Looks like there is such a thing as intelligent chimping! Have realised that LCD tends to make image look over-exposed when it isn't; need to learn about histograms to make it all more controlled.

BTW, though only of interest to those wanting lightweight kit, the FZ7 allows quick transfer between LCD and viewfinder of the whole works and also shoot screen in viewfinder (with eye correction like binocs) yet review on the LCD, both with histogram.

No when a chimp first met a Singh:eek: ---chimp...(S-silent shh) ing-chimping;) .That's the truth guys :D cross my legs and hope to..

I thought this thread had died – wasn’t getting updates.

If you’re going to chimp, surely there's no point in doing so unless you review the histogram? The images alone tell you very little about the exposure, especially in difficult lighting conditions. I would not be surprised to learn that most pros do use it, Arthur Morris certainly does. :D

I photograph birds too, and I agree it isn’t always possible to chimp, but there are many, many occasions when it is possible and a good idea (especially when inexperienced with exposure compensation).

:eek: You are stating an excellent case for chimping, but you say you don’t do it?

I’m an addicted chimper and I don’t think I’ll change. I think learning to use the histogram had a positive impact on my photography. :)

I'm often only interested if a particular area of the image is correctly exposed, the main subject matter is all I'm interested in. An aeroplane in the sky would be one example I can think of. Can you explain how the histogram can tell me if this particular area is exposed correctly?

Duncan

Although I’ve never taken photographs of planes, I can’t think of a circumstance in which it would be difficult to check exposure with the histogram? It’s not too different from photographing birds in flight.

You don’t say what tone your plane is and what colour your sky is? When thinking of planes I tend to think of a predominantly white plane against a blue sky, which would be fairly easy to check. A dark plane against a white sky, a white plane against a dark sky; both would be fairly straightforward also, I think.

In simple terms, if the plane were white, you’d expect to see spikes to the right of the histogram, but not up against the right edge, as this would represent overexposure. This would hold true whatever the colour of the sky. If the plane were black, you’d expect to see spikes to the left of the histogram, but not up against the left edge, as this would represent underexposure. Over or underexposure are both probably impossible to detect from the image alone.

Of course there are circumstances where you may ideally want to include detail in both white and black areas, which may prove impossible. This problem exists whatever method of analysis you use, but using the histogram allows you to make a well-informed decision about what to sacrifice. This all assumes that the plane hasn’t flown off while you do your calculations!

Wish I had "chimped " today!!!.Took lots of shots of some Bee Orchids,alas no card in the cam!!!.But I had taken some using a different cam and lens,but I have missed out on some macro shots.

On the 20D (and on my previous prosumer Minolta A2) where/if the highlights blown out, those parts of the image "blinked" so you could see on the image the areas of overexposure and make a decision to reduce the exposure on not depending on whether or not that part of the image was important.

Don't know if other camera offer this facility - its very useful :D

Bad luck Christine; I am surprised the camera even allows you to press the shutter without a card in.

I have this feature on my 10D. My only complaint is that it’s so small (and my eyes are starting to go!) I sometimes find it difficult to see the very small blown highlights and the detail at the right of the histogram. I believe the 20 and 30D have bigger screens?

Read page 41 in the EOS 350D user manual