Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Lighting & Studio Techniques | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2012 · Need help getting the Sekonic L358 and D800 to match...
  
 
jmcelvoy
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · Need help getting the Sekonic L358 and D800 to match...


Was on a shoot last night with my new D800 and noticed that every time I metered the ambient with my Sekonic L358, it was about 2 stops off. If the meter said 1/500th @ f2.8, I'd have to shoot around 1/1200-1/1600th to get proper exposure. Proper exposure was tested by breaking out my PhotoVision Digital Target (http://www.photovisionvideo.com/digital-targets/) and checking the histogram for proper exposure. This morning I tweaked the L358 to +1 exposure and the shots are coming up almost exactly 1 stop under-exposed. If I double up my ISO (going from 100 to 200) or halve my shutter speed (dropping from 1/200th to 1/100th) my Digital Target/Histogram shows dead on exposure. Making sure this wasn't a problem with the D800, I got out my D7000 to see what settings it would give me in the exact same conditions. Again, with my L358 at +1, it was 1 stop under-exposed. Doubling the ISO or Halving the shutter speed gave me perfect exposure. My question is, the L358 will only allow me to go to +1 compensation. Can I send this in to have it recalibrated? Do I just accept this and know that I have to always add +1 exposure in the camera from what the L358 says? Thoughts?


Aug 22, 2012 at 01:17 PM
colinm
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · Need help getting the Sekonic L358 and D800 to match...


You can't verify anything with the camera histogram. It's rendered based on the camera's JPEG settings.

You certainly can send meter in for testing and calibration, but first you really need to be looking at those images somewhere other than on the camera.

The construction of those targets can also cause some... interesting results.



Aug 22, 2012 at 03:22 PM
pr4photos
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · Need help getting the Sekonic L358 and D800 to match...


My Sekonic is about 1/2stop out, so thats perfectly workable


Aug 22, 2012 at 03:32 PM
Sheldon N
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · Need help getting the Sekonic L358 and D800 to match...


Note that the exposure compensation on the Sekonic works differently than you expect. Dialing in +1 exposure compensation shortens the shutter speed, resulting in underexposure. If you've dialed in +1 and are getting shots that are one stop underexposed, then things are working properly.

I'd go back to the manual and double check that you are doing this correctly with the proper settings on both meter and camera.



Aug 22, 2012 at 04:15 PM
John Skinner
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · Need help getting the Sekonic L358 and D800 to match...


One of the biggest proponents of light meters and the use/calibration of same is a fellow called frank Doorhof.

he has gone into long blog posts and entries as to how and why on meters (Sekonic) as he uses.

Here is a link to look over. But have a look through his entire "light meter" section and I'm certain things will make more sense for you.

http://www.frankdoorhof.com/site/2011/08/calibrating-the-light-meter-some-quick-notes/#more-2955




Aug 22, 2012 at 06:09 PM
jmcelvoy
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · Need help getting the Sekonic L358 and D800 to match...


Re-read through the manual and found that there are 2 ways of making adjustments. Calibration is limited to +/- 1 stop. Compensation allows +/- 9.9 stops. Now that I know I can compensate, my only concern is should it be 2 stops of?

Colinm, using the Digital target, which has a black bar, gray bar, and white bark, when I fill the frame and take a pic, a "perfect" exposure will have a spike in the middle of the shadows, a spike on the midtones, and a spike in the middle of the highlights. When I first got the digital target, I cross referenced what I saw on the back of the camera to what the raw file showed in Lightroom and Photoshop and it was dead on. I've trusted it ever since and it's never let me down.

Sheldon N, when playing with this this morning, I did figure out that calibratoin on the meter is basically the opposite of what I was thinking. I had overexposed images so when I first tried to calibrate, I took the meter to -1...which appeared to overexpose the image even more...based off the camera histogram. I then took the meter calibration the opposite direction to +1 and it brought the Histogram spikes a little bit more to the left/shadow side, but was still over exposed. When I get home tonight, I'll turn the calibration back to 0 and the Compensation to +2 and see what I get in a more controlled environment.



Aug 22, 2012 at 06:32 PM
Graystar
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · Need help getting the Sekonic L358 and D800 to match...


I don't have either a Sekonic L358 or a D800...but don't worry, I won't let that stop me from giving you an answer!

I would set the L358 to reflective mode to test the calibration against the D800. Set up a neutral, evenly lit target (could be a white wall) and spot meter a point with both the meter and camera. You should get the same reading.

From a thread on another forum which involved the evaluation of RAW images from a D800, I know that the D800 meters just like any other Nikon. That is, when you spot meter an evenly lit neutral surface, the metered area will be rendered as sRGB 100, 100, 100 (+/-10, depending on lens and aperture/shutter). Please note that this rendering is with no processing except for white balance. As far as I'm aware, only the free RAW editor Raw Therapee (with Neutral profile) and the RAW analysis tool Rawnalyze will give you a straight sRGB rendering of the RAW data. Lightroom 3 was able to give a basic rendering, but Lighroom 4 now seems to apply some default processing that can't be disabled. If your camera produces such sRGB values (as it should) then the meter is calibrated to 12.7% reflectance (or 12.8%...depending on how you figure it and who you talk to.) That's about 1/2 stop less than an 18% gray card, which matches the Kodak gray card's instructions perfectly...which say to increase exposure by 1/2 stop when using the gray card for metering.

Camera meters don't use the well-known (but misunderstood) "K" calibration factor that handheld meters do. However, if you were to try to determine a "K" value for the Nikon it would be around 12.7 or 12.8. Sekonic explicitly states that their meters use a "K" value of 12.5. A "K" of 12.5 would create an sRGB rendering of 99, 99, 99. So the Sekonic and Nikon meters are actually close enough to be practically identical in their metering...which makes sense because all these meters are calibrated using ISO standards.

If spot metering the surface doesn't return the same exposure settings, then something is off. Check the D800's Exposure Compensation value, and the Custom Setting "b6:Fine-Tue Optimal Exposure" and make sure they're all set to zero. Do the same for the meter. Use a different lens, as your selected lens might have a stuck aperture lever. If they're all zeroed and the settings are still off, then you have to figure out whether the camera is wrong or the meter is wrong.

One way of checking the meter is to wait for a really good Sunny 16 day and simply meter the ambient light from the sun. The meter should give you Sunny 16 values. If it does, then the problem is the camera. Otherwise, it's the meter. Use the L358's calibration function to fix the meter, or the D800's b6 setting to correct the camera's meter. The camera can be tested the same way with an 18% gray card. Set A mode, aperture to f/16, EC to +0.5, and meter the gray card while in the sun. You should get a shutter that matches the ISO.

Finally, the Photovision target is fine for setting exposure, but I wouldn't use it for any sort of meter calibration work. Someone else mentioned Frank Doorhof, but I wouldn't recommend following his procedures for the reasons given in the following post...
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1135090/1#10841655



Sep 01, 2012 at 06:28 AM
jzucker
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · Need help getting the Sekonic L358 and D800 to match...


I think frank doorhof's work speaks for itself. He's not just some random guy posting on dpreview or here...


Sep 01, 2012 at 01:34 PM
Graystar
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · Need help getting the Sekonic L358 and D800 to match...


jzucker wrote:
I think frank doorhof's work speaks for itself. He's not just some random guy posting on dpreview or here...


Geocentrism was able to accurately determine the future position of the stars, planets, and even comets...all based on the Earth being the center of the universe. Obviously, it is not always necessary to have the correct process to get the correct result.

Frank Doorhof has devised a calibration process that produces an exposure, and he works with that exposure. This can be done with any exposure level. As I said in the post I linked to...he takes better photographs than I ever will. But like the geocentrists...his understanding is off.



Sep 01, 2012 at 03:01 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



J.A.F. Doorhof
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · Need help getting the Sekonic L358 and D800 to match...


Not quite.
Just read the whole blog.
http://www.frankdoorhof.com/site/2012/06/light-meter-calibration-revisited/

I've always taught this in my workshops.
It's a way to get to good/almost perfect exposures without having to shelve out a lot of money for a target, or a meter that does support the Sekonic software.

It's not PERFECT, however for most workshops, IF you do it within your workflow it will give you very very accurate exposures, to the point that you will never touch the exposure slider in PS again.

When I run the Sekonic software in my workflow I'm just a few points off with the 128 method, to a degree that it's impossible to see.

What people don't realize is that there is a lot of confusion for the use of light meters, and people are making it harder on themselves than needed, most cameras use 12-13% gray for reflective, meters should be calibrated to 18% in my opinion, when you use the 12-13% method you will start adjusting.

I've been using the 128 method for years (before Sekonic released the newest good working version) and with a proper understanding of what the meter does and how reflective and incident works you can work very accurate with that method, plus it's very easy for people to understand.

In the end, it's all about how you want to explain it. I can give you the math behind the colorspaces, the gamma curves and even throw in the dynamic range of your sensor but 99.9% of the people will just stop reading and think it's way too difficult. OR I can give you a dead simple method that works 99% flawless in practice but could be a little bit off when compared to how it should be (but read VERY little off) and can be understood in seconds and executed within a minute.... you choose



Sep 01, 2012 at 03:19 PM
John Skinner
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · Need help getting the Sekonic L358 and D800 to match...


I told you....

Never look directly into the Yoda's eyes.



Sep 01, 2012 at 03:39 PM
Graystar
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · Need help getting the Sekonic L358 and D800 to match...


J.A.F. Doorhof wrote:
Not quite.
Just read the whole blog.


Being an actual working photographer, I'm surprised that you have time to spend responding to internet know-it-alls! And I would never have made the comments I made had I not read all your pages on metering. I try hard not to comment on things I don't know about.

First, a general comment on calibration. It doesn't really matter what the calibration is. Cameras assume 12.7% reflectance...but if they assumed 18%, that would be fine. Gray cards wouldn't need to be compensated, and when setting exposure off the sky you'd just reduce exposure by 1/2 a stop. If cameras and meters were calibrated to 36% reflectance then all my exposure compensations would simply shift by 1 1/2 stops. And you, in turn, would change your calibration amounts to once again achieve the result you desire. The fact of the matter is that we calibrate to a result...usually the result we want. In that regard, just about any metering/calibration process will work when used as devised.


It's not PERFECT, however for most workshops, IF you do it within your workflow it will give you very very accurate exposures, to the point that you will never touch the exposure slider in PS again.

I've sure that you've heard of ETTR (Expose To The Right,) an exposure practice for digital cameras (of which I am NOT a practitioner of, btw) where exposure is always maximized with the goal of minimal noise. ETTR practitioners use the exposure slider on every image. However, they would say that YOU don't have an accurate exposure, because their definition of an "accurate" exposure is different (an exposure where the brightest signals are near saturation, regardless of the actual tone they represent.) I would dare say that if you and an ETTR practitioner photographed the same scene, the ETTR shooter will likely produce an image with a touch less noise (whether it's visible or not is debatable, which is why I don't practice ETTR.) So was the ETTR shooter's exposure "better"? I would say no. I would say that both of you took the shot with a goal in mind (you, of not having to apply EC in post...and the ETTR shooter, of maximizing the signal) and you both used your tools as you saw fit to achieve your goals. And in that respect, you both had "accurate" exposures.

I can give you the math behind the colorspaces, the gamma curves and even throw in the dynamic range of your sensor

If you can do that then I don't understand you continually equating sRGB 128 with 18% reflectance. 18% reflectance is 119 (or 118...depends on how you like to round your numbers. ISO uses sRGB 118 to represent 18%.)

If I take my Nikon D90, spot meter a bright white evenly lit wall, and take a picture I'll get...
sRGB 100 from Rawnalyze
sRGB 100 from Raw Therapee with the "Neutral" profile.
sRGB 140 from Raw Therapee with the "Default" profile.
sRGB 140 from ViewNX using my custom "RAW" picture control
sRGB 160 from ViewNX using the "Neutral" picture control
sRGB 160 from Lightroom 4.2 RC using the "Zeroed" preset and "Camera Neutral" camera profile.

sRGB 100 is about 12.7% gray, 140 is one stop brighter, 160 is about 1 1/3 stop brighter than 100. So then...which is the correct exposure? Well, if you examine the RAW data from the image with RawDigger you'll find that the green channel is nearly three stops from saturation. That makes sRGB 100 the most accurate representation of the RAW data, and indicative of the gray level that the camera's presumes the world is. However, that doesn't define correct exposure. The wall was white, and all the conversions rendered the wall as gray...they're all wrong. The exposure needed to be compensated to get the desired result...and THAT is what your process is really about.

You take lots of pictures of light-skinned women, and you have discovered that a calibration process based on sRGB 128 will render that beautiful light skin just the way you like it to be rendered. You have tuned your metering to a preference...and that is NOT the same as calibrating for accurate representation of luminance levels. That is why I don't recommend your calibration process.

Finally, as to your comment in your blog that there is no middle gray...oh yes there is, and it's been defined in ISO 12232:2006 as 18% reflectance and sRGB 118. All cameras using the exposure index definitions of REI (Canon, Nikon, Sony, others) or SOS (Pentax, others) as defined in 12232:2006, are based on a rendering of 18% reflectance as sRGB 118.



Sep 01, 2012 at 10:19 PM
J.A.F. Doorhof
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · Need help getting the Sekonic L358 and D800 to match...


The "location" of the 18% gray will vary as soon as you start using different software, different curves, a different profile, a different camera etc.

I always try to explain it like this.
Forget about where 18% ends up AFTER the fact.

You have a workflow that you use, in THAT workflow you want skin, materials etc. to be rendered correctly, meaning IF a material has the values 100-100-100 it should when you shoot it end up in that area (or perfect on 100-100-100 which is pretty much impossible).

Now we have an 18% reflective card and we shoot this in our COMPLETE workflow, meaning (in my case) ACR and ProPhotoRGB with a custom made profile for 5DMKIII and Leaf Credo60. Now where should the card end up. So when we forget about sRGB, aRGB and even ProPhotoRGB, just were should that card end up in the histogram when you already have everything in place ?

Over the years I've seen as many people that say 128.128.128 as people that claim differently and of course at the start I tried all methods, I've always found it weird that DURING the calibration people would have to adjust the outcome depending on the curve they were using, for me that was counteractive, in my opinion (again) when I shoot something with a fixed value it should end up where it's supposed to be.

Now when studying deeper into the material you will start to find out that there is much more to the case and in fact when you take just ONE reading of 18% gray it will never ever work, and diving even more into the matter you will very much find out (before turning mad) that it will NEVER work.

In real live let's say we have 3 anchor points metered on 50-50-50, 100-100-100 and 200-200-200
If we want to capture something 100% correct those 3 have to be spot on.
Well sorry, but that will never ever happen.

When we use for example the curve flat it will be rendered as 40-40-40, 105-105-105 and 210-210-210
However when we use the curve natural it will be rendered as 20-20-20, 120-120-120 and 240-240-240
But with the curve, silky contrast it's 34-34-34, 90-90-90 and 245-245-245

Meaning whatever profile you use the curve will be different, which is logical because a profile consists of curves.

So how do we make a meter 100% accurate, well sorry that's not possible, that's also why Sekonic uses several meter readings taking into account the dynamic range of the sensor, but even than it's only a approximate setting.

So realizing this and getting a meter to do an OVERAL very good job I THINK PERSONALLY you will have to make a decision, you can meter for a 100% white patch (not paper because it contains too much in the blue channel due to whiteners) and make sure that the meter does not read more than 254.254.254, or you can meter 18% gray and place it in the center of the histogram KNOWING it's actually not correct but at least you have an anchor point.

In the end it all boils down to one thing...
You have accurate exposures, and I could care less if according to a formula I'm 4-5 points off, this is not visible, it however also boils down that when EVER you change workflow, curve or software you will have to do the calibration again.

On the net there are many many different opinions and all have a certain amount of truth, in the end with digital however there is no 100% accurate way of metering, UNTILL there will be a method to build a curve that is interwoven with your meter, meaning the meter will also create a profile for the camera. This could be done for example with a 10 bar grayscale where everything is rendered linear.... however in reality probably no-one will use that because people love a bit more contrast, a little bit of raised black, pushed whites etc. Which will shift both the 18% gray point and the white/black point and anything in between.

Finding a 100% working solution is impossible, or it would be rendered useless as soon as you start editing, getting a dead simple calibration process that works pretty well WHEN it's done in the workflow you use (so never change profiles again after this) is often easiest to base on 128.128.128

Again not 100% correct but it at least gives you an outcome that is not making you reach for the exposure slider in your raw convertor. UNLESS you use a very contrasty curve to start with in which case the point is probably too low, meaning that after calibration it's too high making the images look washed out.

So instead of talking about colorspaces (which by the way is actually correct due the different gamma curves) one should also take into account the "rendering/camera" curves used, and when you start to realize this one pretty well very soon realizes there is NO 100% scientific always working solution.

The only thing you can calculate is where the point should be in a theoretical sRGB, aRGB and ProPhotoRGB colorspace IF a 100% flat curve would be used, but those don't exist.



Sep 02, 2012 at 08:33 AM
Graystar
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · Need help getting the Sekonic L358 and D800 to match...


J.A.F. Doorhof wrote:
The "location" of the 18% gray will vary as soon as you start using different software, different curves, a different profile, a different camera etc.

The resulting rendering of 18% reflectance will vary only if you let it (or if you use software that applies processing that you can't disable.) That's not necessarily a bad thing if it's what you want. My concern is getting an accurate starting point.


I always try to explain it like this.
Forget about where 18% ends up AFTER the fact.

That works great for someone whose photography isn't dependent on accurate rendition of tones. But people who do product photography and other types of documentary style photography, that simply doesn't fly. And it's completely unacceptable for people who do art reproduction. You are thinking in terms of your own photography...but when answering someone's questions on metering I consider all types of photography.


You have a workflow that you use, in THAT workflow you want skin, materials etc. to be rendered correctly, meaning IF a material has the values 100-100-100 it should when you shoot it end up in that area (or perfect on 100-100-100 which is pretty much impossible).

Now we have an 18% reflective card and we shoot this in our COMPLETE workflow, meaning (in my case) ACR and ProPhotoRGB with a custom made profile for 5DMKIII and Leaf Credo60. Now where should the card end up. So when we forget about sRGB, aRGB and even ProPhotoRGB, just were should that card end
...Show more

I don't know what you're doing wrong that you can't get three relative luminances to maintain their relationship...but it works just fine for me.

The reason CIPA changed (and ISO adopted) the process of deterimining sensitivity of digital cameras, from a saturation based process to a process based on 18% reflectance, is because such a reflectance can be modeled and rendered with the same apparent brightness by any color model. In L*a*b* the card will have an L* of 50. That translates to 119 in sRGB and Adobe RGB, and around 101 in ProPhoto. As for the histogram, the RGB plots will change based on the color space because the color values are different...but the luminance plots that are based on those values, will all be in the same place.

But as I said previously, if your software is applying processing that you can't undo, then your ability to render accurately is hindered. If you use software that doesn't allow you complete control (including "no influence") over your rendering then you're at the mercy of the software maker. This is the problem people are having with Adobe Lightroom 4 and PV2012...its processing produces a different result when compared to PV2010.

To say, "...points metered 50-50-50, 100-100-100 and 200-200-200", is not really valid because RGB color space values are dependent on the color space used. So was that sRGB or Adobe RGB or ProPhoto RGB? Metering is about luminance. The luminance range between RGB values depends on the color space. Now...if you were to say that you metered "anchor points" of 18%, 36%, and 72% reflectance, and are unable to get renderings that are representative of those luminances, then I'd say you're probably using software that's forcing some processing on you...like ACR. If you were to examine the RAW file using Rawnalyze, Raw Therapee with the "Neutral" profile, or even Lightroom with PV1210 zeroed, the representative RGB values (based on your preferred color space) will be exactly where they should be. That's because such a rendering would be based on a strict transformation from the camera's color space into the color space of choice.

Such images look true to the live scene. I can take a shot of my desk, put it up on my monitor, and the rendering will appear to be a perfect match to the live view beside it. However, such images tend to not be very enticing to the eye. There's also the fact that it only really works when you have a single light source. illuminating the scene. As soon as you bring other light sources into the mix, the eye starts to pull tricks on you due to Color Constancy. In that case, there's no metering that will ever render the scene as the eye sees it.

However, you can always pick a tone, and place that one tone exactly where you want it. Then you fix the rest of the image in post...which is exactly what I imagine you do. You hold your meter by your model's face, and your calibration process results in an exposure that puts the tone of that light skin exactly where you want it. Then you fix everything else in the image to your liking. You seem to like very bright faces, which is what I'd expect from a calibration that is rendering metered tones slightly brighter. And if that's what you like...fine. Nothing wrong with that, and your images do look wonderful. But your calibration process isn't going to help the landscape photographer, or the photographer reproducing art.

If you want to apply curves and profiles to change the rendering of the image, then that's fine. But that should not be a consideration for setting exposure.


So how do we make a meter 100% accurate, well sorry that's not possible, that's also why Sekonic uses several meter readings taking into account the dynamic range of the sensor, but even than it's only a approximate setting.

So realizing this and getting a meter to do an OVERAL very good job I THINK PERSONALLY you will have to make a decision, you can meter for a 100% white patch (not paper because it contains too much in the blue channel due to whiteners) and make sure that the meter does not read more than 254.254.254, or you can meter 18%
...Show more

But why must the 18% gray be in the center of the histogram? In fact, it works whereever you put it, as long as you get the exposure you're looking for. In your case, placing the metered point in the center of the histograms gives you a little bit of overexposure, which, as I said, brightens your models' faces. And this goes back to what I said in my previous post...we calibrate to a result. You calibrate for bright faces, I calibrate for accurate luminance.


In the end it all boils down to one thing...
You have accurate exposures, and I could care less if according to a formula I'm 4-5 points off, this is not visible, it however also boils down that when EVER you change workflow, curve or software you will have to do the calibration again.

On the net there are many many different opinions and all have a certain amount of truth, in the end with digital however there is no 100% accurate way of metering,


And I think that that's entirely wrong. You calibrate for accurate luminance levels. Then you can apply curves, profiles, and anything else that you want to do to your heart's desire...but your starting point should always be the same. My personal "calibration" is nothing more than an EC value applied to my gray card. I spot meter my card, add +1.3 EC, and with that I know that bright reflective whites will be near the top of saturation, but not clip. Now...why in the world would I ever what to change that calibration?? Changing it will get me either less signal (and more shadow noise,) or clipped highlights...that makes no sense!



Sep 03, 2012 at 01:56 AM
J.A.F. Doorhof
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · Need help getting the Sekonic L358 and D800 to match...


What works, works.
I think you don't get what I explained. Every camera and software has curves. So getting a product 100% accurate on ALL tones is almost impossible unless you will also generate a curve for the camera.

That's what I meant.

In the end it all boils down to getting accurate results. With the way I do it I'm able to set the correct white and shadow points and have a correct rendering of my product or model.

In the end that's what counts



Sep 03, 2012 at 02:37 AM
Graystar
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · Need help getting the Sekonic L358 and D800 to match...


J.A.F. Doorhof wrote:
What works, works.
I think you don't get what I explained. Every camera and software has curves. So getting a product 100% accurate on ALL tones is almost impossible unless you will also generate a curve for the camera.

That's what I meant.

In the end it all boils down to getting accurate results. With the way I do it I'm able to set the correct white and shadow points and have a correct rendering of my product or model.

In the end that's what counts


I do understand what you're saying...I just don't agree. Ansel Adams said, "The negative is comparable to the composer's score and the print to its performance. Each performance differs in subtle ways."

That's how I view digital exposure. The RAW data should accurately reflect the luminance values of the scene to act as a best-source for a rendering that may use different curves and other processes, depending on my vision of the scene. I don't look to make the capture of RAW data part of the performance.



Sep 04, 2012 at 01:21 AM
cordellwillis
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · Need help getting the Sekonic L358 and D800 to match...


photography nerds




Sep 04, 2012 at 05:33 PM





FM Forums | Lighting & Studio Techniques | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password