Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,681

    MTBR "Approved" camera settings...they seem a bit "hot"...revisit?

    I don't want to start any flame war or step on toes...but when I did a beamshot test with my MagicShine vs. Homebrew hack P7 vs. Trustfire TR 1200...something just didn't add up.

    ISO - 100
    Aperture - f/4
    Shutter speed - 6sec
    WB - daylight




    My beamshots seem a bit brighter on the camera than they really are in real life. Did we do this to make our light hobby look more impressive? There's no way a 5xQ5 TR 1200 can light up my shed at 50feet so dang bright that it's nearly impossible to see the lines on the front. Should we reconsider our settings?


    Control:


    Single P7:


    Both P7 Lights:


    TR 1200:





    This wasn't the only time I noticed this...does it possibly have to do with the human eye actually adjusting itself to the light? I dunno...I just want settings that accurately reflect the true brightness of the light.






    File Name: tr12003.jpg (rename)

    File Size: 126 kb - 800 x 533

    Camera Make: Canon

    Camera Model: Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XS

    Date/Time: 2010:04:03 09:39:26

    Resolution: 800 x 533

    Flash Used: No

    Focal Length: 24.0mm (35mm equivalent: 39mm...

    CCD Width: 22.25mm

    Exposure Time: 6.000 s

    Aperture: f/4.0

    ISO Equiv.: 100

    Whitebalance: Manual

    Light Source: Daylight

    Metering Mode: matrix

    Exposure: Manual

    Exposure Mode: Auto bracketing

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,681
    Here's another one...

    Ultrafire RCR123a lipstick light with a single Q5:




    This to me seems misleading. This little Q5 is impressive for its size...but the picture makes it "appear" like a P7.



    File Name: CreeHi.jpg (rename)

    File Size: 60 kb - 800 x 533

    Camera Make: Canon

    Camera Model: Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XS

    Date/Time: 2010:01:17 10:32:10

    Resolution: 800 x 533

    Flash Used: No

    Focal Length: 18.0mm (35mm equivalent: 29mm...

    CCD Width: 22.25mm

    Exposure Time: 6.000 s

    Aperture: f/4.0

    ISO Equiv.: 100

    Whitebalance: Manual

    Light Source: Daylight

    Metering Mode: matrix

    Exposure: Manual

    Exposure Mode: Auto bracketing

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: troutie-mtb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    3,049
    The settings are a carry over from when the lights were not as powerfull now we have so much more lumens to play with .

    also you have a white shed on snow which is going to reflect back alot of light .

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bwack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by chelboed
    TR 1200:

    This wasn't the only time I noticed this...does it possibly have to do with the human eye actually adjusting itself to the light? I dunno...I just want settings that accurately reflect the true brightness of the light.
    [/COLOR]
    Yes, the eye adapts to the intensity. Actually the eye adapts gain for each pixels or groups of pixels. Thats why the high contrast between the shed and ground looks good in the eye (at the same time), but on a photo one or the other object "blows" out of range.
    Now lets say we adjust our mtbr settings to -1EV (ex. a half of the shutter speed) to get a better picture of the shed. Now the sheed looks nice, but the grass and leaves looks dark, but in the eye it looks ok. To avoid this contrast problem I suggest we shoot down straight forrest-tracks where there are likely no high contrast objects, and use the branches and trees as length measurements.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    270
    It's better to avoid white foreground and background.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    754
    Here's a thread with extensive discussion on this topic and new proposed settings for high power lights.

    MTBR Standard Camera Settings for High Power Lights

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,681
    Agree'd...but my grey shed in the pic's with no snow are a bit excessive too IMO. I just feel like I have to take these "monster light" pics w/ a grain of saltand not get overly impressed.

    But if the standard is globally accepted...thentheres at least the comfort of having a "benchmark". I do like that aspect of it.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bwack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    62
    Thank you MtbMacgyver for the link.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,681
    Good idea regarding more neutral location...thx.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •