Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Olympus dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 23, 2007, 11:10 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
trooplewis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 578
Default

A link to 10 pictures I took at a resort in Scottsdale, Az last weekend. I have cropped and resized the pictures only, no other sharpening or PP work done.

Sometimes the 510 was predictable, sometimes it was not. But I got some that I think look pretty well without my having to do computer work on them.

Here is the link to the pictures; comments, the good and the bad, are welcome.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...hread=24108203
trooplewis is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jul 24, 2007, 4:36 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
skylark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 265
Default

Thanks for posting those "unretouched" photos from the E510. Very nice! As you said, that is the "only" way to judge what the "camera" can do.

I'm wondering. When you say sometimes it was not predictable, could you expand on that?

Thanks, Skylark
skylark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 24, 2007, 5:02 PM   #3
OCD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 101
Default

A nice set of pictures.

With my E510 I found that in the first few days it did give unpredictable exposures, until I found the default ESP metering was ESP + AF. As soon as Ichanged that to ESP 'only', then all my worries disappeared and I get very good exposures in the trickiest of circumstances. The rest of my settings are just 'sharpening low' for JPEG, as it does overcompensate.

Hopefully these slight niggles can be rectified in a Firmware update, andI think the ESP+ AF, that many people are finding a barmy idea as a default setting, will get flipped to just ESP (but not that it matters if you know).
OCD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 24, 2007, 7:43 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
HarjTT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,534
Default

Hi Troop

A big improvement over the earlier shots. I didn;t get time to comment on the previous thread of the overexposed shots but these are much better and look very good for in cam jpegs. I'm not brave enough to shoot straight jpegs - I'm bound to screw something up and thats where RAW comes to save my bacon :G :? :O .

Are we consistently get the above quality shots or a 50-50 mix of keepers and not so kept.

Cheers

Harj

HarjTT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 24, 2007, 10:17 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
trooplewis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 578
Default

HarjTT;

I would say that I am still getting 25% BAD shots, 50% 'just ok" shots, and 25% really nice shots. But I am still taking a lot of pictures and playing with the settings a lot.

Also, most of the shots I take are zoomed way out and then cropped a BUNCH, so a lot of the time what you see is 100% crop, or what others might call pixel peeping. So I'm a bit fussier than some when it comes to the clarity of the original jpeg. If I just resized a full-sized picture to 800x600, 80 percent of my pictures would look pretty good.
trooplewis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 24, 2007, 10:24 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
trooplewis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 578
Default

Skylark, there is probably an explanation to much of what I thought was unpredictable, but it still was hard to figure out when taking the picture.

An example is found in this thread
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...hread=24097086

Plus, take a look at these pictures (exif data preserved) some ESP metered (no AF) and some spot metered. Maybe center-weighted would have worked, but these ones (and I took a lot) should not have been this extreme.
These are all resized only, no crop, so the ESP metering should have picked up less bird and more water to meter to...

ESP at -.3 should not have been this blown out




Spot metered, must have picked up the pure white under the eye.



Spot metered off the neck.



trooplewis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 25, 2007, 3:40 AM   #7
OCD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 101
Default

I think you are just getting your metering wrong.

The top picture would perhaps be an ideal candidate for ESP + AF, and the others it would seem you got your spot in the wrong place.

Simply put the meter is wanting to try and make an exposurethat willgive you the equivalent toan average 18% grey tone on the spot you choose. So if you point it at white it will indicate to the camera to underexpose it to the extent you get an 18% grey tone. Likewise if you point the spot meter at a shadow area, it will overexpose to bring that up to 18% grey. So on the bird I would imagine you should have taken a spot reading off the wing, which looks like it could have been in that 18% grey zone (although reflectance is another thing, and not all materials that look'mid grey' read as 'mid grey').

Of course spot metering is good for not only taking a direct reading, but also evaluating the extremes of the scene and you can then decide for yourself where to slide the EV range. On very difficult scenes like the bird against a very dark background spot metering can also be used to take a reading off an 18% grey card, and if you can't carry one of those, off well lit green grass, maybe you were standing on some? In any case you soon get used to judging what tones/colours translate to an average grey.

You may know all of this already so I'm sorry if I'm assuming to much.


OCD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 25, 2007, 4:15 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
skylark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 265
Default

trooplewis,

Thanks for posting those examples and the link to your other thread. VERY helpful information.

Skylark
skylark is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:43 PM.