aren't you?
I thought you were back to shooting a D300.
--

I was and then I got the D90.
The piece on DPR is also from me, just under another name. Just to clarify.
Maybe somebody at Nikon starts paying attention if enough is written about
this problem.
I think problems of a lesser kind have been blessed with a firmware update
;-)

[Larry Thong]

Post by Focus
I was and then I got the D90.
The piece on DPR is also from me, just under another name. Just to
clarify. Maybe somebody at Nikon starts paying attention if enough is
written about this problem.
I think problems of a lesser kind have been blessed with a firmware
update ;-)

For Christ's sake, Son, you need to be keepen' these things for at least
18-months to get the most bang for the buck. Maybe you should just get a
Canon 5d MkII?

[Focus]

Post by Larry Thong

Post by Focus
I was and then I got the D90.
The piece on DPR is also from me, just under another name. Just to
clarify. Maybe somebody at Nikon starts paying attention if enough is
written about this problem.
I think problems of a lesser kind have been blessed with a firmware
update ;-)

For Christ's sake, Son, you need to be keepen' these things for at least
18-months to get the most bang for the buck. Maybe you should just get a
Canon 5d MkII?

On your planet maybe?
I buy cheap in another country and sell for my new price in Portugal. Why
wait so long?
;-)

[C J Campbell]

Post by Focus
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=31436871
I was looking over the reactions as some folks seem to think that it's OK
for Nikon to over expose in MM. But is it really?
"Nikon 3D Color Matrix Metering II with Scene Recognition System: Nikon's
renowned 420-pixel RGB 3D Color Matrix Metering II, teamed with the
exclusive Scene Recognition System, evaluates images, referencing an
on-board database of over 30,000 photographic scenes, for unmatched exposure
accuracy."
A database of 30.000 photos? None of them had a clear, sunny sky in them?
That hardly sounds like a camera that would blow out skies like a P&S
shooter, does it?
So, Nikon: explain yourself.

Most matrix metering systems nowadays will give you a good exposure --
for at least part of the picture. However, it is impossible for any
camera when faced with both bright sky and shadows to properly expose
for both. It is going to pick one or the other.

The difference between a good photographer and a snap-shooter is the
ability to understand and deal with the limitations of what cameras can
do. That includes a good understanding of lighting problems and what to
do about them.

[Bruce]

Post by C J Campbell
The difference between a good photographer and a snap-shooter is the
ability to understand and deal with the limitations of what cameras can
do. That includes a good understanding of lighting problems and what to
do about them.

Well said. I wonder what proportion of DSLR buyers/users would come
into the "good photographer" category?

10%? Not more, perhaps a lot less. Too many people expect their
cameras to make their creative and technical decisions for them.

[John McWilliams]

Post by Bruce

Post by C J Campbell
The difference between a good photographer and a snap-shooter is the
ability to understand and deal with the limitations of what cameras can
do. That includes a good understanding of lighting problems and what to
do about them.

Well said. I wonder what proportion of DSLR buyers/users would come
into the "good photographer" category?
10%? Not more, perhaps a lot less. Too many people expect their
cameras to make their creative and technical decisions for them.

Of all DSLR owners, the answer is 12.7% are good photographers. In these
select usenet groups, the ratio of good and excellent to humdrum and
terrible is 46.3%.

[Rob Morley]

On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 10:52:37 -0700

Post by C J Campbell
The difference between a good photographer and a snap-shooter is the
ability to understand and deal with the limitations of what cameras
can do. That includes a good understanding of lighting problems and
what to do about them.

The difference between a technically capable photographer and a
snap-shooter is an understanding of the process that commits an image
to the camera. There's more to being a good photographer than getting
good focus and exposure.

[C J Campbell]

Post by Rob Morley
On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 10:52:37 -0700

Post by C J Campbell
The difference between a good photographer and a snap-shooter is the
ability to understand and deal with the limitations of what cameras
can do. That includes a good understanding of lighting problems and
what to do about them.

The difference between a technically capable photographer and a
snap-shooter is an understanding of the process that commits an image
to the camera. There's more to being a good photographer than getting
good focus and exposure.

A good point. But then I would say that it is not just an understanding
of the process that commits an image to the camera, but the whole
ability to visualize an image, capture it, and process it into its
final form. Ansel Adams did write "The Print" after all.

BTW, I've been reading Joe McNally's "The Hot Shoe Diaries." Pretty good read.

[Focus]

Post by Rob Morley
On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 10:52:37 -0700

Post by C J Campbell
The difference between a good photographer and a snap-shooter is the
ability to understand and deal with the limitations of what cameras
can do. That includes a good understanding of lighting problems and
what to do about them.

The difference between a technically capable photographer and a
snap-shooter is an understanding of the process that commits an image
to the camera. There's more to being a good photographer than getting
good focus and exposure.

A good point. But then I would say that it is not just an understanding of
the process that commits an image to the camera, but the whole ability to
visualize an image, capture it, and process it into its final form. Ansel
Adams did write "The Print" after all.
BTW, I've been reading Joe McNally's "The Hot Shoe Diaries." Pretty good read.

Henri Cartier-Bresson's most famous picture was taken by pure
accident/coincidence. The man jumping over the water was shot through a
fence of planks, when he just pointed and shot, without even looking. Later
at home he saw the picture for the first time.
So I guess that makes him a P&S shooter ;-)
If you shoot thousands of pictures every week, travel the world, you're
bound to have a few good pictures...even by accident.

Anyway: nobody here seems to understand what I was saying in the original
start of this thread. Everyone assumes that I can't get a good picture, need
advice how to measure light, etc.
The point I made was, the MM of the D90 is not as good as the D300. Period.
It's a fact that the D80 suffers in a worse degree of the same problem, but
the D40 and D40x are much better and more consistent in metering.
Read the first post about how Nikon describes their MM and you'd understand
it must be a miracle MM, specially with a database of over 30.000 pictures.

Many people at the D40-D90 forum at DPreview agree on this. Even a camera
salesman told that a lot of people bring back the D90 because they don't
meter right. The salesman told them to either under expose by 0.5 to 1 stop
or use center weight. Using the last and holding it with the horizon in the
middle, gives much better results than MM anytime; no or less blown skies
and still enough detail in the landscape.
I still think that MM *should* be able to do this job better.

And before I get a lot of *teaching* again: with all camera's I had, I *can*
get the results I want.

Focus of this thread should be: why, why and why?

[Focus]

Post by Focus

Post by C J Campbell

Post by Rob Morley
On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 10:52:37 -0700

Post by C J Campbell
The difference between a good photographer and a snap-shooter is the
ability to understand and deal with the limitations of what cameras
can do. That includes a good understanding of lighting problems and
what to do about them.

The difference between a technically capable photographer and a
snap-shooter is an understanding of the process that commits an image
to the camera. There's more to being a good photographer than getting
good focus and exposure.

A good point. But then I would say that it is not just an understanding
of the process that commits an image to the camera, but the whole ability
to visualize an image, capture it, and process it into its final form.
Ansel Adams did write "The Print" after all.
BTW, I've been reading Joe McNally's "The Hot Shoe Diaries." Pretty good read.

Henri Cartier-Bresson's most famous picture was taken by pure
accident/coincidence. The man jumping over the water was shot through a
fence of planks, when he just pointed and shot, without even looking.
Later at home he saw the picture for the first time.
So I guess that makes him a P&S shooter ;-)
If you shoot thousands of pictures every week, travel the world, you're
bound to have a few good pictures...even by accident.
Anyway: nobody here seems to understand what I was saying in the original
start of this thread. Everyone assumes that I can't get a good picture,
need advice how to measure light, etc.
The point I made was, the MM of the D90 is not as good as the D300.
Period. It's a fact that the D80 suffers in a worse degree of the same
problem, but the D40 and D40x are much better and more consistent in
metering.
Read the first post about how Nikon describes their MM and you'd
understand it must be a miracle MM, specially with a database of over
30.000 pictures.
Many people at the D40-D90 forum at DPreview agree on this. Even a camera
salesman told that a lot of people bring back the D90 because they don't
meter right. The salesman told them to either under expose by 0.5 to 1
stop or use center weight. Using the last and holding it with the horizon
in the middle, gives much better results than MM anytime; no or less blown
skies and still enough detail in the landscape.
I still think that MM *should* be able to do this job better.
And before I get a lot of *teaching* again: with all camera's I had, I
*can* get the results I want.
Focus of this thread should be: why, why and why?
--
---
Focus

BTW: The salesman was in this thread, Doug Jewell, who didn't get much
attention...

[B***@home.com]

Post by Focus

Post by Focus

Post by C J Campbell

Post by Rob Morley
On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 10:52:37 -0700

Post by C J Campbell
The difference between a good photographer and a snap-shooter is the
ability to understand and deal with the limitations of what cameras
can do. That includes a good understanding of lighting problems and
what to do about them.

The difference between a technically capable photographer and a
snap-shooter is an understanding of the process that commits an image
to the camera. There's more to being a good photographer than getting
good focus and exposure.

A good point. But then I would say that it is not just an understanding
of the process that commits an image to the camera, but the whole ability
to visualize an image, capture it, and process it into its final form.
Ansel Adams did write "The Print" after all.
BTW, I've been reading Joe McNally's "The Hot Shoe Diaries." Pretty good read.

Henri Cartier-Bresson's most famous picture was taken by pure
accident/coincidence. The man jumping over the water was shot through a
fence of planks, when he just pointed and shot, without even looking.
Later at home he saw the picture for the first time.
So I guess that makes him a P&S shooter ;-)
If you shoot thousands of pictures every week, travel the world, you're
bound to have a few good pictures...even by accident.
Anyway: nobody here seems to understand what I was saying in the original
start of this thread. Everyone assumes that I can't get a good picture,
need advice how to measure light, etc.
The point I made was, the MM of the D90 is not as good as the D300.
Period. It's a fact that the D80 suffers in a worse degree of the same
problem, but the D40 and D40x are much better and more consistent in
metering.
Read the first post about how Nikon describes their MM and you'd
understand it must be a miracle MM, specially with a database of over
30.000 pictures.
Many people at the D40-D90 forum at DPreview agree on this. Even a camera
salesman told that a lot of people bring back the D90 because they don't
meter right. The salesman told them to either under expose by 0.5 to 1
stop or use center weight. Using the last and holding it with the horizon
in the middle, gives much better results than MM anytime; no or less blown
skies and still enough detail in the landscape.
I still think that MM *should* be able to do this job better.
And before I get a lot of *teaching* again: with all camera's I had, I
*can* get the results I want.
Focus of this thread should be: why, why and why?
--
---
Focus

BTW: The salesman was in this thread, Doug Jewell, who didn't get much
attention...

I haven't followed this entire thread, but I have a D60 and a D90 and so far I
think the D60 is getting better exposures! But the D90 has far less noise...
although I've only taken 250 pics so far with the 90 compared to 700 with the
60...

Does that mean you can't win ?!

[Rob Morley]

On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 13:50:47 +0100

Post by Focus
Henri Cartier-Bresson's most famous picture was taken by pure
accident/coincidence.

Photojournalism: f8 and be there ...

Post by Focus
Anyway: nobody here seems to understand what I was saying

I just found it tedious and irrelevant.

Post by Focus
And before I get a lot of *teaching* again: with all camera's I had,
I *can* get the results I want.

That's just great, well done.

Post by Focus
Focus of this thread should be: why, why and why?

Focus of this thread is wherever the participants take it.

[C J Campbell]

Post by Focus
Henri Cartier-Bresson's most famous picture was taken by pure
accident/coincidence. The man jumping over the water was shot through a
fence of planks, when he just pointed and shot, without even looking. Later
at home he saw the picture for the first time.
So I guess that makes him a P&S shooter ;-)

Somehow I sincerely doubt that story, though Bresson himself might have
told it. Even Bresson did not just walk around pointing the camera
aimlessly, squeezing the shutter with his shut. Bresson worked hard to
capture his moments. He was not a chimpanzee randomly pecking keys on a
typewriter to produce the works of Shakespeare. Bresson's work is a
tribute to the documentary photographer's ability to anticipate,
visualize and capture a moment all in a split second. But he did not
skip any of those steps, whether he realized it or not.

[Bruce]

Post by C J Campbell
Even Bresson did not just walk around pointing the camera
aimlessly, squeezing the shutter with his shut. Bresson worked hard to
capture his moments. He was not a chimpanzee randomly pecking keys on a
typewriter to produce the works of Shakespeare. Bresson's work is a
tribute to the documentary photographer's ability to anticipate,
visualize and capture a moment all in a split second. But he did not
skip any of those steps, whether he realized it or not.

All true, but HCB was a prolific shooter and took a great many photos
while out shooting. Even though there are many volumes of his published
work, we have seen only very few of those shots.

Perhaps there is a valid comparison to be made with National Geographic
shooters who typically produced over 10,000 shots on film in order to
illustrate an article with only a couple of dozen, if that.

I am not suggesting (in either case) that the published shots happened
by chance. Far from it: I have no doubt that great care was taken with
the majority of shots taken, and that a very large percentage of them
would be considered suitable for publication.

However, I also have no doubt that the taking of such large numbers of
images in both cases actively contributes to the extremely high standard
of published work - work to which we are privileged to have access at
the small cost of buying a book, or the magazine.

[C J Campbell]

Post by Bruce

Post by C J Campbell
Even Bresson did not just walk around pointing the camera
aimlessly, squeezing the shutter with his shut. Bresson worked hard to
capture his moments. He was not a chimpanzee randomly pecking keys on a
typewriter to produce the works of Shakespeare. Bresson's work is a
tribute to the documentary photographer's ability to anticipate,
visualize and capture a moment all in a split second. But he did not
skip any of those steps, whether he realized it or not.

All true, but HCB was a prolific shooter and took a great many photos
while out shooting. Even though there are many volumes of his published
work, we have seen only very few of those shots.
Perhaps there is a valid comparison to be made with National Geographic
shooters who typically produced over 10,000 shots on film in order to
illustrate an article with only a couple of dozen, if that.

Gregg Gibson told me that he typically takes over 7,000 frames at a
wedding. He winnows those down to about 130 that he shows the happy
couple, and they make their selection from those.

Gibson did not win two Pulitzer Prizes by taking 10,000 copies of the
same image with only slight variation among them. I have seen him at
work; he takes one shot -- then changes position, focal length, or
something else. When he is done with a shoot he is literally dripping
with sweat because he is moving around so actively. He may shoot 100
frames or more in the space of a minute or two. Each frame will be
radically different.

How he keeps that energy level up at an entire wedding is beyond me.

Nat Geo photographers do not always take 10,000 images and select only
a dozen. Sometimes they have the opportunity to do that; sometimes not.
Sometimes you get only a handful of images to choose from. That's the
way the cookie crumbles.

I do not know how many pictures Eddie Adams took on February 1, 1968.
He got the Pulitzer for only one of them -- the execution of a Viet
Cong officer by General Nguyen Ngoc Loan. This execution was also
filmed by a TV crew. A documentary interviewing Adams, showing the
picture, and also a film clip of the execution can be seen here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6459381285349469159

Obviously, Adams could not take 10,000 images of this execution. He had
time for one. The entire execution, from the time that they start
dragging the Viet Cong into the street to the time that he is lying in
it, is less then 5 seconds. That was it. I do not know what else he
shot that day, but for that day, and perhaps for the entire war, it was
"the" picture.

Post by Bruce
I am not suggesting (in either case) that the published shots happened
by chance. Far from it: I have no doubt that great care was taken with
the majority of shots taken, and that a very large percentage of them
would be considered suitable for publication.
However, I also have no doubt that the taking of such large numbers of
images in both cases actively contributes to the extremely high standard
of published work - work to which we are privileged to have access at
the small cost of buying a book, or the magazine.

Indeed. I don't think people fully appreciate this. We have come a long
way from attempting to communicate with stained glass windows and
illuminated manuscripts painstakingly constructed over a period of
decades. I am not sure that it is always for the better, but on the
whole I believe it is.

[Alan Browne]

Nat Geo photographers do not always take 10,000 images and select only a
dozen. Sometimes they have the opportunity to do that; sometimes not.
Sometimes you get only a handful of images to choose from. That's the
way the cookie crumbles.

Actually some nat geo photogs don't even see the photos until they're
published, and they might see only a small percentage of the remaining
stock photos. In the film days they would ship undeveloped film back to
DC for development and the photo editors, working with the article
writer would decide which photos to use.

In the digital age, I'm not sure what the modus operandi is, but it
probably involves electronic transfer to DC, and again the photog is not
the one choosing what goes into the article.

[frank]

Post by Alan Browne

Nat Geo photographers do not always take 10,000 images and select only a
dozen. Sometimes they have the opportunity to do that; sometimes not.
Sometimes you get only a handful of images to choose from. That's the
way the cookie crumbles.

Actually some nat geo photogs don't even see the photos until they're
published, and they might see only a small percentage of the remaining
stock photos.  In the film days they would ship undeveloped film back to
DC for development and the photo editors, working with the article
writer would decide which photos to use.
In the digital age, I'm not sure what the modus operandi is, but it
probably involves electronic transfer to DC, and again the photog is not
the one choosing what goes into the article.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource:http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
--        r.p.d.slr-systems:http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
--      [SI] gallery & rulz:http://www.pbase.com/shootin
--                   e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

Part of it is, you're out in the field for months at a time. You don't
get to process the images and see what is there. Maybe you'll get
feedback. Way different than how most of us shoot.

Think of it as you're taking your gear with you somewhere where there
is NO support. What you carry in and film. Or digital cards.

I've read on line of going to the Galapagos as sort of similar.

Of course you're expected to have decent images on those 10,000 you
send in. that's not a lot, only about 300 rolls.

Much easier to have decent shots the vast majority of the time than it
was 40 years ago. Digital wasn't around, but even with film. Much
easier to shoot 10,000 shots also. Used to be 2 or 3 frames a sec was
fast. Anybody ever used flashbulbs? Thought not...

[Bob Larter]

frank wrote:
[...]

Post by frank
fast. Anybody ever used flashbulbs? Thought not...

Well, not since I was a kid. Remember the 4 shot bulbs that rotated
after each shot?

[nospam]

Post by Bob Larter

Post by frank
fast. Anybody ever used flashbulbs? Thought not...

Well, not since I was a kid. Remember the 4 shot bulbs that rotated
after each shot?

especially the magicubes that triggered with a strike pin rather than
by using electricity. throw them against the ground and boom...

[Stormin Mormon]

You musta been a lot of fun to have around.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

Post by Bob Larter

Post by frank
fast. Anybody ever used flashbulbs? Thought not...

Well, not since I was a kid. Remember the 4 shot bulbs
that rotated
after each shot?

especially the magicubes that triggered with a strike pin
rather than
by using electricity. throw them against the ground and
boom...

[Stormin Mormon]

And if you throw em on the ground really hard, sometimes you
could get em to flash for you?
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.


"Bob Larter" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:49df1d28$***@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
frank wrote:
[...]

Post by frank
fast. Anybody ever used flashbulbs? Thought not...

Well, not since I was a kid. Remember the 4 shot bulbs that
rotated
after each shot?

[Ken Hart]

Post by Stormin Mormon
And if you throw em on the ground really hard, sometimes you
could get em to flash for you?
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
[...]

Post by frank
fast. Anybody ever used flashbulbs? Thought not...

Well, not since I was a kid. Remember the 4 shot bulbs that
rotated
after each shot?
--
W

Magicubes had an 'explosive' charge in them to create the flash. In the base
of the 'cube was a little spring wire for each bulb. The camera had a
plunger that pushed the spring wire off of it's holder, it hit the charge,
and flashed. If you could jar the 'cube sufficiently to knock the spring off
it's holder, you got a flash. I never tried it (damn things were
expensive!), but I suspect that if you threw it against a hard object and it
hit top first, you could probably fire all four sides at once. The advantage
of the Magicube was that there was no battery required to fire, and hence no
concerns of a dead battery or corroded contacts.

The Magicubes were slightly larger and had a different base from the earlier
flashcubes. The flashcubes were basically four AG1 bulbs in a cube
container. I once
'inherited' an adaptor for flashcubes that mounted on a camera shoe, had a
PC sync cord and a battery (22.5V?). This one carried the Konica brand. Not
having much use for it, I sold it on eBay, and got $10 for it!

While on the subject of convenience-oriented flashbulbs, there was also the
FlipFlash. This was a unit with 8 (AG-1?) bulbs, 2-wide and 4-high. It had a
connector on each end that fit into the flipflash socket on the camera. The
top bulbs fired first, and as each bulb was used, the conductive path on the
internal circuit board was burned away so that the next bulb would fire.
After using the four top bulbs, you removed the unit, flipped it over, and
fired the other four bulbs. In a moment of rare engineering genius, the
designers set it up so that the bulbs fartherest away from the camera were
active, decreasing the red-eye effect. The FlipFlash was common on the later
Kodak Pocket Instamatics, also the Kodak Instant print cameras. Kodak also
came out with an electronic flash that would attach to these cameras and
sync through the flash socket.

[frank]

Post by Bob Larter
[...]

Post by frank
fast. Anybody ever used flashbulbs? Thought not...

Well, not since I was a kid. Remember the 4 shot bulbs that rotated
after each shot?
--
    W
  . | ,. w ,   "Some people are alive only because
   \|/  \|/     it is illegal to kill them."    Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, Kodak Magic Cubes. One of the many camera types, mainly for
Instamatic, had the film that was in a cartridge. Used to have one
that was blue for tungsten film I think. Somebody actually came out
with an adaptor to put on top of a 35mm so you could use the cubes.
Might have been some 3rd party that did it. One camera store used to
have all sorts of odd stuff by mail like that.

Didn't know you could have them go off by dropping them. They were the
improvement over the small peanut flash bulbs. Damn, that's been....35
years???

Flash bulbs were fun as you couldn't carry a lot of them, came in huge
boxes, think long ship model kit type boxes, maybe 12 or 20. Surface
used to really melt after use. And they were hot. But way faster and
more stable than electronic flash. At least back then.

Used to carry pockets full of them.

Never had one explode during use, but heard they might do it. Came in
various sizes also.

Which is what the F mode was for on old PC flash connectors. no, not
personal computers.

Had IR ones for IR film also. Whoo hooo. High tech.

[Bob Larter]

Post by frank

Post by Bob Larter
[...]

Post by frank
fast. Anybody ever used flashbulbs? Thought not...

Well, not since I was a kid. Remember the 4 shot bulbs that rotated
after each shot?

Yeah, Kodak Magic Cubes. One of the many camera types, mainly for
Instamatic, had the film that was in a cartridge.

Yep, that's them.

Post by frank
Didn't know you could have them go off by dropping them.

That's news to me too. I used to zap them with a 9V battery to set them
off for fun.

Post by frank
Flash bulbs were fun as you couldn't carry a lot of them, came in huge
boxes, think long ship model kit type boxes, maybe 12 or 20. Surface
used to really melt after use.

<nods> The glass would actually bubble up under the safety plastic.

Post by frank
Had IR ones for IR film also. Whoo hooo. High tech.

"IR" ones? What would be the difference between those & the standard
variety?

[nospam]

Post by Bob Larter

Post by frank
Yeah, Kodak Magic Cubes. One of the many camera types, mainly for
Instamatic, had the film that was in a cartridge.

Yep, that's them.

Post by frank
Didn't know you could have them go off by dropping them.

That's news to me too. I used to zap them with a 9V battery to set them
off for fun.

if you used a battery to fire them, then they were regular flash cubes.

magicubes were mechanically fired by a spring which when released, hit
a pin on the bulb which caused it to flash. you could flash one bulb
by poking a screwdriver into one of the holes, or if you threw a
magicube on the ground, all four springs would release and all four
bulbs would flash.

regular flash cube on the left, magicube on the right:
<Loading Image...>

Post by Bob Larter

Post by frank
Had IR ones for IR film also. Whoo hooo. High tech.

"IR" ones? What would be the difference between those & the standard
variety?

they put out infrared light which is invisible to humans. with
infrared film, one could take flash photos without anyone noticing. a
photographer named weegee was most known for this, often taking photos
inside theatres of the audience. these days, one can use an infrared
flash head.

<http://alecsothblog.wordpress.com/2007/08/02/infraweegee/>

[Ken Hart]

Post by Bob Larter

Post by frank

Post by Bob Larter
[...]

Post by frank
fast. Anybody ever used flashbulbs? Thought not...

Well, not since I was a kid. Remember the 4 shot bulbs that rotated
after each shot?

Yeah, Kodak Magic Cubes. One of the many camera types, mainly for
Instamatic, had the film that was in a cartridge.

Yep, that's them.

Post by frank
Didn't know you could have them go off by dropping them.

That's news to me too. I used to zap them with a 9V battery to set them
off for fun.

Magicubes had no electical connection. If you were zapping cube flashes with
a battery, you were zapping flashcubes. Althougth you could zap Magicubes by
pushing a small screwdriver into the base and tripping the trigger wire.
If you really what to have fun with flashbulbs, get some of the big bulbs
with the standard Edison/household screw-in base (either #5 or #25, I can
never remember which), screw it into a ceiling lamp (make sure it's turned
off!), then wait for someone to turn on the light. Keep in mind that the
bulb could shatter, start a fire, cause a heart attack, break up a marriage,
or other fun stuff!

As for Kodak's film in cartridge, first there was the 126 "Instamatic" size.
Twelve exposures to a roll, the film about the width of 35mm. There was a
sprocket hole for each square frame that caught a pawl inside the camera for
double exposure prevention. Neg size was about 25mmX25mm. After 126 size,
there was 110 "Pocket Instamatic" size. The cartridge was similar in shape,
except much narrower as the film was about 16mm wide. Again there was a
sprocket hole for each rectangular frame. Finally in the Kodak cartridge
saga was the APS size, but the less said about that the better!

[Bob Larter]

Post by Ken Hart

Post by Bob Larter

Post by frank

Post by Bob Larter
[...]

Post by frank
fast. Anybody ever used flashbulbs? Thought not...

Well, not since I was a kid. Remember the 4 shot bulbs that rotated
after each shot?

Yeah, Kodak Magic Cubes. One of the many camera types, mainly for
Instamatic, had the film that was in a cartridge.

Yep, that's them.

Post by frank
Didn't know you could have them go off by dropping them.

That's news to me too. I used to zap them with a 9V battery to set them
off for fun.

Magicubes had no electical connection. If you were zapping cube flashes with
a battery, you were zapping flashcubes.

Probably so. It was long enough ago that I don't remember the details.

[Alan Browne]

Post by frank

Post by Alan Browne

Nat Geo photographers do not always take 10,000 images and select only a
dozen. Sometimes they have the opportunity to do that; sometimes not.
Sometimes you get only a handful of images to choose from. That's the
way the cookie crumbles.

Actually some nat geo photogs don't even see the photos until they're
published, and they might see only a small percentage of the remaining
stock photos. In the film days they would ship undeveloped film back to
DC for development and the photo editors, working with the article
writer would decide which photos to use.
In the digital age, I'm not sure what the modus operandi is, but it
probably involves electronic transfer to DC, and again the photog is not
the one choosing what goes into the article.

Part of it is, you're out in the field for months at a time. You don't
get to process the images and see what is there. Maybe you'll get
feedback. Way different than how most of us shoot.
Think of it as you're taking your gear with you somewhere where there
is NO support. What you carry in and film. Or digital cards.
I've read on line of going to the Galapagos as sort of similar.
Of course you're expected to have decent images on those 10,000 you
send in. that's not a lot, only about 300 rolls.

Around 2000 NatGeo had a small article about the photographers. The
_average_ assignment turned in 27,000 frames over its course (one
photog). It was all film, so the photog never saw them until (s)he came
home (and many rarely went to Washington at all).

During the assignment they would get direction on needs from both the
photo editor (Wash DC) and the article writer/researcher (field). Often
the photog would show up days or weeks at a location after the writer
had left - but had to capture material per the writers needs.

Exceptionally, the article writer was the photog, in which case (s)he
would see much more of the photography.

Post by frank
Much easier to have decent shots the vast majority of the time than it
was 40 years ago. Digital wasn't around, but even with film. Much
easier to shoot 10,000 shots also.

Yep. Fewer 'safety' shots. Histogram and monitor let the photog be
assured his exposure is right.

Post by frank
Used to be 2 or 3 frames a sec was
fast. Anybody ever used flashbulbs? Thought not...

I doubt many Nat Geo photogs relied on machine gun photography very often.

[C J Campbell]

On 2009-04-09 12:54:37 -0700, Alan Browne

Post by Alan Browne

Post by C J Campbell
Nat Geo photographers do not always take 10,000 images and select only
a dozen. Sometimes they have the opportunity to do that; sometimes not.
Sometimes you get only a handful of images to choose from. That's the
way the cookie crumbles.

Actually some nat geo photogs don't even see the photos until they're
published, and they might see only a small percentage of the remaining
stock photos. In the film days they would ship undeveloped film back to
DC for development and the photo editors, working with the article
writer would decide which photos to use.
In the digital age, I'm not sure what the modus operandi is, but it
probably involves electronic transfer to DC, and again the photog is not
the one choosing what goes into the article.

Yeah, Gregg said he never saw his photos until they were published. He
often saw some of the rejects later and sometimes thought they were
better than the ones that were published. But the editor makes the
selection. Gregg Gibson was one of the first professional documentary
photographers to go digital. His photo of Clinton, the elder Bush, and
Perot standing together on Newsweek was the first digital photo to
appear on the cover of a national magazine. It was transmitted
electronically as he took it and thus beat his competition who depended
on film runners by several hours. The photo was one of the body of work
which got him his first Pulitzer.

It basically works the same way now. You send your photos to an editor,
usually some guy who is stationed permanently in the region who handles
a bunch of photographers, and he sends his picks on for publication.

[Paul Furman]

Post by C J Campbell

Post by Bruce

Post by C J Campbell
Even Bresson did not just walk around pointing the camera
aimlessly, squeezing the shutter with his shut. Bresson worked hard to
capture his moments. He was not a chimpanzee randomly pecking keys on a
typewriter to produce the works of Shakespeare. Bresson's work is a
tribute to the documentary photographer's ability to anticipate,
visualize and capture a moment all in a split second. But he did not
skip any of those steps, whether he realized it or not.

All true, but HCB was a prolific shooter and took a great many photos
while out shooting. Even though there are many volumes of his published
work, we have seen only very few of those shots.
Perhaps there is a valid comparison to be made with National Geographic
shooters who typically produced over 10,000 shots on film in order to
illustrate an article with only a couple of dozen, if that.

Gregg Gibson told me that he typically takes over 7,000 frames at a
wedding. He winnows those down to about 130 that he shows the happy
couple, and they make their selection from those.
Gibson did not win two Pulitzer Prizes by taking 10,000 copies of the
same image with only slight variation among them. I have seen him at
work; he takes one shot -- then changes position, focal length, or
something else. When he is done with a shoot he is literally dripping
with sweat because he is moving around so actively. He may shoot 100
frames or more in the space of a minute or two. Each frame will be
radically different.
How he keeps that energy level up at an entire wedding is beyond me.
Nat Geo photographers do not always take 10,000 images and select only a
dozen. Sometimes they have the opportunity to do that; sometimes not.
Sometimes you get only a handful of images to choose from. That's the
way the cookie crumbles.
I do not know how many pictures Eddie Adams took on February 1, 1968. He
got the Pulitzer for only one of them -- the execution of a Viet Cong
officer by General Nguyen Ngoc Loan. This execution was also filmed by a
TV crew. A documentary interviewing Adams, showing the picture, and also
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6459381285349469159

I like that idea of roaming around snapping as you explore. I usually do
about 200 photos for a few hours of visiting some place and winnow that
down to about 50 photos. That's hard work, culling.

Post by C J Campbell
Obviously, Adams could not take 10,000 images of this execution. He had
time for one. The entire execution, from the time that they start
dragging the Viet Cong into the street to the time that he is lying in
it, is less then 5 seconds. That was it. I do not know what else he shot
that day, but for that day, and perhaps for the entire war, it was "the"
picture.

Post by Bruce
I am not suggesting (in either case) that the published shots happened
by chance. Far from it: I have no doubt that great care was taken with
the majority of shots taken, and that a very large percentage of them
would be considered suitable for publication.
However, I also have no doubt that the taking of such large numbers of
images in both cases actively contributes to the extremely high standard
of published work - work to which we are privileged to have access at
the small cost of buying a book, or the magazine.

Indeed. I don't think people fully appreciate this. We have come a long
way from attempting to communicate with stained glass windows and
illuminated manuscripts painstakingly constructed over a period of
decades. I am not sure that it is always for the better, but on the
whole I believe it is.

[Doug Jewell]

Post by C J Campbell

Post by Focus
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=31436871
I was looking over the reactions as some folks seem to think that it's OK
for Nikon to over expose in MM. But is it really?
"Nikon 3D Color Matrix Metering II with Scene Recognition System: Nikon's
renowned 420-pixel RGB 3D Color Matrix Metering II, teamed with the
exclusive Scene Recognition System, evaluates images, referencing an
on-board database of over 30,000 photographic scenes, for unmatched exposure
accuracy."
A database of 30.000 photos? None of them had a clear, sunny sky in them?
That hardly sounds like a camera that would blow out skies like a P&S
shooter, does it?
So, Nikon: explain yourself.

Most matrix metering systems nowadays will give you a good exposure --
for at least part of the picture. However, it is impossible for any
camera when faced with both bright sky and shadows to properly expose
for both. It is going to pick one or the other.
The difference between a good photographer and a snap-shooter is the
ability to understand and deal with the limitations of what cameras can
do. That includes a good understanding of lighting problems and what to
do about them.

The thing is though, I wouldn't call a simple sunlit
landscape a "lighting problem". After portraits, sunlit
landscapes would probably be the next most commonly shot
thing - by pros, keen photographers, and mum & dad snapshooters.

I've taken countless landscapes myself, on equipment ranging
from 35mm rangefinders with no light meter, through to
mid-range DSLRs. Yet, I never had a single problem metering
this type of shot, until I got a DSLR. Getting these shots
nailed ain't rocket science. If you have no meter, sunny 16
and open up a bit if it's hazy/cloudy. On my old cameras
that had meters, I could always trust it - even using slide
film. Your gut feel would tell you if a shot warranted
adjustement of the exposure (snowfields, beach etc), but a
simple sunlit landscape wasn't one of those situations.

Manual mode and sunny 16 tends to go ok with my digitals,
but you should still be able to trust the meter, and IME,
you can't. Trust the meter and you'll get a white sky pretty
much every time. This is what I've found with my Canon and
Samsung/Pentax gear, and from what I've seen from others
with the 2-digit Nikon bodies, they handle it even worse
than Canon & Samsung/Pentax.

When I was selling cameras, it would be a fairly regular
occurrence that people would bring Nikon DSLRs in claiming
they were faulty because of this very fault. I'm not talking
about the mum & dad snapshooter with their first DSLR camera
- they probably don't know enough to recognise that they are
getting overexposure. I'm talking about people who are
seasoned photographers, professionals etc.

Yes there are workarounds, and someone with a bit of
experience knows that if they go manual, put negative EC on,
bracket, or use the histogram they can get a correct
exposure. But the fact remains that auto exposure,
especially in a matrix mode that supposedly analyses the
photograph and adjusts for the type of photo, should not get
something as common as a sunlit landscape fundamentally wrong.

[C J Campbell]

Post by C J Campbell

Post by Focus
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=31436871
I was looking over the reactions as some folks seem to think that it's OK
for Nikon to over expose in MM. But is it really?
"Nikon 3D Color Matrix Metering II with Scene Recognition System: Nikon's
renowned 420-pixel RGB 3D Color Matrix Metering II, teamed with the
exclusive Scene Recognition System, evaluates images, referencing an
on-board database of over 30,000 photographic scenes, for unmatched exposure
accuracy."
A database of 30.000 photos? None of them had a clear, sunny sky in them?
That hardly sounds like a camera that would blow out skies like a P&S
shooter, does it?
So, Nikon: explain yourself.

Most matrix metering systems nowadays will give you a good exposure --
for at least part of the picture. However, it is impossible for any
camera when faced with both bright sky and shadows to properly expose
for both. It is going to pick one or the other.
The difference between a good photographer and a snap-shooter is the
ability to understand and deal with the limitations of what cameras can
do. That includes a good understanding of lighting problems and what to
do about them.

The thing is though, I wouldn't call a simple sunlit landscape a
"lighting problem". After portraits, sunlit landscapes would probably
be the next most commonly shot thing - by pros, keen photographers, and
mum & dad snapshooters.
I've taken countless landscapes myself, on equipment ranging from 35mm
rangefinders with no light meter, through to mid-range DSLRs. Yet, I
never had a single problem metering this type of shot, until I got a
DSLR. Getting these shots nailed ain't rocket science. If you have no
meter, sunny 16 and open up a bit if it's hazy/cloudy. On my old
cameras that had meters, I could always trust it - even using slide
film. Your gut feel would tell you if a shot warranted adjustement of
the exposure (snowfields, beach etc), but a simple sunlit landscape
wasn't one of those situations.
Manual mode and sunny 16 tends to go ok with my digitals, but you
should still be able to trust the meter, and IME, you can't. Trust the
meter and you'll get a white sky pretty much every time. This is what
I've found with my Canon and Samsung/Pentax gear, and from what I've
seen from others with the 2-digit Nikon bodies, they handle it even
worse than Canon & Samsung/Pentax.
When I was selling cameras, it would be a fairly regular occurrence
that people would bring Nikon DSLRs in claiming they were faulty
because of this very fault. I'm not talking about the mum & dad
snapshooter with their first DSLR camera - they probably don't know
enough to recognise that they are getting overexposure. I'm talking
about people who are seasoned photographers, professionals etc.
Yes there are workarounds, and someone with a bit of experience knows
that if they go manual, put negative EC on, bracket, or use the
histogram they can get a correct exposure. But the fact remains that
auto exposure, especially in a matrix mode that supposedly analyses the
photograph and adjusts for the type of photo, should not get something
as common as a sunlit landscape fundamentally wrong.

So I have not owned one of the "two digit" Nikons since the D70, which
did not seem to have the exposure problem you describe. It does not
seem to be a problem on the outdoor landscapes you see on review sites.
Neither do I see the problem on photo sharing groups.

I mean, far be it from me to suggest "user error," but there it is. A
camera salesman (who just might be interested in selling more expensive
cameras) and one user who see this problem, against everybody else who
does not. Especially with a user who has expressed extreme
dissatisfaction with every camera he has handled -- I have never seen a
guy who has gone through so many cameras in such a short period of
time. So I hope you will understand that if Focus complains about his
camera, it is pretty much getting to be "same-old, same-old."

Sometimes people who use cameras like the D90 will use S mode and then
run out of apertures, which can cause severe under- or over-exposure.
But I would not expect that a professional camera salesman or a pro
shooter like Focus to make a tyro error like that, eh?

However, it is very difficult to address yours and Focus' assertion
that there is something wrong with the D90 without seeing some actual
photos, along with additional information such as what metering mode
the camera was in, whether it was in P (for Professional), M, A, S, or
one of the built-in programmed modes, whether it was shot raw or JPG,
etc. So far, both you and Focus have been less than forthcoming in
demonstrating the actual problem.

And yes, landscapes pose lighting problems, not least of which can be a
need for fill flash for the foreground. If you are exposing for the
foreground, you may well get a washed out sky. No two ways about it.
This is not a digital problem; it is even worse with film. Camera
sensors, both digital and film, can only address a very limited range
of stops. A "pro" would know this.

For that matter, a "pro" would know how to calibrate the exposure on
his camera, anyway, using a white sheet of paper and an incident light
meter, so that he would know whether his camera consistently over- or
under-exposes and whether it is a common tendency across the board for
a particular model or specific to a particular body. A "pro" would also
know that this can change over time.

So, while I am not calling you a liar, I do point out that your
experience appears to be contrary to that of most users.

[Rob Morley]

On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 07:00:06 -0700

Post by C J Campbell
And yes, landscapes pose lighting problems, not least of which can be
a need for fill flash for the foreground. If you are exposing for the
foreground, you may well get a washed out sky. No two ways about it.

Often quite easily overcome with a ND filter aligned with the horizon,
and some really high-tech metering system like my Leningrad 4.

[Focus]

Post by C J Campbell

Post by Focus
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=31436871
I was looking over the reactions as some folks seem to think that it's OK
for Nikon to over expose in MM. But is it really?
"Nikon 3D Color Matrix Metering II with Scene Recognition System: Nikon's
renowned 420-pixel RGB 3D Color Matrix Metering II, teamed with the
exclusive Scene Recognition System, evaluates images, referencing an
on-board database of over 30,000 photographic scenes, for unmatched exposure
accuracy."
A database of 30.000 photos? None of them had a clear, sunny sky in them?
That hardly sounds like a camera that would blow out skies like a P&S
shooter, does it?
So, Nikon: explain yourself.

Most matrix metering systems nowadays will give you a good exposure --
for at least part of the picture. However, it is impossible for any
camera when faced with both bright sky and shadows to properly expose
for both. It is going to pick one or the other.
The difference between a good photographer and a snap-shooter is the
ability to understand and deal with the limitations of what cameras can
do. That includes a good understanding of lighting problems and what to
do about them.

The thing is though, I wouldn't call a simple sunlit landscape a
"lighting problem". After portraits, sunlit landscapes would probably be
the next most commonly shot thing - by pros, keen photographers, and mum
& dad snapshooters.
I've taken countless landscapes myself, on equipment ranging from 35mm
rangefinders with no light meter, through to mid-range DSLRs. Yet, I
never had a single problem metering this type of shot, until I got a
DSLR. Getting these shots nailed ain't rocket science. If you have no
meter, sunny 16 and open up a bit if it's hazy/cloudy. On my old cameras
that had meters, I could always trust it - even using slide film. Your
gut feel would tell you if a shot warranted adjustement of the exposure
(snowfields, beach etc), but a simple sunlit landscape wasn't one of
those situations.
Manual mode and sunny 16 tends to go ok with my digitals, but you should
still be able to trust the meter, and IME, you can't. Trust the meter and
you'll get a white sky pretty much every time. This is what I've found
with my Canon and Samsung/Pentax gear, and from what I've seen from
others with the 2-digit Nikon bodies, they handle it even worse than
Canon & Samsung/Pentax.
When I was selling cameras, it would be a fairly regular occurrence that
people would bring Nikon DSLRs in claiming they were faulty because of
this very fault. I'm not talking about the mum & dad snapshooter with
their first DSLR camera - they probably don't know enough to recognise
that they are getting overexposure. I'm talking about people who are
seasoned photographers, professionals etc.
Yes there are workarounds, and someone with a bit of experience knows
that if they go manual, put negative EC on, bracket, or use the histogram
they can get a correct exposure. But the fact remains that auto exposure,
especially in a matrix mode that supposedly analyses the photograph and
adjusts for the type of photo, should not get something as common as a
sunlit landscape fundamentally wrong.

So I have not owned one of the "two digit" Nikons since the D70, which did
not seem to have the exposure problem you describe. It does not seem to be
a problem on the outdoor landscapes you see on review sites. Neither do I
see the problem on photo sharing groups.
I mean, far be it from me to suggest "user error," but there it is. A
camera salesman (who just might be interested in selling more expensive
cameras) and one user who see this problem, against everybody else who
does not. Especially with a user who has expressed extreme dissatisfaction
with every camera he has handled -- I have never seen a guy who has gone
through so many cameras in such a short period of time. So I hope you will
understand that if Focus complains about his camera, it is pretty much
getting to be "same-old, same-old."
Sometimes people who use cameras like the D90 will use S mode and then run
out of apertures, which can cause severe under- or over-exposure. But I
would not expect that a professional camera salesman or a pro shooter like
Focus to make a tyro error like that, eh?
However, it is very difficult to address yours and Focus' assertion that
there is something wrong with the D90 without seeing some actual photos,
along with additional information such as what metering mode the camera
was in, whether it was in P (for Professional), M, A, S, or one of the
built-in programmed modes, whether it was shot raw or JPG, etc. So far,
both you and Focus have been less than forthcoming in demonstrating the
actual problem.
And yes, landscapes pose lighting problems, not least of which can be a
need for fill flash for the foreground. If you are exposing for the
foreground, you may well get a washed out sky. No two ways about it. This
is not a digital problem; it is even worse with film. Camera sensors, both
digital and film, can only address a very limited range of stops. A "pro"
would know this.
For that matter, a "pro" would know how to calibrate the exposure on his
camera, anyway, using a white sheet of paper and an incident light meter,
so that he would know whether his camera consistently over- or
under-exposes and whether it is a common tendency across the board for a
particular model or specific to a particular body. A "pro" would also know
that this can change over time.
So, while I am not calling you a liar, I do point out that your experience
appears to be contrary to that of most users.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

Maybe you should do more reading and less writing.
"Most users"???
The link I gave to only one discussion on dpr, resulted in 34 people that
agree there is a problem with MM, (among them a man with 50 years
experience!) and 4 against. The rest is about how to avoid this crappy
problem.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=31335581

If you look more, you'll find more threads about the D90's MM problem.

Also DPreview's test pointed out the same problem.
That I had a lot of camera's, only makes me more qualified to "expose" a
problem. You prefer to mock me and even try to make a fool of me.
Since you don't even own a D90: what the heck are you talking about?

On top of that: Nikon Netherlands replied to my complaint and wrote they
were aware much more people that had problems with it.
But of course: you know everything much better, I just forgot why....

Seems like a lot of ballony: a camera can change over time? LOL, some pro
you are, sir!

[ASAAR]

Post by Focus
If you look more, you'll find more threads about the D90's MM problem.

The more one looks, the easier it becomes to find bogus gripes
that complain about virtually anything that one wants to find.

Post by Focus
Also DPreview's test pointed out the same problem.
That I had a lot of camera's, only makes me more qualified to "expose" a
problem. You prefer to mock me and even try to make a fool of me.
Since you don't even own a D90: what the heck are you talking about?

The only thing that has been exposed is your inability to
competently evaluate cameras. You quickly bounce from "It's a
perfect camera" to "it's a piece of crap". Even without owning a
D90, Mssr. Waddling Eagle is a better judge of it than you.

Post by Focus
On top of that: Nikon Netherlands replied to my complaint and wrote they
were aware much more people that had problems with it.
But of course: you know everything much better, I just forgot why....
Seems like a lot of ballony: a camera can change over time? LOL, some pro
you are, sir!

Thom Hogan is a pro that you should read more of. He finds the
matrix metering of the D40 is comparable to the D50, just slightly
better than the D80, but meters hotter than the D200, and he doesn't
particularly care for the D80's matrix metering. But he says in his
review of the D90 that he likes it quite a lot more than the D80 and
that the D90's metering and AF performance are both better than the
D80's, but not quite as good as the D300's AF and metering.

Thom is quick to point out flaws in Nikon's products and it should
be no surprise that I respect his opinions much more than yours.
But then he doesn't come across as a perpetually whining immature
little boy that has a lot to learn. What seems clear is that you
don't understand how matrix metering works, how its implementation
differs among the different Nikon bodies, and probably little tricks
such as how to get an exposure that's the average of two different
matrix-meter evaluations. A pro wants their DSLR to be a flexible
tool and will take the time to learn how to use it to the best of
their abilities. You seem to be looking more for a camera that can
be used without requiring much thought to get decent pictures.
Maybe a D40 or even a P90 would suit you better.

[unknown]

Post by ASAAR

Post by Focus
If you look more, you'll find more threads about the D90's MM problem.

The more one looks, the easier it becomes to find bogus gripes
that complain about virtually anything that one wants to find.

Post by Focus
Also DPreview's test pointed out the same problem.
That I had a lot of camera's, only makes me more qualified to "expose" a
problem. You prefer to mock me and even try to make a fool of me.
Since you don't even own a D90: what the heck are you talking about?

The only thing that has been exposed is your inability to
competently evaluate cameras.

Ad hoiminem attacks

Cameras do deserve attacks ... "ad camerae" but that seems a
bit silly, as it actually means "to the room".

And metering systems particularly deserve (warranted) attacks.

One does not actually expect fullframe weighted,
center weighted, or spot metering, applied mindlessly,
to give correct exposure of certain scenes, of which the
bright sky, partially shaded landscape is prototypical.

However, I would posit that if a camera offers a multipoint
"matrix" scheme that claims "30,000 reference images", it
would be able to get it right. But what is "right? Ignore the sky
and expose the land as if a big mountain is in the background?
Cut exposure so that the sky is not clipped and underexpose the
foreground, at least in the "landscape mode" high contrast JPEG?
Cut the contrast in the JPEG so the sky is not clipped and
the foreground at least passable? Expose so a RAW file has
a non-clipped sky and the JPEG be damned?

I'd of course take the last option. But others might differ.

Doug McDonald

[ASAAR]

On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 08:01:20 -0500, "mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY

Post by unknown
However, I would posit that if a camera offers a multipoint
"matrix" scheme that claims "30,000 reference images", it
would be able to get it right. But what is "right? Ignore the sky
and expose the land as if a big mountain is in the background?
Cut exposure so that the sky is not clipped and underexpose the
foreground, at least in the "landscape mode" high contrast JPEG?
Cut the contrast in the JPEG so the sky is not clipped and
the foreground at least passable? Expose so a RAW file has
a non-clipped sky and the JPEG be damned?
I'd of course take the last option. But others might differ.

Well, that's the nub of Focus's problem. He expects that the
camera really has a matrix metering mind reading system that will
infallibly provide the exposure that will keep him grinning. As I
said, the camera is a tool and better results will come from
learning how to understand how it works, in order to use it to the
photographer's best advantage. In his D90 review, Thom Hogan
repeatedly points out how the D90 functions similar to the D300, and
says that as far as metering is concerned, its improved over the

Post by unknown
Metering has changed on the D300, as has autofocus, and the two
are now having relations together. Yes, we still have the same
1005-pixel CCD in the viewfinder doing the metering, though its
position has changed (still vulnerable to light coming through the
viewfinder, by the way) and it's now linked in real time to the AF
system. The critical change comes for matrix meter users: the D300
pays more attention to what's under the autofocus sensor being used
than the D200 did. Enough so that you need to pay closer attention
to your histograms. Some have said that the D300 exposes "hotter"
than the D200, but that's not actually true in my experience. Nikon
has changed the mid-tone gamma at the default settings, which gives
the appearance of brighter images, but in a stable, moderate contrast
scene with something neutral under the AF sensor, both my D200
and D300 give the same exposure. But be careful if you've got bright
or dark objects under the focus point--you'll get more variation of
the metering in such cases than the D200 gave.

And the same applies to the D90. Most real daylight scenes have a
much greater dynamic range that any camera can capture, so it's up
to the photographer to steer the camera towards capturing the subset
that is wanted. If Focus thinks that the D40's metering is much
better, then that's the camera he should use, and not be seduced by
what others think of the D90. The D90 simply exposes how he's
succumbed to the Photographer's Peter Principle.

[C J Campbell]

Post by ASAAR
On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 08:01:20 -0500, "mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY

Post by unknown
However, I would posit that if a camera offers a multipoint
"matrix" scheme that claims "30,000 reference images", it
would be able to get it right. But what is "right? Ignore the sky
and expose the land as if a big mountain is in the background?
Cut exposure so that the sky is not clipped and underexpose the
foreground, at least in the "landscape mode" high contrast JPEG?
Cut the contrast in the JPEG so the sky is not clipped and
the foreground at least passable? Expose so a RAW file has
a non-clipped sky and the JPEG be damned?
I'd of course take the last option. But others might differ.

Well, that's the nub of Focus's problem. He expects that the
camera really has a matrix metering mind reading system that will
infallibly provide the exposure that will keep him grinning.

Yes. He wants the camera to read his mind and automatically expose for
the sky when he wants it to do that, and expose for the ground when he
wants it to do that, or miraculously come up with a perfect exposure
for both in the same frame!

[Eric Stevens]

Post by Focus

Post by C J Campbell

Post by Focus
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=31436871
I was looking over the reactions as some folks seem to think that it's OK
for Nikon to over expose in MM. But is it really?
"Nikon 3D Color Matrix Metering II with Scene Recognition System: Nikon's
renowned 420-pixel RGB 3D Color Matrix Metering II, teamed with the
exclusive Scene Recognition System, evaluates images, referencing an
on-board database of over 30,000 photographic scenes, for unmatched exposure
accuracy."
A database of 30.000 photos? None of them had a clear, sunny sky in them?
That hardly sounds like a camera that would blow out skies like a P&S
shooter, does it?
So, Nikon: explain yourself.

Most matrix metering systems nowadays will give you a good exposure --
for at least part of the picture. However, it is impossible for any
camera when faced with both bright sky and shadows to properly expose
for both. It is going to pick one or the other.
The difference between a good photographer and a snap-shooter is the
ability to understand and deal with the limitations of what cameras can
do. That includes a good understanding of lighting problems and what to
do about them.

The thing is though, I wouldn't call a simple sunlit landscape a
"lighting problem". After portraits, sunlit landscapes would probably be
the next most commonly shot thing - by pros, keen photographers, and mum
& dad snapshooters.
I've taken countless landscapes myself, on equipment ranging from 35mm
rangefinders with no light meter, through to mid-range DSLRs. Yet, I
never had a single problem metering this type of shot, until I got a
DSLR. Getting these shots nailed ain't rocket science. If you have no
meter, sunny 16 and open up a bit if it's hazy/cloudy. On my old cameras
that had meters, I could always trust it - even using slide film. Your
gut feel would tell you if a shot warranted adjustement of the exposure
(snowfields, beach etc), but a simple sunlit landscape wasn't one of
those situations.
Manual mode and sunny 16 tends to go ok with my digitals, but you should
still be able to trust the meter, and IME, you can't. Trust the meter and
you'll get a white sky pretty much every time. This is what I've found
with my Canon and Samsung/Pentax gear, and from what I've seen from
others with the 2-digit Nikon bodies, they handle it even worse than
Canon & Samsung/Pentax.
When I was selling cameras, it would be a fairly regular occurrence that
people would bring Nikon DSLRs in claiming they were faulty because of
this very fault. I'm not talking about the mum & dad snapshooter with
their first DSLR camera - they probably don't know enough to recognise
that they are getting overexposure. I'm talking about people who are
seasoned photographers, professionals etc.
Yes there are workarounds, and someone with a bit of experience knows
that if they go manual, put negative EC on, bracket, or use the histogram
they can get a correct exposure. But the fact remains that auto exposure,
especially in a matrix mode that supposedly analyses the photograph and
adjusts for the type of photo, should not get something as common as a
sunlit landscape fundamentally wrong.

So I have not owned one of the "two digit" Nikons since the D70, which did
not seem to have the exposure problem you describe. It does not seem to be
a problem on the outdoor landscapes you see on review sites. Neither do I
see the problem on photo sharing groups.
I mean, far be it from me to suggest "user error," but there it is. A
camera salesman (who just might be interested in selling more expensive
cameras) and one user who see this problem, against everybody else who
does not. Especially with a user who has expressed extreme dissatisfaction
with every camera he has handled -- I have never seen a guy who has gone
through so many cameras in such a short period of time. So I hope you will
understand that if Focus complains about his camera, it is pretty much
getting to be "same-old, same-old."
Sometimes people who use cameras like the D90 will use S mode and then run
out of apertures, which can cause severe under- or over-exposure. But I
would not expect that a professional camera salesman or a pro shooter like
Focus to make a tyro error like that, eh?
However, it is very difficult to address yours and Focus' assertion that
there is something wrong with the D90 without seeing some actual photos,
along with additional information such as what metering mode the camera
was in, whether it was in P (for Professional), M, A, S, or one of the
built-in programmed modes, whether it was shot raw or JPG, etc. So far,
both you and Focus have been less than forthcoming in demonstrating the
actual problem.
And yes, landscapes pose lighting problems, not least of which can be a
need for fill flash for the foreground. If you are exposing for the
foreground, you may well get a washed out sky. No two ways about it. This
is not a digital problem; it is even worse with film. Camera sensors, both
digital and film, can only address a very limited range of stops. A "pro"
would know this.
For that matter, a "pro" would know how to calibrate the exposure on his
camera, anyway, using a white sheet of paper and an incident light meter,
so that he would know whether his camera consistently over- or
under-exposes and whether it is a common tendency across the board for a
particular model or specific to a particular body. A "pro" would also know
that this can change over time.
So, while I am not calling you a liar, I do point out that your experience
appears to be contrary to that of most users.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

Maybe you should do more reading and less writing.
"Most users"???
The link I gave to only one discussion on dpr, resulted in 34 people that
agree there is a problem with MM, (among them a man with 50 years
experience!) and 4 against. The rest is about how to avoid this crappy
problem.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=31335581
If you look more, you'll find more threads about the D90's MM problem.
Also DPreview's test pointed out the same problem.
That I had a lot of camera's, only makes me more qualified to "expose" a
problem. You prefer to mock me and even try to make a fool of me.
Since you don't even own a D90: what the heck are you talking about?
On top of that: Nikon Netherlands replied to my complaint and wrote they
were aware much more people that had problems with it.
But of course: you know everything much better, I just forgot why....
Seems like a lot of ballony: a camera can change over time? LOL, some pro
you are, sir!

Before things get too heated .... there is another aspect which has
not yet been mentioned.

For many years I used a Nikon 801s (8008s in the US) which almost
totally exclusively was set in 'A' mode. I would choose the aperture
according to the needs of the picture and then check that the shutter
speed was acceptable. This camera had matrix metering but to the best
of my recollection never exhibited the over-exposed sky problem.

Later I used a Nikon D70 which I used in the same fashion. Virtually
all of my shots were in RAW mode and processed by Nikon NX software.
No over-exposed sky problem.

I'm now running a D300, and ditto except that I now use NX2.

There is much more to be considered in the chain other than the simple
metering of the exposure. Maybe the problem varies from mode to mode.
Maybe the problem is in the camera's software, which I bypass by using
RAW and external processing. Who really knows at this stage?



Eric Stevens

[Focus]

Post by Eric Stevens

Post by Focus

Post by C J Campbell

Post by Focus
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=31436871
I was looking over the reactions as some folks seem to think that
it's
OK
for Nikon to over expose in MM. But is it really?
"Nikon 3D Color Matrix Metering II with Scene Recognition System: Nikon's
renowned 420-pixel RGB 3D Color Matrix Metering II, teamed with the
exclusive Scene Recognition System, evaluates images, referencing an
on-board database of over 30,000 photographic scenes, for unmatched exposure
accuracy."
A database of 30.000 photos? None of them had a clear, sunny sky in them?
That hardly sounds like a camera that would blow out skies like a P&S
shooter, does it?
So, Nikon: explain yourself.

Most matrix metering systems nowadays will give you a good exposure --
for at least part of the picture. However, it is impossible for any
camera when faced with both bright sky and shadows to properly expose
for both. It is going to pick one or the other.
The difference between a good photographer and a snap-shooter is the
ability to understand and deal with the limitations of what cameras can
do. That includes a good understanding of lighting problems and what to
do about them.

The thing is though, I wouldn't call a simple sunlit landscape a
"lighting problem". After portraits, sunlit landscapes would probably be
the next most commonly shot thing - by pros, keen photographers, and mum
& dad snapshooters.
I've taken countless landscapes myself, on equipment ranging from 35mm
rangefinders with no light meter, through to mid-range DSLRs. Yet, I
never had a single problem metering this type of shot, until I got a
DSLR. Getting these shots nailed ain't rocket science. If you have no
meter, sunny 16 and open up a bit if it's hazy/cloudy. On my old cameras
that had meters, I could always trust it - even using slide film. Your
gut feel would tell you if a shot warranted adjustement of the exposure
(snowfields, beach etc), but a simple sunlit landscape wasn't one of
those situations.
Manual mode and sunny 16 tends to go ok with my digitals, but you should
still be able to trust the meter, and IME, you can't. Trust the meter and
you'll get a white sky pretty much every time. This is what I've found
with my Canon and Samsung/Pentax gear, and from what I've seen from
others with the 2-digit Nikon bodies, they handle it even worse than
Canon & Samsung/Pentax.
When I was selling cameras, it would be a fairly regular occurrence that
people would bring Nikon DSLRs in claiming they were faulty because of
this very fault. I'm not talking about the mum & dad snapshooter with
their first DSLR camera - they probably don't know enough to recognise
that they are getting overexposure. I'm talking about people who are
seasoned photographers, professionals etc.
Yes there are workarounds, and someone with a bit of experience knows
that if they go manual, put negative EC on, bracket, or use the histogram
they can get a correct exposure. But the fact remains that auto exposure,
especially in a matrix mode that supposedly analyses the photograph and
adjusts for the type of photo, should not get something as common as a
sunlit landscape fundamentally wrong.

So I have not owned one of the "two digit" Nikons since the D70, which did
not seem to have the exposure problem you describe. It does not seem to be
a problem on the outdoor landscapes you see on review sites. Neither do I
see the problem on photo sharing groups.
I mean, far be it from me to suggest "user error," but there it is. A
camera salesman (who just might be interested in selling more expensive
cameras) and one user who see this problem, against everybody else who
does not. Especially with a user who has expressed extreme
dissatisfaction
with every camera he has handled -- I have never seen a guy who has gone
through so many cameras in such a short period of time. So I hope you will
understand that if Focus complains about his camera, it is pretty much
getting to be "same-old, same-old."
Sometimes people who use cameras like the D90 will use S mode and then run
out of apertures, which can cause severe under- or over-exposure. But I
would not expect that a professional camera salesman or a pro shooter like
Focus to make a tyro error like that, eh?
However, it is very difficult to address yours and Focus' assertion that
there is something wrong with the D90 without seeing some actual photos,
along with additional information such as what metering mode the camera
was in, whether it was in P (for Professional), M, A, S, or one of the
built-in programmed modes, whether it was shot raw or JPG, etc. So far,
both you and Focus have been less than forthcoming in demonstrating the
actual problem.
And yes, landscapes pose lighting problems, not least of which can be a
need for fill flash for the foreground. If you are exposing for the
foreground, you may well get a washed out sky. No two ways about it. This
is not a digital problem; it is even worse with film. Camera sensors, both
digital and film, can only address a very limited range of stops. A "pro"
would know this.
For that matter, a "pro" would know how to calibrate the exposure on his
camera, anyway, using a white sheet of paper and an incident light meter,
so that he would know whether his camera consistently over- or
under-exposes and whether it is a common tendency across the board for a
particular model or specific to a particular body. A "pro" would also know
that this can change over time.
So, while I am not calling you a liar, I do point out that your experience
appears to be contrary to that of most users.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

Maybe you should do more reading and less writing.
"Most users"???
The link I gave to only one discussion on dpr, resulted in 34 people that
agree there is a problem with MM, (among them a man with 50 years
experience!) and 4 against. The rest is about how to avoid this crappy
problem.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=31335581
If you look more, you'll find more threads about the D90's MM problem.
Also DPreview's test pointed out the same problem.
That I had a lot of camera's, only makes me more qualified to "expose" a
problem. You prefer to mock me and even try to make a fool of me.
Since you don't even own a D90: what the heck are you talking about?
On top of that: Nikon Netherlands replied to my complaint and wrote they
were aware much more people that had problems with it.
But of course: you know everything much better, I just forgot why....
Seems like a lot of ballony: a camera can change over time? LOL, some pro
you are, sir!

Before things get too heated .... there is another aspect which has
not yet been mentioned.
For many years I used a Nikon 801s (8008s in the US) which almost
totally exclusively was set in 'A' mode. I would choose the aperture
according to the needs of the picture and then check that the shutter
speed was acceptable. This camera had matrix metering but to the best
of my recollection never exhibited the over-exposed sky problem.
Later I used a Nikon D70 which I used in the same fashion. Virtually
all of my shots were in RAW mode and processed by Nikon NX software.
No over-exposed sky problem.
I'm now running a D300, and ditto except that I now use NX2.
There is much more to be considered in the chain other than the simple
metering of the exposure. Maybe the problem varies from mode to mode.
Maybe the problem is in the camera's software, which I bypass by using
RAW and external processing. Who really knows at this stage?
Eric Stevens

Sensible instead of (over)sensitive, that makes sense ;-)

I took some test shots at a usual time and the same place like I took so
many with other camera's, among them the D40, D40x, D300, Sony A350, Canon
40D and a Powershot, which all of them did better.
Now tell me, if you think it's normal that I have to adjust by 2 full stops
to get some detail in the sky. These are made a little before sundown:


http://nikon-box.com/09040815.NEF

http://nikon-box.com/09040817.NEF (adjusted -2 stops)

http://nikon-box.com/090308001.NEF


The real pain in the ass is, that you can't fine tune MM, because the
metering with a flash (internal and SB900) is good.
Also I made some picture at night and they looked as if it was daytime...
With center weight or spot metering: no problem!

Maybe they should add a few more pictures to the "database of 30.000
pictures". I just don't believe it.

[ASAAR]

In any case, the point is now moot as it seems that his problems may
have been due to a camera fault.

"may", as in maybe, maybe not. It may also be a bit of
face-saving spin, as the tech might have said "well, that's
certainly possible" or some such. But even so, if the camera was
really defective, that just emphasizes Focus's immaturity, that he's
so often shows, that he's overly quick to blame someone or something
without having all of the facts.

So, Nikon: explain yourself.
Anyway it's stupid of them not to have matched the D300's MM

Post by ASAAR
It's not wise for those that lack a good understanding of the many
things Nikon to make accusations of stupidity. There are too many
differences between the D300 and D90 (other than exposure modes) to
qualify the D90 as an acceptable backup camera, unless money (or the
photographer) is really tight.

So you think making a MM worse than a cheaper D40, D40x or D60
is a wise decision?

To which I replied "Prejudging a bit here, aren't you?" It now
appears that I was right, and Focus's vision was blurred.

The link I gave to only one discussion on dpr, resulted in 34 people that
agree there is a problem with MM, (among them a man with 50 years
experience!) and 4 against. The rest is about how to avoid this crappy
problem.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=31335581
If you look more, you'll find more threads about the D90's MM problem.
Also DPreview's test pointed out the same problem.
That I had a lot of camera's, only makes me more qualified to "expose" a
problem. You prefer to mock me and even try to make a fool of me.
Since you don't even own a D90: what the heck are you talking about?

But if his personal D90 is defective and the problem isn't due to
a poor MM design, the mocking was deserved, and his early ill
considered comments show that Focus was the only one responsible for
making a fool of himself. Should we now assume that Focus will
never comment about any camera or lens that he hasn't used? I don't
think it's fair that he should so restrict himself. What the heck.
After all, owning a D90 didn't seem to be particularly beneficial.

Maybe they should add a few more pictures to the "database of 30.000
pictures". I just don't believe it.

And I don't believe that Focus should consider having a future as
a trouble shooting technician. :)

[Eric Stevens]

Post by ASAAR

In any case, the point is now moot as it seems that his problems may
have been due to a camera fault.

"may", as in maybe, maybe not. It may also be a bit of
face-saving spin, as the tech might have said "well, that's
certainly possible" or some such. But even so, if the camera was
really defective, that just emphasizes Focus's immaturity, that he's
so often shows, that he's overly quick to blame someone or something
without having all of the facts.

So, Nikon: explain yourself.
Anyway it's stupid of them not to have matched the D300's MM

Post by ASAAR
It's not wise for those that lack a good understanding of the many
things Nikon to make accusations of stupidity. There are too many
differences between the D300 and D90 (other than exposure modes) to
qualify the D90 as an acceptable backup camera, unless money (or the
photographer) is really tight.

So you think making a MM worse than a cheaper D40, D40x or D60
is a wise decision?

To which I replied "Prejudging a bit here, aren't you?" It now
appears that I was right, and Focus's vision was blurred.

The link I gave to only one discussion on dpr, resulted in 34 people that
agree there is a problem with MM, (among them a man with 50 years
experience!) and 4 against. The rest is about how to avoid this crappy
problem.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=31335581
If you look more, you'll find more threads about the D90's MM problem.
Also DPreview's test pointed out the same problem.
That I had a lot of camera's, only makes me more qualified to "expose" a
problem. You prefer to mock me and even try to make a fool of me.
Since you don't even own a D90: what the heck are you talking about?

But if his personal D90 is defective and the problem isn't due to
a poor MM design, the mocking was deserved, and his early ill
considered comments show that Focus was the only one responsible for
making a fool of himself. Should we now assume that Focus will
never comment about any camera or lens that he hasn't used? I don't
think it's fair that he should so restrict himself. What the heck.
After all, owning a D90 didn't seem to be particularly beneficial.

Maybe they should add a few more pictures to the "database of 30.000
pictures". I just don't believe it.

And I don't believe that Focus should consider having a future as
a trouble shooting technician. :)

I can't stop you wanting to throw rocks at him.



Eric Stevens

[ASAAR]

Post by Eric Stevens
I can't stop you wanting to throw rocks at him.

He really needs to stop creating such a tempting, deserving target.
He also is becoming somewhat troll-like. He'd be better off posting
his less obnoxious, sometimes interesting contributions here and
saving his flights of fancy posts for a personal blog, or maybe get
a job as Ken Rockwell's foreign correspondent.

[Bruce]

Post by ASAAR

Post by Eric Stevens
I can't stop you wanting to throw rocks at him.

He really needs to stop creating such a tempting, deserving target.

I agree. I had to put him in my kill file, otherwise I would not be
able to resist pointing out what a serial idiot he is. It seems that
there are now plenty of people to do that, so no need to duplicate.

[Focus]

Post by Bruce

Post by ASAAR

Post by Eric Stevens
I can't stop you wanting to throw rocks at him.

He really needs to stop creating such a tempting, deserving target.

I agree. I had to put him in my kill file, otherwise I would not be
able to resist pointing out what a serial idiot he is. It seems that
there are now plenty of people to do that, so no need to duplicate.

KMA, dumbshit...