Image Simulation

[Epicuros]

I have read and heard varying impressions regarding the “Image Simulation” feature on mirrorless cameras. As I still have several rolls of developed slide film from the pre-digital era, I note that almost all frames were correctly exposed. Back then we took extra care to ensure that exposure would really be correct. The costs of film and its development (and the risk of running out of it during a session) called for extreme care. Grey cards and light meters were extensively used to complement camera exposure systems, (not always trusted!). In the digital cameras’ era, we often shoot multiple times until our display screen shows a satisfactory exposure. We practically have “unlearned” to set correct exposures, as the camera processor does most of this task, often incorrectly! Now with “Image Simulation” becoming a standard feature on mirrorless cameras, how many photographers will be mindful of exposure settings anymore?

Vasilis

[@imagesBV]

Good question.....we hardly need numbers when you can judge correct exposure on the LCD image, and deploy the histogram if you are not sure.
Technology is moving on in all areas providing many benefits should you choose to use them
Being competent at establishing correct exposure from an LCD image is just as valid as using numbers and a scale in my opinion....but photographers still need to understand the consequences of exposure and ISO settings.
Our skills are becoming obsolete as the machine takes over....watch out!

[Trev B]

I think I still live back in the age of film. I don't take hundreds of shots, I like t think I got it right in camera first time. The shot of the Wheatear I posted yesterday was one of only four I took although the bird was in front of me for the best part of six or seven minutes. I could not be doing in having to sit in front of a computer going through hundreds of shots or correcting them in Photoshop. When you consider what you pay for a camera and lens, I expect the camera to produce the goods - What I see, is what I take is what you get. But there, that's me wouldn't do for all of us to be the same.

[SpringfieldPhoto]

I had image simulation on the R6 and never used it as I shoot in manual most of the time and get it right by all the methods I have developed in 60+ years of taking pictures. I shall continue to do that as i enjoy the process of taking the picture and get satisfaction from using my hard won skills.

[Trev B]

I had image simulation on the R6 and never used it as I shoot in manual most of the time and get it right by all the methods I have developed in 60+ years of taking pictures. I shall continue to do that as i enjoy the process of taking the picture and get satisfaction from using my hard won skills.

I’ve always been a bit envious of you Alan. Your subjects sit still and pose as you want them - wish mine would

[Epicuros]

It looks like we share the same concerns. Why would any of the newbies think about exposure figures if they can see the result without bothering to even know what each parameter represents? Serious photography schools insist that students become familiar with darkroom techniques, even though students will never have to use them in practice. Knowledge of details in the photographic "science" (because it IS a science) contributes to the general photographic education of the artist. I am still carrying my Seconik and my grey card in my bag and have used them on several challenging occasions. It is a joy to feel that your estimates and measurements resulted in optimal exposures.

[SpringfieldPhoto]

On the occasions when I do take pictures of birds in flight, I still use manual settings. I learned to do this 60 years ago and can't break the habit. I use AI, actual intelligence

[Epicuros]

On the occasions when I do take pictures of birds in flight, I still use manual settings. I learned to do this 60 years ago and can't break the habit. I use AI, actual intelligence

Actual Intelligence makes sense. Many of us old-timers remember when most film cameras didn't even have a built-in light meter. Such were actually considered as advanced as mirrorless are today. I remember that general exposure guidelines were: "Set f/11 in bright sunlight and f/8 if overcast; shutter speed was fixed (I think 1/125 s.). In the photo a 6X6/120 film camera of the 1950s; gift from my godfather
IMG_1646.jpg

[SpringfieldPhoto]

I was proud that I could take well exposed picture all those years ago and I still use those skills today. I take the majority of my pictures in manual mode and enjoy doing so.. Image simulation is useless in the studio as the camera has no idea what my studio flash heads are set to. As a result I tend to use manual even when outside. I will often take an incident light reading using a lightmeter. This gives me a much better overall light reading than the camera and allows me to chose whether to use the exposure indicated or to slightly over or under expse in order to get the picture I am looking for.
Ass for moving subject I used to regularly shoot at motocyle and car racing and also at air displays. I No longer live close to those venues so I tend to shoot more slow moving subjects such as birds, but still using mainly manual and seldom using burst mode..
You can call it old fashioned but it's so much more satisfying than just being a button pusher.