WPF - World Photography Forum
Home Gallery Register FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Welcome to World Photography Forum!
Welcome!

Thank you for finding your way to World Photography Forum, a dedicated community for photographers and enthusiasts. There's a variety of forums, a wonderful gallery, and what's more, we are absolutely FREE. You are very welcome to join, take part in the discussion, and post your pictures!

Click here to go to the forums home page and find out more.
Click here to join.


Go Back   World Photography Forum > General Photography > The Photography Forum


The Photography Forum General Photography Related Discussion.

Chimping, is it just me?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #21  
Old 31-05-06, 07:46
Chris
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Fox
Chimping will give an idea for the order of compensation required and chimping for a histogram will suggest how the exposure turned out despite how an image is displayed on screen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by postcardcv
a shot that looks good on the camera's screen could well be not much crack when I get it on the computer.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 14-06-06, 12:47
Dr.Manjeet Singh's Avatar
Dr.Manjeet Singh Dr.Manjeet Singh is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Klang,Malaysia.
Posts: 435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen
HaHa I thought that was obvious Stephen, Have a look at the video I linked to in my first post in this thread, alternatively check out http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Chimping
Basically its a reference to the sounds photoraphers make when reviewing their shots which is similar to that of chimps Oooh! Oooh! Aaah!
No when a chimp first met a Singh ---chimp...(S-silent shh) ing-chimping .That's the truth guys cross my legs and hope to..
__________________
Don't Judge A Book by it's Cover!
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 14-06-06, 15:05
bpw's Avatar
bpw bpw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Warrington, England
Posts: 20
Default

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen
As for using the histogram, well I'm afraid I have never seen a pro shooter checking that when working on the hoof a glance at the image in the screen is enough usually.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by postcardcv
I think that in some areas it's more useful to chimp than in others. Most of my photography is of birds, often you just get one chance to get 'the shot' so there's not much point in chimping as I can't re-take with a different exposure comp...
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).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Christine
I do the same as Peter(postcard).I never check/chimp an image after taking the shot.again,most of my photography shots are of birds,I am too busy keeping my eye on them,waiting for them to stop preening etc,but,and this is a big but!!!.If I was able to understand a histogram,and I did check each image,I would have realised a couple of times that the exposure setting had been accidentally knocked down a couple of stops,and I could have rectified the error,there and then,as opposed to a couple of days later,whereupon I ruined some Lapwing shots.
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.
__________________
Paul Weston
www.birdimages.co.uk.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 14-06-06, 17:53
yelvertoft's Avatar
yelvertoft yelvertoft is offline  
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Essex, UK
Age: 59
Posts: 8,486
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bpw
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'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
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 14-06-06, 19:30
bpw's Avatar
bpw bpw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Warrington, England
Posts: 20
Default

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!
__________________
Paul Weston
www.birdimages.co.uk.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 14-06-06, 22:49
Christine's Avatar
Christine Christine is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Haverigg,South Lakes,Cumbria.Uk
Posts: 3,828
Default

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.
__________________
Christine
Avatar by Tracker(tom)
[COLOR="Blue

http://www.haverigg.com

http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/sho...00/ppuser/2356
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 14-06-06, 23:47
Gidders's Avatar
Gidders Gidders is offline  
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 2,795
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bpw
...Over or underexposure are both probably impossible to detect from the image alone....
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
__________________
Clive
http://www.alteredimages.uk.com
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 15-06-06, 08:47
Chris
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Christine
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.
Bad luck Christine; I am surprised the camera even allows you to press the shutter without a card in.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 15-06-06, 08:58
bpw's Avatar
bpw bpw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Warrington, England
Posts: 20
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gidders
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.
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?
__________________
Paul Weston
www.birdimages.co.uk.

Last edited by bpw; 15-06-06 at 09:03.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 15-06-06, 10:03
john crossley john crossley is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 237
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Christine
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.


Bad luck Christine; I am surprised the camera even allows you to press the shutter without a card in.
Read page 41 in the EOS 350D user manual
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

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 Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 18:21.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.