Moderator: E.J. Peiker

All times are UTC-05:00

  
« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 10 posts | 
by 06Honda on Thu May 05, 2016 7:20 am
06Honda
Forum Contributor
Posts: 143
Joined: 11 Feb 2013
I shoot mainly nature type images and was wondering if using Active D-Lighting is useful when photographing birds such as warblers etc. which often lurk in the shadows. I have up to this point left it off. One reason I ask is after shooting some turkey vultures recently I needed to manual adjust the shadows in post editing to bring out more detail on the dark bodies. Would having Active D-Lighting on give me better results in this case before doing any editing. Thanks for any info.


Paul
 

by E.J. Peiker on Thu May 05, 2016 8:52 am
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Do you shoot RAW? If so, Active D lighting does nothing to the RAW files. It is for JPEGS only. However if you sue the camera manufacturer's own software for RAW conversion, it can apply the Active-D for you. If AW files.
 

by 06Honda on Thu May 05, 2016 8:54 am
06Honda
Forum Contributor
Posts: 143
Joined: 11 Feb 2013
Normally shot JPEGS, thanks for the info.
 

by aolander on Thu May 05, 2016 4:29 pm
aolander
Forum Contributor
Posts: 276
Joined: 3 Jul 2004
In some instances, Active D-lighting will decrease the exposure to save highlights then boost the shadows with in-camera processing, so it can affect the RAW file (the underexposure part) as well as a JPEG.  You may not want this decrease in exposure.  You can do the same thing, only better, if you shoot RAW and do the processing yourself.
Alan Olander
Minnesota
 

by E.J. Peiker on Fri May 06, 2016 8:32 am
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
aolander wrote:In some instances, Active D-lighting will decrease the exposure to save highlights then boost the shadows with in-camera processing, so it can affect the RAW file (the underexposure part) as well as a JPEG.  You may not want this decrease in exposure.  You can do the same thing, only better, if you shoot RAW and do the processing yourself.
Ah yes, automatic exposure.  Another reason why I don't use it ;)  In manual exposure mode it won't do this - it may change the meter reading to try to trick you into doing that but I don't really use the camera's meter either :)
 

by Mike in O on Fri May 06, 2016 10:57 am
Mike in O
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2673
Joined: 22 Dec 2013
E.J. Peiker wrote:
aolander wrote:In some instances, Active D-lighting will decrease the exposure to save highlights then boost the shadows with in-camera processing, so it can affect the RAW file (the underexposure part) as well as a JPEG.  You may not want this decrease in exposure.  You can do the same thing, only better, if you shoot RAW and do the processing yourself.
Ah yes, automatic exposure.  Another reason why I don't use it ;)  In manual exposure mode it won't do this - it may change the meter reading to try to trick you into doing that but I don't really use the camera's meter either :)

EJ, do you use an old handheld meter from the bygone days?
 

by E.J. Peiker on Fri May 06, 2016 10:37 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
No, in my opinion meters are a completely useless accessory whether external or in camera to me for at least the lats 10 to 12 years. I never use either. In a mirrorless camera you have highlight blinkies, shadow blinkies, zebras, histograms, etc all before you ever take the shot. In my Nikon DSLRs I have a flat picture profile which generates a histogram that mirrors the RAW data so I use that. I could care less what the meter says, if those are correct then my exposure is correct.
 

by Mike in O on Sat May 07, 2016 11:45 am
Mike in O
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2673
Joined: 22 Dec 2013
E.J. Peiker wrote:No, in my opinion meters are a completely useless accessory whether external or in camera to me for at least the lats 10 to 12 years.  I never use either.  In a mirrorless camera you have highlight blinkies, shadow blinkies, zebras, histograms, etc all before you ever take the shot.  In my Nikon DSLRs I have a flat picture profile which generates a histogram that mirrors the RAW data so I use that.  I could care less what the meter says, if those are correct then my exposure is correct.
I believe you are describing using the camera's metering system, no.  If you override the system, you are still basing your changes on the camera's reading.
 

by E.J. Peiker on Sat May 07, 2016 8:45 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Mike in O wrote:
E.J. Peiker wrote:No, in my opinion meters are a completely useless accessory whether external or in camera to me for at least the lats 10 to 12 years.  I never use either.  In a mirrorless camera you have highlight blinkies, shadow blinkies, zebras, histograms, etc all before you ever take the shot.  In my Nikon DSLRs I have a flat picture profile which generates a histogram that mirrors the RAW data so I use that.  I could care less what the meter says, if those are correct then my exposure is correct.
I believe you are describing using the camera's metering system, no.  If you override the system, you are still basing your changes on the camera's reading.
No not at all.  Never in my description above did I ever even consult the metering system?  In the mirrorless example I am using direct readout of the sensor to determine when I am saturating pixels and then backing off until I don't.  In the DSLR example I typically dial in an exposure that I think will likely work based on experience, take a test shot and adjust.  In both cases, those then become my exposures unless conditions change.  Meters react to things that they should not.  Take an example of a white ball on dark surface.  The meter will give you a certain reading.   Now if I move a little farther away or zoom out a bit so that the ball is smaller in the frame, the meter will give a different reading but it should not, there is still just white and dark with the same illumination as before but the meter will want to add exposure because there is less white in the frame.  This is a pointless waste of time to me - having to outsmart the meter to get a consistent exposure when you can actually base your exposure decisions on actual sensor data.
 

by Mike in O on Sun May 08, 2016 8:51 am
Mike in O
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2673
Joined: 22 Dec 2013
I understand what you are saying EJ; I am glad camera meters come with selectivity, from spot all the way to wide (your ball example can be correctly metered). Since my cameras range from an old 900, dslts, to mirrorless, I am constantly switching different meter modes depending on camera and what I want metered, auto to manual.
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
10 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group