As already said, awareness of quality principles dictates to rather not do somethig instead of doing it in "half" the way. Such shots are indeed very nice to learn from, but not really for posting, expect of course for exchanging know-how.
Now, if only the manufacturers would help us by not delivering hundreds of infinite-options-tincans, which also fall into the category "deliver-deliver!" with not much care whatever about what is delivered. ;-)
But you see also for yourself how "natural" the natural interface of menus can be, working all the time perfectly.... except when one needs it "on stage". Nice to have that button in this case. Legend has that there is one photographer in the 275 people designer team of Nikon! ;-)
I know that, Nikos, but having the choise of not taking a photo at all and taking one in a hurry I prefer the last. Furthermore it also makes me learn all the time to see for what is important when I´m on my own. I´m off for Norway and some old pleasant people of my family, so therefore not a long reply. I can merely say that indeed it is troublesome having so many menus and subsubmenus. I haven´t figured out all that my camera can do yet because I primarily focus on shuttertime, iso and aperture when taking photos by myself. I´m certain that it has a lot to offer, but I prefer simplicity. I don´t like having a retouchmenu taking up time and space because if I want to retouch anything I´d rather do it on my computer where I can see the photo fullsize. About the metering it is fairly simple which also confused me because I was browsing through all the subsubmenus and then it turned out that I could push a certain button instead and turn a wheel;-) I must go now to Jylland and then continue to Norway with my little Anna Sophie. Adieu Annemette
The spectator cannot care about daughters running around, Annemette. Awareness of some inadequate light metering means to simply change it.
The mental part of it is a piece of cake in such cases. It is obvious and it can be done instantaneously no matter of kids playing around, since our mind is capable of multitasking.
The mechanical part of it... well here it comes, that hard question. How easy/hard can that be set up on modern cameras? I saw some models presenting me menus, sub-menus, and sub-sub-menus only to change the light metering mode. For heavens sake! On my 20 years old T90 I just turn the wheel, point at the spot for metering, press a button, and that's it, without even the need to see where the buttons are and without any interruption of the work. And I have the metering depicted very unobtrusively at the right edge of the view finder. I can make about 2.5 spot meterings in a second instead of inventing the successor game to mine-hunting (which is menu-hunting! ;-)). So, how much time/effort does it take to change light metering mode and make some spot metering on your D80? Is there any seemless integration of that to the whole process of exposure?
Some of those guys at the camera design offices should design a camera with the photographer in mind, like Collani did when he designed the T90. But of course that would mean to take the time and deal with the photographer's work priorly to designing out of thin air. Which of course would lower the ill-defined maximum profit, but which also applies to anything that human mind might produce, doesn't it? That way the auto-settings resemble the fast and dirty approach of nowadays designers. There is always some reason for using it.
So we have all "reasons" for fast design, fast production, fast life-cycle, all things we ourselves complain about, but when it comes to our own part we do have all the "reasons" for fast photography too, in absolute consistency with that fast production-consuming manner. Maybe it would be better to take time now instead of simply doing, and to only offer products that are results of a thorough and matured design, which goes for images as well.
Or not offer any products when there is awareness of immature design? But that would lower the production speed and thus amount, be it of cameras or images, which has (non-verbally) already been declared inacceptable by the very way of nowadays creating.
Oh I was merely busy as I often am when taking photos. My daughter was running around me wanting me to see this and that. Had I been in this place by myself I could have spent hours noticing funny details and photographing them. It was in Sweden in a place that I´m unlikely to visit again. When it comes to depth I use the aperture very much when being on my own and having time to play with it. When being in a hurry I set it on automatic, but the manualsetting really is the best providing me with better images and control of the final result. As a retired old woman I might be able to have time for it all*LOL* Tuttelut Annemette
Thanks for the explanations, Annemette, but why did you choose center weighted light metering here? Any special considerations? It was quite obvious that it couldn't work perfectly in this case, though it did work to some extend. ("Most of the time" seems to not exist most of the time.)
As about depth, it is not a holy cow. I would rather name it an unholy cow as it is hard to achieve and also as it depends on aperture, one of the most neglected and misunderstood things in photography.
But depth is very useful when a local definition of some shape does not say that much to the spectator, like for example here (and in most of the usual cases). The visual perception of depth due to reflections, that you tried to get, is always connected to perspective and spatially to the angle of view, that gets quite unperceivable on flat images. And if the flatness doesn't result into some distinct shape then it goes even worse. (For this one, if taken under premises of maximum flatness from right over the water with the camera facing vertically downwards it would be pressumably not very interesting.) The image, as it is now, is somewhere inbetween. The reflections do some work for depth but not really much. Any chances to try that again?
Thank you for the detailed comment. Yes, it really is such a pity about the overexposure on the left. I was once told that centerweighed light metering was the best for most situations but not here. Concerning depth it is not really a holy cow to me. Maybe it could have been better with more depth, but I found the reflection of the woods in the water to give a funny sense of depth which is why I did it like this. Ciao Nikos
Oh Annemette, this has so much potential; I just wish you could have taken this photograph when the light was uniform... if I imagine this without the blown-out highlights, it would be extraordinary... there is something very surreal about this image which I find very appealing.
The two of the tyres at the left are overexposed which may be the result of a center-weighted light metering? At least the very well balanced lighting/coloring on the water supports this explanation.
The Nikkor lens at its stunning 18mm (or somewhere else in the superwide angle range) and a lower angle of view for extreme perspective enhancement could result into some special image. This way it is like "unfinished" as it does contain some depth but it only starts with it without telling the spectator any further "story" except that some tyres were at the river bank. And since the details are good except for the tyres, your protagonists get a bit lost in a rather narrow scene.
0 
{K:127263} 8/29/2007
