# Exposure and WB ~



## ConradM

Was just looking at this thread and it reminded me of how awesome Sony's are. :mrgreen:

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...-light-meter-expose-properly-help-please.html

I didn't realize for quite some time that people with OVF's actually have to figure out and or guess at Exposure and WB....


----------



## Ysarex

Edit: I just looked up the SLT-A33 specs. You're chimping an EVF for exposure and WB and you consider that an advantage?!


----------



## AlexanderB

OVF days are numbered, it's for sure.


----------



## ConradM

Ysarex said:


> Edit: I just looked up the SLT-A33 specs. You're chimping an EVF for exposure and WB and you consider that an advantage?!



Hmm... You call shooting in real time "chimping"? I thought chimping was when you take a shot then check the histogram after...


----------



## Ysarex

ConradM said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: I just looked up the SLT-A33 specs. You're chimping an EVF for exposure and WB and you consider that an advantage?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm... You call shooting in real time "chimping"? I thought chimping was when you take a shot then check the histogram after...
Click to expand...


I don't know your camera well, but if the EVF is an unprocessed and entirely unmodified translation of the image through the lens then I'll buy that it's real time. In that case it's just a poorer quality version of an OVF and gives you no advantage relative to exposure and WB. On the other hand, if that EVF is in any way processed by software in the camera then the delay, however slight, that it takes to complete that processing means you're chimping. To me chimping means you're examining an already processed image.

Joe


----------



## The_Traveler

One of the major advantages of EVF, imo, is particularly when the lighting is difficult and variable is that you see the exposure and any exposure compensation in the EVF.
It's real WYSIWYG.


----------



## Kolia

Only messes up one eye !  Lol (A post vanished here !)

EVF processing delay with no mirror to move up vs OVF instantly showing what's in the frame before you start moving your mirror up ?  Either type, you need to anticipate the timing because your nerves cannot transmit the signal to your finger in time to catch what you see.

I do not miss my OVF from older film cameras.


----------



## The_Traveler

If I shot landscape or nature, I would probably stick with the OVF, large bodied, FF cameras, just for that last bit of IQ.
But, AFAIK, that stuff is over.


----------



## ConradM

Ysarex said:


> ConradM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: I just looked up the SLT-A33 specs. You're chimping an EVF for exposure and WB and you consider that an advantage?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm... You call shooting in real time "chimping"? I thought chimping was when you take a shot then check the histogram after...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know your camera well, but if the EVF is an unprocessed and entirely unmodified translation of the image through the lens then I'll buy that it's real time. In that case it's just a poorer quality version of an OVF and gives you no advantage relative to exposure and WB. On the other hand, if that EVF is in any way processed by software in the camera then the delay, however slight, that it takes to complete that processing means you're chimping. To me chimping means you're examining an already processed image.
> 
> Joe
Click to expand...


I guess you can label it however you want... But the fact remains, when I look through the viewfinder, I see what the picture is going to look like before I press the shutter button. 

On a related note... I couldn't figure out what gray cards were for when I registered here, then I realized it's because they would be of no use to me.


----------



## Ysarex

ConradM said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConradM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm... You call shooting in real time "chimping"? I thought chimping was when you take a shot then check the histogram after...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know your camera well, but if the EVF is an unprocessed and entirely unmodified translation of the image through the lens then I'll buy that it's real time. In that case it's just a poorer quality version of an OVF and gives you no advantage relative to exposure and WB. On the other hand, if that EVF is in any way processed by software in the camera then the delay, however slight, that it takes to complete that processing means you're chimping. To me chimping means you're examining an already processed image.
> 
> Joe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you can label it however you want... But the fact remains, when I look through the viewfinder, I see what the picture is going to look like before I press the shutter button.
Click to expand...


No you don't. You see the photo as it will be interpreted by the processing software in your camera. That's a critical distinction.

Joe


----------



## Kolia

Ysarex said:


> No you don't. You see the photo as it will be interpreted by the processing software in your camera. That's a critical distinction.
> 
> Joe



You've admitted yourself you don't' have EVF experience. How can you argue that point ?

The EVF on the Sony camera will display WB and exposure as it will look on the RAW file. And can also display the effects selected that will be output to JPEG if you want.

Having an histogram always available is also neat.


----------



## Ysarex

Kolia said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't. You see the photo as it will be interpreted by the processing software in your camera. That's a critical distinction.
> 
> Joe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've admitted yourself you don't' have EVF experience. How can you argue that point ?
Click to expand...


I said I wasn't familiar with the A33, not that I don't have EVF experience.



Kolia said:


> The EVF on the Sony camera will display WB and exposure as it will look on the RAW file.



It most certainly will not -- not possible.



Kolia said:


> And can also display the effects selected that will be output to JPEG if you want.



That I'll believe.



Kolia said:


> Having an histogram always available is also neat.



All my cameras have histograms available whether they're EVF or not. Just like the LCD/EVF image that histogram is generated by the camera processing software and represents that software's interpretation of the image.

--------------------------------------------

I took a quick look at the A33 manual. The EVF displays a software processed image just like the image you get from a typical camera LCD. So using that camera is like using a typical P&S with a back LCD (like my compact for example). No big deal as long as you understand that you're seeing an image interpreted by the camera software. I like using my compact camera and I've adapted to it just fine -- I know what it's doing and I remain in control. What I don't do is use the camera's LCD to chimp exposure; that's too limiting a methodology. In the original post the OP is boasting that being able to chimp exposure off the A33's EVF is an advantage. I don't think so.

Joe


----------



## Kolia

More information sooner is certainly not a bad thing. 

You realize that the RAW file your camera creates is also an interpretation of what was actually in front of you. The camera made an educated decision when assigning colors to each pixels. The picture you saw in your view finder, you will never see it exactly rendered the same. 

Why do you say it is impossible to get real time WB and exposure with my EVF equipped camera ? What is it that I'm seeing when I'm setting my WB manually and the color changes ? Or when the image gets brighter when I increase the exposure ?

Is it cheating to preview our own images ? Whatever the answer, I don't care, I want a good picture now. Because the moment to capture is now. WB is pretty much irrelevant since I can adjust the raw file. Exposure on the other hand, it has to be right. Or close to right. 

The EVF helps with selecting your correct exposure. It also permits a return to manual focusing by highlighting sharp contours over the whole image. Not just at focus points. I like that too.


----------



## Ysarex

Kolia said:


> More information sooner is certainly not a bad thing.



In today's world of info-glut what counts is your ability to separate out the useful, important info from the worthless and misleading info.



Kolia said:


> You realize that the RAW file your camera creates is also an interpretation of what was actually in front of you.



No, the raw file is what the sensor actually physically records. It has it's physical limits but it is not an interpretation and most especially not a software interpretation.



Kolia said:


> The camera made an educated decision when assigning colors to each pixels.



No, a raw file is not demosaiced and individual pixel color is not yet assigned.



Kolia said:


> The picture you saw in your view finder, you will never see it exactly rendered the same.
> 
> Why do you say it is impossible to get real time WB and exposure with my EVF equipped camera ?



I didn't say that. I said you're not getting it from the EVF. I'm more concerned about exposure here than WB. A raw file has no WB, it's determined during conversion. Your EVF will show you the WB that you'll get in a camera JPEG and if you set a custom WB it will show you that. *Here's the important point:* The EVF will only show you the exposure after processing. What you see in terms of exposure is the result of the camera's metering system plus the camera's software processing engine.



Kolia said:


> What is it that I'm seeing when I'm setting my WB manually and the color changes ? Or when the image gets brighter when I increase the exposure ?



If you use a preset or custom WB then the EVF is showing you that WB, but remember it has no effect whatsoever on the raw file. More importantly when you alter exposure to increase or decrease brightness you're seeing the camera's processing software's interpretation of the exposure and not what the raw file would actually record.



Kolia said:


> Is it cheating to preview our own images ?



It would be nice if you could, but the only thing you can preview is what the software in the camera is going to produce. There is no facility at this point to visually preview what the camera sensor will in fact record as a raw file.

This ultimately breaks down into: are you recording and using the raw capture capacity of your camera or are you shooting SOOC JPEGs and relying on the camera's JPEG processor. Sony cameras are equipped with Sony's Bionz image processor. The EVF in a Sony camera will show you what the Bionz processor is going to do with the sensor raw data. If you can't do any better, then the output from that Bionz processor determines the limits of what you can photograph. *With access to the raw data from the sensor in a Sony camera it's possible to do much better than the Bionz processor.* In which case the info you're getting from the EVF isn't all that valuable -- it's questionable information.



Kolia said:


> Whatever the answer, I don't care, I want a good picture now. Because the moment to capture is now. WB is pretty much irrelevant since I can adjust the raw file. Exposure on the other hand, it has to be right. Or close to right.
> 
> The EVF helps with selecting your correct exposure.



Yes, exposure has to be right. And here it is: *Since the EVF shows you only what the Bionz processor thinks is the appropriate way to handle the exposure, it does not show you the actual exposure of the sensor that will be recorded in the raw file.* And that's my point. Why chimp exposure based on what a collection of software algorithms spit out when it's possible to be more accurate and do a better job?



Kolia said:


> It also permits a return to manual focusing by highlighting sharp contours over the whole image. Not just at focus points. I like that too.



-----------------------------------

Let's do an example. If you have an easy shot -- easy lighting contrast and a single color (light) source, the camera processing software will do a fair job and relying on the EVF will get you both a good raw file exposure and useable JPEG. It's when the going gets tough that the photographers get separated from the fauxtographers. Here's a camera JPEG from a photo I took. This is what the software in my camera did with the photo:




This is a real high contrast image. The contrast range between the sky in the background and the water and reeds in the foreground is way beyond average. The foreground is my point of focus and my subject and I was standing on a weathered wood boardwalk. I pointed the camera at the boardwalk in front of me and pressed the AEL button to get this exposure. Looking through the EVF on a Sony A33 you'd see the above image. Would you then assess that to be a near perfect exposure? Or would you think it's overexposed and then reduce the exposure? There was a blue sky; do you see a blue sky there or is it overexposed? That exposure is just a 1/2 stop short of clipping the highlights in the raw file -- f***ing nailed it!

Standing there I of course saw the color in the sky and the thin clouds just above the horizon. You wouldn't see that in your EVF unless you reduced the exposure. But reducing the exposure would be a huge mistake. The foreground is the subject; it's the darkest part of the scene and needs as much exposure as possible. I gave it that and I would have ignored the EVF in my A33 if that's what I was using. I saw this photo and I took this photo:



I saw the color in the sky (and yes through my OVF) and I saw those thin clouds and I knew the sensor in my camera would capture those clouds and that color at the exposure I set. Your Sony EVF would have told you the sky was overexposed. I would have known better.

Joe


----------



## Stevepwns

The only thing the EVF does is let you see what the picture will look like before you hit the shutter.  It is a JPEG representation, but you still have to learn to interpret what you are looking at.  The A33 isnt the best example of how this benefits you, as it is the entry level model and in no way is the best implementation of the this new technology.  The higher end models give you a better EVF and better sensor combining for an easier experience and better overall implementation of the idea of an EVF.  I can adjust aperture, ISO, exposure time, WB and focus all independently of the next and see exactly what the changes to picture will be at each increment.  It is still up to me to determine what needs to be changed and how much to create the best possible shot.  Where people make the mistake with Sonys is on the meter, whether it be center weighted, overall average or spot.  You cant simply look at the light meter and decide its going to be a perfect picture, you still have to have a clue.  What The EVF does, is for people that are new to the art, is give them an example and allows them to make needed changes before the shutter is tripped.  It helped me a lot before I understood what each change does to a image.  I still use it and enjoy the advantage. 

The idea that you don't need to understand what you are doing to produce perfect pictures just because you can see it in real time is ridiculous. You still have to know what you are looking at and what you are doing, it doesn't do it for you.  If your eye isnt trained to understand what you are looking at, you arent going to take good pictures.


----------



## o hey tyler

ConradM said:


> I couldn't figure out what gray cards were for when I registered here, then I realized it's because they would be of no use to me.



LOL.

You want a consistent WB that will actually look good when you import to a color calibrated computer? You'll need a gray card for that.


----------



## Kolia

Joe it seems to me you look at EVF with OVF experience only. 

Steve sums it up well. Even if the image is closer to a jpeg in term of dynamic range and WB, it is still representative of the image you will be capturing. 

Don't assume that because I use a Sony I shoot in full auto. That's kind of insulting...  In your exemple, the actual mistake would be to use the AEL button to set the exposure. Regardless of the camera system, the exposure would be off. Except that with an EVF, you would be able to see the under exposed area and compensate.  You can't do that with an OVF. You would have to chimp.  Still better than waiting for the prints to come back tho !

There are multiple option available with these EVF. Yes, it can run at full power and simply show a bright scene whatever the conditions. But can also be set to show the image as it will be captured. Hit the preview button and the EVF will give accurate results of your current settings. 

Let's not assume that the engineers and designers are clueless about photography...


----------



## Ysarex

Kolia said:


> Joe it seems to me you look at EVF with OVF experience only.



I still have this one:







And because of my work I have a lot of experience with many others. I'm betting my experience with EVFs predates and is more extensive than yours.



Kolia said:


> Steve sums it up well. Even if the image is closer to a jpeg in term of dynamic range and WB, it is still representative of the image you will be capturing.
> 
> Don't assume that because I use a Sony I shoot in full auto. That's kind of insulting...  In your exemple, the actual mistake would be to use the AEL button to set the exposure. Regardless of the camera system, the exposure would be off.



I did not assume nor did I suggest you shoot in full auto. You're the one who keeps making false assumptions here. As for using the AEL function of my camera in the example I posted, it worked and I nailed the exposure so why are you trying to tell me that what worked perfectly and worked as I anticipated was a mistake?



Kolia said:


> Except that with an EVF, you wouldn't be able to see the under exposed area and compensate.  You can't do that with an OVF. You would have to chimp.  Still better than waiting for the prints to come back tho !
> 
> There are multiple option available with these EVF. Yes, it can run at full power and simply show a bright scene whatever the conditions. But can also be set to show the image as it will be captured. Hit the preview button and the EVF will give accurate results of your current settings.



*NO!* I'm getting tired of repeating this. The EVF, just like a P&S LCD, shows you the interpretation of the scene that will be saved by the camera's JPEG processing software. If the camera generated JPEG is what you're after then that's fine. *But the EVF does not give you an accurate representation of the data captured in the raw file.*



Kolia said:


> Let's not assume that the engineers and designers are clueless about photography...



The engineers and designers do a great job. :thumbup: I'm happy with their efforts.

I don't have a problem with EVF equipped cameras. I was in fact one of the earlier adopters of EVF cameras as evidenced by my Sony R1 -- maybe a little before it's time. I'm saying *this one thing* in response to the OP's boast that the EVF is an advantage because it shows you the exposure and WB --- and I'm correct: The EVF shows you the exposure and WB as interpreted by the camera JPEG processing software and does not show you an accurate representation of what is captured in the raw file. That is a critical distinction for those who rely on the full advantage available in a raw capture.

Joe


----------



## Kolia

I suggest you go play with a a65, a77 or a99. They have better EVF than the a3x and a5x series. 

EVF works much better than you seem to think. And given the fact that a jpeg will clip before the RAW, you will rarely miss any information even when maxing out a channel as seen in the EVF. If I see it in my EVF, it will be on the captured image, guaranteed. 

As you know, part of the metering of a camera involves the computer analyzing a scene and deciding what it is we are trying to shoot (landscape, sunset, portrait, babies, etc) and applies whatever settings should be appropriate for the situation. So when we use the AEL button, we are relying on the camera to understand what our intent is. Gone are the days of a simple photometer. 

Anyway, if you don't see the potential benefits of real time preview of your settings in the view finder, I can't help you.


----------



## Kolia

And stop repeating the the preview we see is not a real preview. It is.

Set aperture to f16 and shutter speed to 1/4000 at ISO 100 in your basement and the EVF goes black. (Back lit black I'll give you that!)

Unless I turn off the preview mode...


----------



## Ysarex

Kolia said:


> I suggest you go play with a a65, a77 or a99. They have better EVF than the a3x and a5x series.
> 
> EVF works much better than you seem to think.



You continue to ignore what I say. Just because I said I wasn't familiar with the A33 doesn't mean I'm not familiar with EVF cameras. I just told you I was personally an EVF early adopter. I teach photography to college students who all bring me their cameras -- 5 classes a year times average 18 students per class = 90 cameras a year. I've had plenty of opportunity to handle contemporary EVFs -- I have to teach my students how to use them. I just haven't run into a A33 yet.



Kolia said:


> And given the fact that a jpeg will clip before the RAW, you will rarely miss any information even when maxing out a channel as seen in the EVF. If I see it in my EVF, it will be on the captured image, guaranteed.



Great. Thank you for making my point here. You're right the JPEG will start clipping channels before the raw file clips. And I never once said that what you see in the EVF won't be captured. What I'm saying is what you're verifying right now: The EVF will fail to show you everything that the raw file will capture. I expose the sensors in my cameras to get the best possible raw capture, not the best possible software generated JPEG. That's all I've been saying all along.



Kolia said:


> As you know, part of the metering of a camera involves the computer analyzing a scene and deciding what it is we are trying to shoot (landscape, sunset, portrait, babies, etc) and applies whatever settings should be appropriate for the situation. So when we use the AEL button, we are relying on the camera to understand what our intent is. Gone are the days of a simple photometer.



I know what you're describing is one option for a camera metering system -- other options exist. The metering method you're describing is available on my 5D mkII. I disabled it about 60 seconds after the camera was turned on for the first time and it has stayed disabled since. When I use the AEL button on my camera the camera locks the exposure I determined from taking a spot reading.



Kolia said:


> Anyway, if you don't see the potential benefits of real time preview of your settings in the view finder, I can't help you.



*And one more time:* The EVF does not give you a real time preview of the exposure. It gives you a preview of the camera's JPEG processing software's interpretation which you have acknowledged just a few sentences above: "And given the fact that a jpeg will clip before the RAW, you will rarely  miss any information even when maxing out a channel as seen in the EVF."

Did I ever say I needed your help?

Joe


----------



## Kolia

Ysarex said:


> You continue to ignore what I say.
> 
> Joe



Actually, it is from what you say that I can conclude you haven't had experience with the latest EVF.  It doesn't matter if you get to play with a gazillion camera's every year, if none of those is a proper EVF...

It's obvious I will not convince you so I'll leave you with your opinion on the matter.


----------



## Stevepwns

Ysarex said:


> Kolia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I ever say I needed your help?
> 
> Joe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After reading all of this, I get the feeling you are taking this conversation to personally.  Maybe you should just agree to disagree.  Your tone is a little more aggressive than  it needs to be in a friendly conversation.  Many of us have and use EVF with no problems and get the picture we saw in the EVF, so I am not really sure why you insist on arguing with people that have this equipment. To say repeatedly that its not an accurate representation is simply wrong. When I take a picture, then go home and upload the RAW file, I am looking at the exact picture I saw in the EVF. So I am not sure why you continue to argue your point. Those with the equipment disagree with you. You disagree with us. Not a big deal. Move on. OP was simply voicing his pleasure with his equipment, lets leave it at that.
Click to expand...


----------



## DiskoJoe

Ysarex said:


> ConradM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: I just looked up the SLT-A33 specs. You're chimping an EVF for exposure and WB and you consider that an advantage?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm... You call shooting in real time "chimping"? I thought chimping was when you take a shot then check the histogram after...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know your camera well, but if the EVF is an unprocessed and entirely unmodified translation of the image through the lens then I'll buy that it's real time. In that case it's just a poorer quality version of an OVF and gives you no advantage relative to exposure and WB. On the other hand, if that EVF is in any way processed by software in the camera then the delay, however slight, that it takes to complete that processing means you're chimping. To me chimping means you're examining an already processed image.
> 
> Joe
Click to expand...


The EVF on Sony cameras is very similar to the live view they offer which is about 98% to what the actual output will be. Youd probably be surprised by how nice it works. Also sony has almost no delay in the live view or the evf due to the second processor that is in camera to speed it up. Its much faster then canon and nikon cameras I have used with live view. And it is somewhat processed because you do see the camera adjustment setting in real time as opposed to having to wait for the picture to be developed by the sensor. Its really nice and super handy.


----------



## DiskoJoe

ConradM said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConradM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm... You call shooting in real time "chimping"? I thought chimping was when you take a shot then check the histogram after...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know your camera well, but if the EVF is an unprocessed and entirely unmodified translation of the image through the lens then I'll buy that it's real time. In that case it's just a poorer quality version of an OVF and gives you no advantage relative to exposure and WB. On the other hand, if that EVF is in any way processed by software in the camera then the delay, however slight, that it takes to complete that processing means you're chimping. To me chimping means you're examining an already processed image.
> 
> Joe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you can label it however you want... But the fact remains, when I look through the viewfinder, I see what the picture is going to look like before I press the shutter button.
> 
> On a related note... I couldn't figure out what gray cards were for when I registered here, then I realized it's because they would be of no use to me.
Click to expand...


I wouldnt say a grey card is of no use. You can still set your own white balance using one. Its handy if you do event photography and quick. But with live view you can get it right pretty quick too.


----------



## DiskoJoe

o hey tyler said:


> ConradM said:
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't figure out what gray cards were for when I registered here, then I realized it's because they would be of no use to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.
> 
> You want a consistent WB that will actually look good when you import to a color calibrated computer? You'll need a gray card for that.
Click to expand...


I think he was referring to how it is easy to set it with the camera since you can see the way it will show in real time.


----------



## Ysarex

Stevepwns said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kolia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I ever say I needed your help?
> 
> Joe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After reading all of this, I get the feeling you are taking this conversation to personally.  Maybe you should just agree to disagree.  Your tone is a little more aggressive than  it needs to be in a friendly conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too personally... well I don't like being told I said something that I didn't and I don't like being told I'm wrong based on false and unfounded assumptions, so yeah there's a little personal edge. But I won't lose any sleep I promise and I am civil.
> 
> 
> 
> Stevepwns said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many of us have and use EVF with no problems and get the picture we saw in the EVF, so I am not really sure why you insist on arguing with people that have this equipment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It takes two to argue. The last time I checked there's Kolia again trying to dismiss me with an unfounded assumption. I'm satisfied now however since he did acknowledge I'm correct.
> 
> 
> 
> Stevepwns said:
> 
> 
> 
> To say repeatedly that its not an accurate representation is simply wrong. When I take a picture, then go home and upload the RAW file, I am looking at the exact picture I saw in the EVF.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're disagreeing with Kolia who said this: "And given the fact that a jpeg will clip before the RAW, you will rarely  miss any information even when maxing out a channel as seen in the EVF." I said, "The EVF, just like a P&S LCD, shows you the interpretation of the  scene that will be saved by the camera's JPEG processing software." I've acknowledged that the EVF will show you the image as the Sony Bionz processor will render it. I said it's not an accurate representation of the data recorded in the raw file. *And that matters if exposing for the raw file is your priority.* I agree with Kolia that a JPEG will clip before a raw file and the EVF will show you that JPEG clipping. Kolia says you're wrong about the EVF and raw files being identical and I have to agree.
> 
> 
> 
> Stevepwns said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I am not sure why you continue to argue your point. Those with the equipment disagree with you. You disagree with us. Not a big deal. Move on. OP was simply voicing his pleasure with his equipment, lets leave it at that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's not a big deal, but the OP did more than just voice his pleasure with his equipment. He said this: "I didn't realize for quite some time that people with OVF's actually have to figure out and or guess at Exposure and WB...." He was mocking people who use cameras with optical viewfinders and made a fool of himself in doing so. So in response to his derisive remark my original comment stands.
> 
> Joe
> 
> Real simple now, chose the correct statement:
> 
> A) The preview in a Sony EVF shows you the exposure and WB as it will be rendered by the camera's JPEG processing software.
> B) The preview in a Sony EVF shows you the exposure and WB as it is recorded in the raw file.
> C) Both A and B are true.
Click to expand...


----------



## The_Traveler

Oh, crap.

This is the silliest example of weenie wagging I've read lately and doesn't resound to anyone's credit.


----------



## DiskoJoe

The_Traveler said:


> Oh, crap.
> 
> This is the silliest example of weenie wagging I've read lately and doesn't resound to anyone's credit.



They should just make out and get it over with, lol.


----------



## Stevepwns

DiskoJoe said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, crap.
> 
> This is the silliest example of weenie wagging I've read lately and doesn't resound to anyone's credit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They should just make out and get it over with, lol.
Click to expand...


----------



## Kolia

If the goal is to maximize the exposure for your RAW format, you're SOOL in the field unless your carrying a IPS monitor with a dark room to check your images...

The EVF will get you a hell of a lot closer than an OVF or even a sun lit crappy rear of the body LCD...

The OP was sharing his thoughts. I didn't see any jest in there. He didn't poop in the referred post either.


----------



## Kolia

Wait !  The IPS monitor will probably need to be recalibrated in the field...

I got it, lets learn to read the actual code of our RAW files and print them as text...

Or frame the memory card with a note: In here is a perfectly exposed picture of a lion. 

Shall we continue the ridiculous denial of the conversation further ?


----------



## Ysarex

Kolia said:


> If the goal is to maximize the exposure for your RAW format, you're SOOL in the field unless your carrying a IPS monitor with a dark room to check your images...
> 
> The EVF will get you a hell of a lot closer than an OVF or even a sun lit crappy rear of the body LCD...
> 
> The OP was sharing his thoughts. I didn't see any jest in there. He didn't poop in the referred post either.



I got the darkroom; picked it up from Alex Gardner's estate sale, but that IPS monitor sure sounds cumbersome. OK, so this may be way out there in left field, but since all my camera's have built-in light meters and I have that little one that fits in my hand, maybe I could just use those?

I'm one of the folks here at TPF who posts a lot of photos. If you do a search with my user name you'll find scores of posted photos which attest to my ability to use those light meters with precision.

Joe

-----------------------------------

Sorry Lew, but a couple of beers plus that IPS panel was more than I could resist. Maybe if it was just a PVA panel or a TN laptop display I could have walked away.


----------



## gsgary

Chetkryl said:


> OVF days are numbered, it's for sure.



Bull****


----------

