 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / March 2005Moon shots
Took some shots of the moon last night. Geez, I never realized how bright it is. My exposures were way up there. (500mm mirror lens on D70.) I started with a tripod, but the shutter speeds got up so high I don't think I needed it. I'm also at 8000' with very little light from the city. Sheldon > Took some shots of the moon last night. Geez, I never realized how > bright it is. My exposures were way up there. (500mm mirror lens on [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Sheldon It's about a bright as an asphalt driveway in sunlight. However, realistic photos of it look too dark. We humans seem to like to think that the moon is a white (almost) object, when in fact it is quite dark. >> Took some shots of the moon last night. Geez, I never realized how >> bright it is. My exposures were way up there. (500mm mirror lens on [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > photos of it look too dark. We humans seem to like to think that the moon > is a white (almost) object, when in fact it is quite dark. Good point. The best shots are a bit on the dark side. I can even see the "green cheese". :-) >>Took some shots of the moon last night. Geez, I never realized how >>bright it is. My exposures were way up there. (500mm mirror lens on [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > photos of it look too dark. We humans seem to like to think that the moon > is a white (almost) object, when in fact it is quite dark. There is no dark side of the moon, really. Matter of fact, it's all dark. >There is no dark side of the moon, really. Matter of fact, it's all dark. Explain to me why you're mad.  Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>There is no dark side of the moon, really. Matter of fact, it's all dark. > > Explain to me why you're mad. Even if you are not mad. > Took some shots of the moon last night. Geez, I never realized how bright > it is. My exposures were way up there. (500mm mirror lens on D70.) I > started with a tripod, but the shutter speeds got up so high I don't think > I needed it. I'm also at 8000' with very little light from the city. > > Sheldon You would think it was lit by the sun wouldn't you ;o) >> Took some shots of the moon last night. Geez, I never realized how >> bright it is. My exposures were way up there. (500mm mirror lens on [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > You would think it was lit by the sun wouldn't you ;o) <LOL> Sheldon > Took some shots of the moon last night. Geez, I never realized how bright > it is. My exposures were way up there. (500mm mirror lens on D70.) I > started with a tripod, but the shutter speeds got up so high I don't think I > needed it. I'm also at 8000' with very little light from the city. The moon is exposed by the sun, bright sunny day exposure rule applies. >> Took some shots of the moon last night. Geez, I never realized how bright >> it is. My exposures were way up there. (500mm mirror lens on D70.) I >> started with a tripod, but the shutter speeds got up so high I don't think >> I needed it. I'm also at 8000' with very little light from the city. >The moon is exposed by the sun, bright sunny day exposure rule applies. Sure, if you want a moon whose highlights reach level 300 out of 4000+ possible RAW levels. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >> Took some shots of the moon last night. Geez, I never realized how >> bright [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > The moon is exposed by the sun, bright sunny day exposure rule applies. I think you're just about right on. Obviously I bracketed a lot, and the best shots were at around f 8 (It's a mirror 500 locked in at f 8) with a shutter speed of around 400 at ISO 200. Sunny 16 would translate to f 16 at 200. Can't get much closer than that. >>> Took some shots of the moon last night. Geez, I never realized how >>> bright [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >shutter speed of around 400 at ISO 200. Sunny 16 would translate to f 16 at >200. Can't get much closer than that. Every time I buy a new camera, it isn't long before I try to shoot the moon... The D70 is the first camera I had good luck with... I too was surprised by how bright it is.... I started in manual at 1/2000 F10 and got the best shot at 1/4000 F9... don't remember the ISO but may have been 400... I was up north so that may affect things too... I was hand holding a 300mm and it isn't quite enough! Could you be so kind as to explain that 'Sunny 16' ?? Does that mean you set the shutter to the ISO at F16 in the sun?? I seem to remember something about setting your shutter to 1/100 and then... something about green grass... dam I forget! >Could you be so kind as to explain that 'Sunny 16' ?? >Does that mean you set the shutter to the ISO at F16 in the sun?? Yes. The "sunny 16" rule means that on a bright and clear sunny day, you can set the camera aperture at f/16 and the shutter speed at 1/ISO or as close as you can get, and get a proper exposure. So with an ISO setting of 100, the ideal shutter speed would be 1/100 at f/16. It's a sliding scale, so it also means that if you want to stop down to f/22 for a landscape shot, you can shoot at 1/50 and get the same results. Or for less DOF, open up to f/11 and shoot faster at 1/200. This is photography 101. :) The fun part about a new digital camera, is you can practice all you want till you get it right...no need to worry about bad shots and film costs. >>Could you be so kind as to explain that 'Sunny 16' ?? >>Does that mean you set the shutter to the ISO at F16 in the sun?? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >want till you get it right...no need to worry about bad shots and film >costs. Thanks! yes I keep forgetting I can 'shoot for free' once I'm there... I still tend to shoot just a few pics, and get home with 100 still available on the mem card! I should strive to shoot the whole card before I go, maybe I'll get better pics! >>>Could you be so kind as to explain that 'Sunny 16' ?? >>>Does that mean you set the shutter to the ISO at F16 in the sun?? [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > I should strive to shoot the whole card before I go, maybe I'll get better > pics! I bracket a lot. What the hell. It doesn't cost anything, and you can even setup the camera to do it automatically for you. >>>>Could you be so kind as to explain that 'Sunny 16' ?? >>>>Does that mean you set the shutter to the ISO at F16 in the sun?? [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >I bracket a lot. What the hell. It doesn't cost anything, and you can even >setup the camera to do it automatically for you. This is good advice, especially with digital. Once at home, you can examine the EXIF data on the working shot compared to the failures and learn what works best. BTW: Bracket = take several shots of the same scene at different apeture/shutter combinations to allow you to choose the best exposure when you get home. Typically the aperture would stay static whilst you took a picture at what you think the correct shutter speed is, then take another one at double the shutter speed, and a final one at half the shutter speed. You now have a -1/+1EV bracketed shot. If your camera supports this feature, it can do it automatically, and you can tell it if the bracket should be a full stop, stop and a half, 2 stops, half a stop etc. You can of course do the same thing, but this time keeping the shutter speed static, and moving the aperture instead. This is generally a less useful method. -- Owamanga! >>The fun part about a new digital camera, is you can practice all you >>want till you get it right...no need to worry about bad shots and film [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >I should strive to shoot the whole card before I go, maybe I'll get better pics! Shoot lots and then pick the keepers. I used to do that with my older film SLR, but I could usually sell one or two shots and pay for all the rolls of film I wasted. Now I don't have to worry about wasting film. :) >Took some shots of the moon last night. Geez, I never realized how bright >it is. My exposures were way up there. (500mm mirror lens on D70.) I >started with a tripod, but the shutter speeds got up so high I don't think I >needed it. I'm also at 8000' with very little light from the city. If you shoot in RAW mode, bracket exposures that flirt with clipping the RAW data (they will clip the histogram, even if the RAW data isn't clipped), for the recorded exposure. Your initial capture with a RAW file has no need to match the desired tones upon output; you can do that trivially, later in software. One thing to keep in mind is that darkening an exposure in software is never harmful to image quality; only brightening can be. Never be afraid of going to a higher ISO to maintain the shutter speed and aperture you want, to do this high exposure. It is a falsehood, this "common wisdom", that higher ISO simply equals higher noise. That is only true when exposure compensation, or lack thereof, is the same for all ISOs: clean noisy ISO 100 200 400 800 SS 800 800 800 800 FS f4 f5.6 f8 f11 EC 0 0 0 0 or clean noisy ISO 100 200 400 800 SS 800 1600 3200 6400 FS f4 f4 f4 f4 EC 0 0 0 0 When absolute exposure remains the same, the noise does not increase, but rather, *DECREASES* with higher ISO (because the noise and signal are less quantized): noisy clean ISO 100 200 400 800 SS 3200 3200 3200 3200 FS f4 f4 f4 f4 EC -2 -1 0 +1 Of course, this is all assuming that no desired detail is clipped in the RAW data. It would really be nice if the camera had an option to bracket ISO automatically in manual (aperture and shutter speed) exposure mode. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > It would really be nice if the camera had an option to > bracket ISO automatically in manual (aperture and shutter speed) > exposure mode. I really wish I could set aperture and shutter speed (or a range of apertures and shutter speeds, or aperture and a range of shutter speeds, or shutter speed and a range of apertures) and have my camera manipulate ISO to make it come out right. SignatureBen Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215 Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing. --Josh Micah Marshall >> It would really be nice if the camera had an option to >> bracket ISO automatically in manual (aperture and shutter speed) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >speeds, or shutter speed and a range of apertures) and have my >camera manipulate ISO to make it come out right. I really wish that digital cameras had come out back in the mid-80's; then we'd probably have something like "exposureBASIC(TM)", where we could program our own modes. The whole mentality of technology has become really dumbed down from a user standpoint. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>It would really be nice if the camera had an option to >>bracket ISO automatically in manual (aperture and shutter speed) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > speeds, or shutter speed and a range of apertures) and have my > camera manipulate ISO to make it come out right. Sigh. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. >>>It would really be nice if the camera had an option to >>>bracket ISO automatically in manual (aperture and shutter speed) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Sigh. Why sigh? SignatureBen Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215 Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing. --Josh Micah Marshall >>>I really wish I could set aperture and shutter speed (or a range of >>>apertures and shutter speeds, or aperture and a range of shutter [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Why sigh? Stop depending on the camera s/w to do things for you. You should develop an eye and a mental process that is always considering the light and how your subjects can be exposed to get a specific result. For most scenes (in natural or available light) there are a range of expsosures that will portray the subject differently. No camera can decide how a particular subject should be expressed. Otherwise put your camera in fully auto and let it do everything for you and you can wonder why the exposure is okay but not great; or often enough, just plain wrong. _you_ should be selecting the exposure to arrive at some expression of the subject in that light. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. > Stop depending on the camera s/w to do things for you. You should > develop an eye and a mental process that is always considering the > light and how your subjects can be exposed to get a specific result. > For most scenes (in natural or available light) there are a range of > expsosures that will portray the subject differently. Of shutter speed, aperture, and ISO, ISO has the least effect on the look of the image. And yet, every single "creative mode" (P, A, S, M) on the 20D is effectively "ISO priority". For a given exposure value, you can set the aperture constant while the shutter speed floats, or vice versa; but you cannot set both constant while the ISO floats. I'm talking about more control, not less, so stop that knee jerking. > No camera can decide how a particular subject should be expressed. Yes, I know, Mother ... SignatureBen Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215 Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing. --Josh Micah Marshall >> Stop depending on the camera s/w to do things for you. You should >> develop an eye and a mental process that is always considering the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >I'm talking about more control, not less, so stop that knee jerking. I agree, from what I saw in your original post it was obvious you wanted to specify the aperture to artistically control DOF and at the same time specify the shutter speed to artistically control the amount of motion captured. The only thing left to move is ISO. This is *more* control than is offered in any of the priority modes. Apparently the D70 can do this (to some extent at least), but I've never used that feature because after only 3 stops you are into some seriously noisy ISO's. Compare this to around 18 stops in shutter speed between 30secs and 1/8000th, and around 4.5 stops on the aperture. -- Owamanga! >Apparently the D70 can do this (to some extent at least), but I've >never used that feature because after only 3 stops you are into some >seriously noisy ISO's. Compare this to around 18 stops in shutter >speed between 30secs and 1/8000th, and around 4.5 stops on the >aperture. You are thinking within the quandaries of a major misconception. Higher ISO does *NOT* equal more noise. Noise exists in an image *RELATIVE* to signal strength. If you shoot in manual mode (i.e., choosing aperture and shutter speed yourself), it doesn't matter at all what ISO the camera is set to; the exposure on the sensor is exactly the same, and so is the noise. ISO only affects how much the signal is amplified, and consequently, what range of digitized RAW numbers are used to represent the subject. The higher ISOs do distort the signal a little more, with more amplification, but this isn't nearly as destructive to image quality as over-quantizing it by not utilizing the most significant bits in the digitization process, as might happen with a lower ISO. Here's an example. Both halves of these images had the same aperture and shutter speed; the uglier one was ISO 100; the better one was ISO 1600! Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >Here's an example. Both halves of these images had the same aperture >and shutter speed; the uglier one was ISO 100; the better one was ISO >1600! Whoops, I forgot the link: http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/40038800 Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>Here's an example. Both halves of these images had the same aperture >>and shutter speed; the uglier one was ISO 100; the better one was ISO >>1600! > > http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/40038800 Was the ugly ISO 100 picture underexposed then brightened with levels or something later? >>>Here's an example. Both halves of these images had the same aperture >>>and shutter speed; the uglier one was ISO 100; the better one was ISO >>>1600! >> http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/40038800 >Was the ugly ISO 100 picture underexposed then brightened with levels or >something later? Yes, that was the point. With any given absolute exposure, you are better off with the highest (real) ISO that doesn't clip your highlights. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>>>Here's an example. Both halves of these images had the same aperture >>>>and shutter speed; the uglier one was ISO 100; the better one was ISO [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >better off with the highest (real) ISO that doesn't clip your >highlights. Err, yes John, that's why we dial in a higher ISO when we need it. I'm not absolutely certain what the point of your test was. "Use a higher ISO rather than severely underexposing the shot." Not a bad piece of advice, but nobody in their right mind would ever shoot 4 stops under anyway - would they? -- Owamanga! >>>>>Here's an example. Both halves of these images had the same aperture >>>>>and shutter speed; the uglier one was ISO 100; the better one was ISO [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Err, yes John, that's why we dial in a higher ISO when we need it. From discussions and reading other people's practices, it seems that many people stick to ISO 100 (or whatever is lowest) far too often, in the belief that they will get a better image. I like to challenge that belief, as I don't think most people have a clear view of the compromises. Let's say that you found a grey wall in even light, with an inscription on it, and the dynamic range of the inscription and the area around it was about one stop. You set the camera to ISO 100, pick your aperture, and the shutter speed is about 2 stops too slow for a "proper" exposure, according to the camera. What would you do? If you change the ISO to 400, now the shot is hand-holdable. but, if you set the camera to ISO 1600, and +2 EC, you use the same aperture and shutter speed, but get a cleaner recording. This goes against most people's intuition, but it is a fact, on at least some cameras. >I'm not absolutely certain what the point of your test was. The test was originally to demonstrate that the limiting factor on dynamic range is the 12-bit depth, not the sensor. >"Use a higher ISO rather than severely underexposing the shot." Yes, and it's not just because the image is automatically brightness-adjusted for you; it's because it is actually a higher quality recording. Many people believe that shooting at a high ISO is the same thing as under-exposing at the lowest ISO and boosting the levels in Photoshop, but performed by the camera; this is far from the truth. >Not a bad piece of advice, but nobody in their right mind would ever >shoot 4 stops under anyway - would they? They most certainly would. People do it all the time. Set the camera to ISO 100, because it's better, and as the sun sets, they won't boost the ISO until they can't see the images brightly on the review LCD, or the histogram is mostly to the left. Meanwhile, camera blur and insufficient DOF, as well as posterization occur. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>Err, yes John, that's why we dial in a higher ISO when we need it. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >speed, but get a cleaner recording. This goes against most people's >intuition, but it is a fact, on at least some cameras. Okay, but can we try to state this guideline in a simple and understandable one-liner: To reduce noise, rather than underexposing a low-contrast shot at a low ISO, it's better to over expose it at a higher ISO. Good news all round no? >>I'm not absolutely certain what the point of your test was. > >The test was originally to demonstrate that the limiting factor on >dynamic range is the 12-bit depth, not the sensor. Got it. >>"Use a higher ISO rather than severely underexposing the shot." > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >levels in Photoshop, but performed by the camera; this is far from the >truth. Yes, I've seen this claim at the other end: (*they* say) The reason the D70 doesn't go faster than ISO 1600 is because of noise, which you can see by emulating a 3200 shot by setting iso 1600 and -1EV, push back later in photoshop. Likewise a 6400 shot at 1600 -2EV. In reality, you are saying these tests will provide much *more* noise than a true 3200 or 6400 setting. Which, again is good news because once the firmware hack is finished, we'll see cleaner 3200, 6400 shots than expected. >>Not a bad piece of advice, but nobody in their right mind would ever >>shoot 4 stops under anyway - would they? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >the histogram is mostly to the left. Meanwhile, camera blur and >insufficient DOF, as well as posterization occur. Well, I am amazed. I shoot high (800) ISO frequently - an effective 450mm lens makes this a necessity. I can always do something about noise in post-processing if it becomes a problem, but I can't remove camera shake (my biggest problem) or increase the DOF (a lesser issue for me) in Photoshop. I have however, been avoiding over-exposure like the plague due to the nasty way digitals blow highlights. Having done some histogram reviews on previous shots, I realize that I am probably being too conservative, underexposing by 1/2 to 1 full stop on about 80% of the shots, wasting the right-most quarter of the histogram - approx 1/2 of the data. This habit unnecessarily introduces noise. -- Owamanga! > Yes, I've seen this claim at the other end: (*they* say) The reason > the D70 doesn't go faster than ISO 1600 is because of noise, which you > can see by emulating a 3200 shot by setting iso 1600 and -1EV, push > back later in photoshop. Likewise a 6400 shot at 1600 -2EV. In That's just plain underexposing. The -1 or -2 EV affects reduces the shutter or aperture. It doesn't affect the gain of the sensor system. > reality, you are saying these tests will provide much *more* noise > than a true 3200 or 6400 setting. Which, again is good news because > once the firmware hack is finished, we'll see cleaner 3200, 6400 shots > than expected. firmware hack? Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. >> Yes, I've seen this claim at the other end: (*they* say) The reason >> the D70 doesn't go faster than ISO 1600 is because of noise, which you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >That's just plain underexposing. The -1 or -2 EV affects reduces the >shutter or aperture. It doesn't affect the gain of the sensor system. The gain is increased in Photoshop with levels. (that's what I meant by 'push back in photoshop'. Sure, if you left it underexposed, it'd be a dark image with no extra noise. >> reality, you are saying these tests will provide much *more* noise >> than a true 3200 or 6400 setting. Which, again is good news because >> once the firmware hack is finished, we'll see cleaner 3200, 6400 shots >> than expected. > >firmware hack? Waiting anxiously... People are feverishly working on it. It'll add some or all of these: ISO 100, 3200 and 6400. Something they call 'Composition priority' mode, where the ISO floats. Chanel-split color-coded histogram, so you can see each channel individually. Chanel-based color-coded highlight warning mode. Multiple user-curves. RAW+F (Raw + Fine Jpeg) mode. Astronomy RAW mode (eg skips the blurry hot-pixel algorithm) MLU & Auto-MLU Partial sensor (1.2Mbit) 60fps NEF movie mode. Flash sync to 1/8000th Plus you'll get to assign your own rules for each of the 'idiot' modes (portrait, landscape, sport etc) as to what you want it to do. This might be as simple as each idiot mode remembering it's ISO, aperture vs shutter vs composition priority, aperture and shutter speed ranges, assigning what the front and back command dials do, focusing mode and metering mode, flash sync mode etc. More here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nikond70hak/ -- Owamanga! > It'll add some or all of these: > [lots of good stuff deleted] Wow, something like this for the 20D would really be awesome. SignatureBen Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215 Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing. --Josh Micah Marshall >> It'll add some or all of these: >> [lots of good stuff deleted] > >Wow, something like this for the 20D would really be awesome. Actually, Canon generally have a better history of firmware hacks than Nikon, in particular the EOS300D: http://satinfo.narod.ru/en/index.html -- Owamanga! > Actually, Canon generally have a better history of firmware hacks than > Nikon, in particular the EOS300D: What are the warranty issues? Suppose your body dies with a hacked load and you can't put back the original code. Gives the warranty center a blank check to say, "sorry, no can do". They can claim that the hack is the cause of the damage (and they may even be correct). Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. >>>Yes, I've seen this claim at the other end: (*they* say) The reason >>>the D70 doesn't go faster than ISO 1600 is because of noise, which you [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > by 'push back in photoshop'. Sure, if you left it underexposed, it'd > be a dark image with no extra noise. The point is that by doing so (as you well know), at taking time you're not filling the MSB, so you're not using your sensor there (and you're pushing the (albeit less useful) bits below capture). Loss of detail in the shaddows is not going to re-emerge in pushing ... the LSB's are filled with 0's. You will 'get the shot' and that's important (most important) but don't hope to get the full dynamic range of the sensor. >>>reality, you are saying these tests will provide much *more* noise >>>than a true 3200 or 6400 setting. Which, again is good news because [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > ISO 100, 3200 and 6400. > Something they call 'Composition priority' mode, where the ISO floats. Composition Priority[TM] is Trademarked. (I'm sure you threw that in there for good reason ;-) ) > Chanel-split color-coded histogram, so you can see each channel > individually. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > assigning what the front and back command dials do, focusing mode and > metering mode, flash sync mode etc. As JPS suggested "CameraBASIC" would be the ticket. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. >>>>Yes, I've seen this claim at the other end: (*they* say) The reason >>>>the D70 doesn't go faster than ISO 1600 is because of noise, which you [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >the shaddows is not going to re-emerge in pushing ... the LSB's are >filled with 0's. ..so we won't see noise? - just a crop of the shadows? Dunno if we are agreeing or disagreeing here.. This is my opinion: A 2 stop underexposure with subsequent re-leveling to bring the exposure back in PS will have more noise than a two stop increase in ISO and correctly exposing. So you cant really emulate higher ISOs by underexposing. >You will 'get the shot' and that's important (most important) but don't >hope to get the full dynamic range of the sensor. Indeed, we'll be wasting about 75% of the histogram. <snip> >> ISO 100, 3200 and 6400. >> Something they call 'Composition priority' mode, where the ISO floats. > >Composition Priority[TM] is Trademarked. >(I'm sure you threw that in there for good reason ;-) ) Correct. Alvin Chia-Hua Shih used the term in the realm of Photography back in 1994. BTW, to hold a trademark for any period of time, you have to demonstrate that you are using it (countries differ of course, can't speak for Canada). We get letters from the US Trademark office every few years chasing up our ones. Your use is a better fit for the phrase than Alvin's. >> Chanel-split color-coded histogram, so you can see each channel >> individually. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >As JPS suggested "CameraBASIC" would be the ticket. Indeed. -- Owamanga! >>>The gain is increased in Photoshop with levels. (that's what I meant >>>by 'push back in photoshop'. Sure, if you left it underexposed, it'd [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > ..so we won't see noise? - just a crop of the shadows? You'll see the noise as it occupies higher bits, and is pulled higher in the pixel color channel, below it, the data will fill with 0's (for a doubling in the intensity of that pixel, in PS, of course, when you simply 'haul' up the levels it is not neccesarilly a doubling or 4x..) (eg: when you amplify noise you get *amplified* noise.) > Dunno if we are agreeing or disagreeing here.. We're agreeing. (I think). > This is my opinion: A 2 stop underexposure with subsequent re-leveling > to bring the exposure back in PS will have more noise than a two stop > increase in ISO and correctly exposing. So you cant really emulate > higher ISOs by underexposing. Well, when you do the re-leveling on an underexposed image, you are amplifying noise as well as signal, but you're also really working with less information. The information that pads underneath is not noisy per se, it is just "non-information". 3 stop under example (no R,G,B pixel in the entire image has an on bit in bit positions 11, 10 or 9. So let's grab red (or green or blue) pixel somewhere and play with it: Here's an under exposed 12 bit red pixel: (bits 11 down to 0). 1 9 0 000101011101 Increase the exposure by 1 stop (0 pad the LSB) 1 9 0 001010111010 Another stop 1 9 0 010101110100 Another 1 9 0 101011101000 So, (and assuming we haven't clipped blue or green), we've brought the signal up 3 stops, but the lowest order bits have been 0 paded. (You could put in random 1's or 0's if you like). Leveling of course doesn't go neccesarilly in doublings, so the padding will be whatever products result... but they are non-information from the original image ... they are just numerical artifacts. No information has been lost, but certainly NONE has been gained either. The point? Is that that lowest order bit [0] in the first instance (which can be assumed to be noise) has now moved up to bit 3, or 8 times the 'signal' it had before. Quantization noise/shaddow detail blocking occurs. >>You will 'get the shot' and that's important (most important) but don't >>hope to get the full dynamic range of the sensor. > > Indeed, we'll be wasting about 75% of the histogram. As the case may be. > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Your use is a better fit for the phrase than Alvin's. I am humbled by your recognition and it is appropriate to state that it was one of your posts that triggered the phrase (the thought's been on my mind for a long time, there are just situations, such as studio shooting where it would be of negative value). I did a google and the term does not come up in a photographic sense. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. >>Here's an example. Both halves of these images had the same aperture >>and shutter speed; the uglier one was ISO 100; the better one was ISO >>1600! > > http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/40038800 Nice demonstration. I know you've covered this before, but humor me: 1. This issue is similar for all digital cameras? 2. The advantage is because ISO gain can make use of information that would be thrown out when the A/D converter does what amounts to a rounding off? The image is captioned "Demonstration of the fact that ISO 100 at 12 bits RAW is under-utilizing the sensor." Shouldn't you add, "in low light"? SignatureBen Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215 Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing. --Josh Micah Marshall >>>Here's an example. Both halves of these images had the same aperture >>>and shutter speed; the uglier one was ISO 100; the better one was ISO [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >1. This issue is similar for all digital cameras? Well, I suppose a camera could have a really bad gain circuit that goes against this trend. Don't know how true it is, but Steve Giovanella (George Preddy) claimed that his SD9 gave cleaner results pushing ISO 100 to 400 than shooting at 400. I really find that hard to believe, though. >2. The advantage is because ISO gain can make use of information that > would be thrown out when the A/D converter does what amounts to a > rounding off? Yep. Rounding off "throws" the noise and signal to wider extremes. ISO 100 would have a lot less noise than it has now, if it were digitized to more bit depth. >The image is captioned "Demonstration of the fact that ISO 100 at >12 bits RAW is under-utilizing the sensor." Shouldn't you add, "in >low light"? Not really. People complain that they want cameras in the future with more dynamic range. My point is that the sensors are already there; it is the ADC circuits that are not delivering. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > ISO 100 would have a lot less noise than it has now, if it were > digitized to more bit depth. [...] People complain that they want > cameras in the future with more dynamic range. My point is that > the sensors are already there; it is the ADC circuits that are not > delivering. Are you're saying that ISO 100 (or 200 on a D70?) *never* uses the most significant bits in its 12-bit "words"? SignatureBen Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215 Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing. --Josh Micah Marshall >> ISO 100 would have a lot less noise than it has now, if it were >> digitized to more bit depth. [...] People complain that they want >> cameras in the future with more dynamic range. My point is that >> the sensors are already there; it is the ADC circuits that are not >> delivering. >Are you're saying that ISO 100 (or 200 on a D70?) *never* uses the >most significant bits in its 12-bit "words"? No. I'm saying that 12 bits is not enough for the kind of dynamic range people want, and the better sensors are already ready to give more depth than 12 bits. If this were not true, ISO 800 and above would be totally worthless garbage, even on DSLRs. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>Are you're saying that ISO 100 (or 200 on a D70?) *never* uses the >>most significant bits in its 12-bit "words"? > > No. Phew. > I'm saying that 12 bits is not enough for the kind of dynamic range > people want, and the better sensors are already ready to give more depth > than 12 bits. You could trade dynamic range for a degree of posterization, I think. > If this were not true, ISO 800 and above would be totally > worthless garbage, even on DSLRs. Huh? SignatureBen Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215 Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing. --Josh Micah Marshall >>>Are you're saying that ISO 100 (or 200 on a D70?) *never* uses the >>>most significant bits in its 12-bit "words"? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Huh? Bit depth doesn't have squat to do with ISO. >> I'm saying that 12 bits is not enough for the kind of dynamic range >> people want, and the better sensors are already ready to give more depth >> than 12 bits. >You could trade dynamic range for a degree of posterization, I think. Huh? >> If this were not true, ISO 800 and above would be totally >> worthless garbage, even on DSLRs. >Huh? ISO 1600 on the 20D is pretty much the 12 least significant bits of a 16-bit digitization of ISO 100. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >> [JPS wrote:] >>> I'm saying that 12 bits is not enough for the kind of dynamic range [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Huh? Just use fewer values to represent each stop. >>> If this were not true, ISO 800 and above would be totally >>> worthless garbage, even on DSLRs. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ISO 1600 on the 20D is pretty much the 12 least significant bits of a > 16-bit digitization of ISO 100. ... I need to limit myself to reading your posts early in the afternoon, when caffeine has stopped down my arteries for maximum sharpness. SignatureBen Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215 Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing. --Josh Micah Marshall >>> [JPS wrote:] >>>> I'm saying that 12 bits is not enough for the kind of dynamic range [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Just use fewer values to represent each stop. A stop uses anywhere from one (2:1) to 2048 (4094:2047) values in the current system. If you're talking about gamma adjustment at the digitization level that would make things more complicated and possibly noisier. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >> Here's an example. Both halves of these images had the same >> aperture and shutter speed; the uglier one was ISO 100; the better [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/40038800 Great example. No surprise. But what the hell is that? Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. >Great example. No surprise. But what the hell is that? That's a "Canon Digital" camera strap on top of a Sam Ash Guitar bag, in native RAW color balance for incandescent light. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >You are thinking within the quandaries of a major misconception. >Higher ISO does *NOT* equal more noise. Noise exists in an image [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >most significant bits in the digitization process, as might happen with >a lower ISO. Wha?? How on Earth is this kind of discussion productive? Should we all run around shooting at ISO 1600 rather than severely underexposing our ISO 100 shots because the former produces relatively cleaner results? Thanks, but I'll stick to properly exposed shots at the lowest ISO setting available because I understand that noise IS caused by amplification and when comparing apples to apples, higher ISO settings DO equal more noise. > How on Earth is this kind of discussion productive? Should we all run > around shooting at ISO 1600 rather than severely underexposing our ISO > 100 shots because the former produces relatively cleaner results? > Thanks, but I'll stick to properly exposed shots at the lowest ISO > setting available I think JPS's point is that some people put the cart before the horse and think that lower ISO means less noise no matter what the exposure. Certainly, if you can get all the light you need and expose at a low ISO, that's better. But for someone like me who shoots at night in available light a lot, JPS's comments are useful and welcome. Not that I was running around underexposing at ISO 100 before ... but now I can explain *why not* in more-or-less everyday English. SignatureBen Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215 Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing. --Josh Micah Marshall >I think JPS's point is that some people put the cart before the >horse and think that lower ISO means less noise no matter what the >exposure. Certainly, if you can get all the light you need and >expose at a low ISO, that's better. >But for someone like me who shoots at night in available light a >lot, JPS's comments are useful and welcome. Not that I was running >around underexposing at ISO 100 before ... but now I can explain >*why not* in more-or-less everyday English. Besides the noise issues, gravitating towards the lowest ISO can also compromise shutter speed, depth of field, and make the sensor more likely to bloom where there are specular highlights. It is good to know what you are really compromising when you make your choices; it is good to know that it is low signal-to-noise ratios and bit-depth utilization, not ISOs per se, that make images noisy. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >> How on Earth is this kind of discussion productive? Should we all run >> around shooting at ISO 1600 rather than severely underexposing our ISO [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >around underexposing at ISO 100 before ... but now I can explain >*why not* in more-or-less everyday English. Guys, a four stop underexposure is an insane thing to try if you want a good quality image. If other aspects prevent you from increasing shutter speed, opening aperture, or improving the lighting of the scene, you *have* to bump the ISO, it's second nature to any digital photographer. -- Owamanga! >>Not that I was running >>around underexposing at ISO 100 before ... but now I can explain [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > a good quality image. [...] it's second nature to any digital > photographer. *whoosh* SignatureBen Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215 Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing. --Josh Micah Marshall >Guys, a four stop underexposure is an insane thing to try if you want >a good quality image. If other aspects prevent you from increasing >shutter speed, opening aperture, or improving the lighting of the >scene, you *have* to bump the ISO, it's second nature to any digital >photographer. Any? Not a chance. Besides, I am also talking about taking the concept further; exposing to the right at a higher ISO, with the same absolute exposure. My link was from an image made to demonstrate the posterization of the shadows at ISO 100. The same principal applies, though, if you're comparing ISO 1600 at +2 against ISO 100 at -2, or more probably, ISO 1600 at +1, compared to ISO 400 at -1. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>You are thinking within the quandaries of a major misconception. >>Higher ISO does *NOT* equal more noise. Noise exists in an image [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >>most significant bits in the digitization process, as might happen with >>a lower ISO. >Wha?? Yah! >How on Earth is this kind of discussion productive? Should we all run >around shooting at ISO 1600 rather than severely underexposing our ISO >100 shots because the former produces relatively cleaner results? No, and I didn't imply anything like that. My point is that in choosing parameters in a compromised photon budget, going to higher ISO is not necessarily a compromise in quality. Of course an ISO 100 shot at 0 EC is much less noisy than an ISO 1600 shot of the same thing with an EC of 0. A low-contrast subject, however, may record better at ISO 400 and +2 EC than at ISO 100 with "proper exposure". >Thanks, but I'll stick to properly exposed shots at the lowest ISO >setting available because I understand that noise IS caused by >amplification and when comparing apples to apples, higher ISO settings >DO equal more noise. You understand incompletely. Very little of the noise of higher ISOs is caused by higher amplification. Most of it is the result of a poor signal-to-noise *RATIO*. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > in a compromised photon budget... > A low-contrast subject... A high contrast subject risks blowing the highlights. If you are willing to do more work, two exposures can be merged. > may record better at ISO 400 and +2 > EC than at ISO 100 with "proper exposure". Hmm, that is significant because it assumes no adjustment on the ISO 100 shot. It does need adjustment for the +2 ISO 400 shot. Thanks for that observation! Has it been tested though? >> in a compromised photon budget... >> A low-contrast subject... > >A high contrast subject risks blowing the highlights. If you are willing >to do more work, two exposures can be merged. The decision is no different than usual, though. You look at the scene, and you determine how much headroom the scene needs, and how much the camera has. This is the same regardless of ISO. > > may record better at ISO 400 and +2 >> EC than at ISO 100 with "proper exposure". > >Hmm, that is significant because it assumes no adjustment on the ISO 100 >shot. It does need adjustment for the +2 ISO 400 shot. Only because the Mfrs haven't thought about it very much. They are still thinking film. A future camera could roughly assess the dynamic range, and put metadata in the file that shows where the normal center of exposure is. It might say -1 for a low-contrast scene "exposed to the right", or -3 for a sunlit scene with shadows. >Thanks for that observation! Has it been tested though? Yes. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>>in a compromised photon budget... >>>A low-contrast subject... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and you determine how much headroom the scene needs, and how much the > camera has. This is the same regardless of ISO. Yes, understood. >>>may record better at ISO 400 and +2 >>>EC than at ISO 100 with "proper exposure". [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > of exposure is. It might say -1 for a low-contrast scene "exposed to > the right", or -3 for a sunlit scene with shadows. Yes this could be done and would make sense. Again, it's not dependant on ISO, it could be just pushing the exposure within comfortable shooting speeds with the intent to darken later. In fact, it could be the camera's default setting to simply expose up to the max before blowing highlights and record that adjustment in the exif for the raw converter to readjust back to a normal exposure. Hmm, well, maybe there is another dial to add when you want. If you have a higher speed than you need, you would then know the "exposure cheat" factor could be dialed up until the speed becomes too slow. But if you are thinking with that in mind from the start, you would only disable "exposure cheat" when the speed got too slow. Then, you start adjusting ISO, then step off the "exposure cheat" setting. >>Has it been tested though? > > Yes. That's not what the test images you showed did though. I'd like to see this demonstrated <g>. >>>You are thinking within the quandaries of a major misconception. >>>Higher ISO does *NOT* equal more noise. Noise exists in an image [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >caused by higher amplification. Most of it is the result of a poor >signal-to-noise *RATIO*. In english - the scene is darker, which is why you needed to key in the higher ISO ? So you think people compare daylight photography at low ISOs with dimly lit candle-light photography at high ISOs and place all the noise blame on the ISO rather than the lack of 'signal'. -- Owamanga! >So you think people compare daylight photography at low ISOs with >dimly lit candle-light photography at high ISOs and place all the >noise blame on the ISO rather than the lack of 'signal'. Some do, but even more believe the reason you set the ISO higher is so that the picture is bright enough to see, without any post-processing work. What the vast majority don't seem to understand is that if you take a shot at ISO 100 with "perfect exposure", and there is a stop of RAW highlights unused, they would have had a better quality capture with ISO 200 and +1 exposure, with the same shutter speed and aperture. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >You understand incompletely. Very little of the noise of higher ISOs is >caused by higher amplification. Most of it is the result of a poor >signal-to-noise *RATIO*. I understand it better than you think. I understand that there exists an inherent signal to noise ratio associated with every picture I take. I choose to optimize the signal to noise ratio by adjusting my combination of shutter speed and aperture so as to play nicely with my lowest ISO setting. If that's not an option, I'll jack up the ISO setting (turn up the amplifier) with the knowledge that whatever noise that already exists due to the signal to noise ratio will be exaggerated and added to by the amplification process. You started this whole discussion by asserting that, and I quote, "Higher ISO does *NOT* equal more noise." Well I'm sorry, but it does. That's a simple matter of physics. You seem to understand this stuff well enough to know that. What you might have asserted instead is that higher ISO settings don't contribute as much noise to the capture as the initial signal to noise ratio. >You started >this whole discussion by asserting that, and I quote, "Higher ISO does [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >higher ISO settings don't contribute as much noise to the capture as >the initial signal to noise ratio. Higher ISO settings do *NOT* equal more noise. This is only true under a set of conditions. I have already demonstrated that an ISO 100 image can be noisier than an ISO 1600 image on the same camera. My demonstration was rather extreme, to serve a point. The concept still applies to smaller differences, though. Shooting at ISO 400 and +2 EC in dense fog will give higher quality pictures than shooting at ISO 100 and default exposure, especially if you try to increase the contrast in post-processing. People are making inferior choices because they believe that ISO 100 is the best they can do. I am here to bust that myth. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > Shooting at ISO 400 and +2 EC in dense fog will give higher quality > pictures than shooting at ISO 100 and default exposure, especially if > you try to increase the contrast in post-processing. > > People are making inferior choices because they believe that ISO 100 is > the best they can do. I am here to bust that myth. What's causing the confusion is that you're leaving out that, in the above scenario, the pictures will be better still (from a noise standpoint) if you shoot at ISO 100 and +2 EC. What you're saying is, basically, that increasing ISO is better than underexposing at a lower ISO, which is true enough (up to the point where analog gain ends), but you're saying it in a confusing way. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> Shooting at ISO 400 and +2 EC in dense fog will give higher quality >> pictures than shooting at ISO 100 and default exposure, especially if >> you try to increase the contrast in post-processing. >> People are making inferior choices because they believe that ISO 100 is >> the best they can do. I am here to bust that myth. >What's causing the confusion is that you're leaving out that, in the >above scenario, the pictures will be better still (from a noise >standpoint) if you shoot at ISO 100 and +2 EC. In theory, yes, but the noise standpoint is not the only one to hold. The images may be blurred. Exposing at ISO 25 in dense fog for hand-held pictures is very compromising. You either have to shoot wide open, compromising the optics and DOF, or use long exposures, which may cause motion-blur. If you had the camera set to ISO 100, and were in dense fog, with the EC set to 0, you might suddenly think "expose to the right", after seeing the narrow, mid-screen histogram hump. What I'm saying is that you can leave the aperture and shutter speed where they are, and just move the RAW data to the right, by using a higher ISO combined with positive exposure compensation. >What you're saying is, >basically, that increasing ISO is better than underexposing at a lower >ISO, which is true enough (up to the point where analog gain ends), but >you're saying it in a confusing way. I don't think so. I think that the confusion comes from the inefficient paradigms already in place. Exposure on the sensor comes from subject lighting, aperture, and shutter speed, alone. (Gain-based) ISO is just a way to map that exposure to numbers, by scaling with amplification. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>You started >>this whole discussion by asserting that, and I quote, "Higher ISO does [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >People are making inferior choices because they believe that ISO 100 is >the best they can do. I am here to bust that myth. Have your fun... Grab your attention... All you've demonstrated is your lack of understanding of sound scientific method and your inability to communicate clearly. No skin off my back, but you're doing a real disservice to the people here who are trying to get a handle on this stuff for the first time. > Have your fun... Grab your attention... All you've demonstrated is > your lack of understanding of sound scientific method and your > inability to communicate clearly. No skin off my back, but you're > doing a real disservice to the people here who are trying to get a > handle on this stuff for the first time. You will go a good ways with the general notion that the lowest ISO for the conditions is the least noisy ISO, so stick to that until you want to squeeze out some more performance. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. >Have your fun... Grab your attention... All you've demonstrated is >your lack of understanding of sound scientific method Oh yeah, right; I suppose that just parrotting "use the lowest ISO that you can get away with" like most everyone is sounder scientific method? >and your >inability to communicate clearly. Maybe part of the problem is with the reader. Many people are incapable of thinking outside the box they're in, and interpret things in a distorted way to bring them back inside the box, no matter how clearly stated. I can't control what assumptions people come to the table with. >No skin off my back, but you're >doing a real disservice to the people here who are trying to get a >handle on this stuff for the first time. My posts are often like the little pink or blue boxes in a text book with the more detailed truth for those who care to know. Until you can understand the ramifications of these truths, fell free to "use the lowest ISO that you can get away with". Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>You are thinking within the quandaries of a major misconception. >>Higher ISO does *NOT* equal more noise. Noise exists in an image [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >amplification and when comparing apples to apples, higher ISO settings >DO equal more noise. <g> -- Owamanga! |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message