Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Moon shots

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 2:27:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

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

More about : moon shots

Anonymous
February 26, 2005 9:53:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:

> 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
>
>
>

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.
February 26, 2005 1:42:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
news:TtydnU33253Ehb3fRVn-rw@comcast.com...
> 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)
Related resources
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 8:45:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Bubbabob" <rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9608F320DE59dilfjelfoiwepofujsdk@216.168.3.30...
> "Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
> 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.

Good point. The best shots are a bit on the dark side. I can even see the
"green cheese". :-)
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 8:46:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"dylan" <no@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:cvpjqp$v96$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
> news:TtydnU33253Ehb3fRVn-rw@comcast.com...
>> 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)

<LOL>

Sheldon

>
February 28, 2005 4:16:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> 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.
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 12:51:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"zeitgeist" <blkhatwhtdog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:iO-dnUlqX4vyfL_fRVn-qQ@comcast.com...
>
>
>> 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.
>
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.
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 6:51:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <TtydnU33253Ehb3fRVn-rw@comcast.com>,
"Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:

>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.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 6:55:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <iO-dnUlqX4vyfL_fRVn-qQ@comcast.com>,
"zeitgeist" <blkhatwhtdog@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> 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.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 7:10:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 03:51:58 GMT, JPS@no.komm <JPS@no.komm> wrote:
>
> 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.

--
Ben 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
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 8:35:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <slrnd27qou.soc.br@panix5.panix.com>,
Ben Rosengart <br+rpdss@panix.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 03:51:58 GMT, JPS@no.komm <JPS@no.komm> wrote:
>>
>> 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.

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.


--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 1:23:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ben Rosengart wrote:

> On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 03:51:58 GMT, JPS@no.komm <JPS@no.komm> wrote:
>
>>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.


Sigh.



--
-- 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.
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 6:26:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 10:23:30 -0500, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> Ben Rosengart wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 03:51:58 GMT, JPS@no.komm <JPS@no.komm> wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>
> Sigh.

Why sigh?

--
Ben 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
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 6:26:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ben Rosengart wrote:

> On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 10:23:30 -0500, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>>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.
>>
>>Sigh.
>
>
> 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

--
-- 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.
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 7:13:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 10:42:01 -0500, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
> 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 ...

--
Ben 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
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 7:13:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ben Rosengart wrote:

> On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 10:42:01 -0500, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>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.
>

As soon as you stated:

"(or a range of apertures and shutter speeds,
or aperture and a range of shutter speeds,
or shutter speed and a range of apertures)"

you 3 or two variables floating. That prompted my reply as that is no different
than "full auto" or "P" in an SLR.

I understand what you mean about "ISO priority" as being a film paradigm that
you wish to escape. What you are getting around to is "composition priority" (S
+ A locked, ISO variable), but bear also in mind that the ISO settings on some
DSLR cameras is in full stops (20D). (On others, D70, it is in 1/3 stops). I
suppose it would not be that big a deal to make the 20D successor 1/3 stops of
ISO, or for that matter stepless down as far as the system allows.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- 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.
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 7:46:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 16:13:14 +0000 (UTC), Ben Rosengart
<br+rpdss@panix.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 10:42:01 -0500, Alan Browne
><alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>> 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.

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!
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 8:36:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 12:10:39 -0500, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
> As soon as you stated:
>
> "(or a range of apertures and shutter speeds,
> or aperture and a range of shutter speeds,
> or shutter speed and a range of apertures)"
>
> you 3 or two variables floating.

That's true. I usually don't see too much difference between 1/250,
1/500, 1/1000, for example. So I can see situations where I'd want
to set a small range of shutter speeds. As Owamonga pointed out,
ISO alone doesn't give you very many stops.

> That prompted my reply as that is no different
> than "full auto" or "P" in an SLR.

Which are different from each other on the 20D at least ... ISO
doesn't float in P mode (nor will the camera turn on flash).

In P or auto mode, when your camera wants more light, how does it
decide whether to open up, decrease shutter speed, or raise ISO?
I don't know the answer for my camera, and I don't think it's
documented in the manual. Wouldn't it be cool if you could tell
your camera how to make those decisions? JPS had it right with
his quip about "CameraBASIC".

> I understand what you mean about "ISO priority" as being a film
> paradigm that you wish to escape. What you are getting around to is
> "composition priority" (S + A locked, ISO variable),

Yes, exactly so. "Composition priority" is a nice name for it --
your coinage?

> but bear also in mind that the ISO settings on some DSLR cameras is in
> full stops (20D). (On others, D70, it is in 1/3 stops). I suppose it
> would not be that big a deal to make the 20D successor 1/3 stops of
> ISO, or for that matter stepless down as far as the system allows.

I wonder whether this could _all_ be done with a firmware upgrade.

--
Ben 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
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 8:36:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ben Rosengart wrote:

> On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 12:10:39 -0500, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>That prompted my reply as that is no different
>>than "full auto" or "P" in an SLR.
>
> Which are different from each other on the 20D at least ... ISO
> doesn't float in P mode (nor will the camera turn on flash).
>
> In P or auto mode, when your camera wants more light, how does it
> decide whether to open up, decrease shutter speed, or raise ISO?

The fuzzy logic of the camera P-mode which probably tries:
-to avoid wide open apertures
-severely closed down apertures
-shutter speeds below rule-of-thumb hand holding speed (per the FL)
-exposures that are risky wrt the film latitude (per the DX code)

etc.

-for ISO I guess all of the above plus a goal of avoiding noise

And as most of these cameras go, in P, there is always Ap, Sp to allow the
photog to shift ... so now we'll need ASp which forces the ISO to be the
variable assoc. with the wheel(s).

> I don't know the answer for my camera, and I don't think it's
> documented in the manual. Wouldn't it be cool if you could tell
> your camera how to make those decisions? JPS had it right with
> his quip about "CameraBASIC".

Missed that. Love it. But Pascal or C. Please! Okay, belay that, it has to
be usable by photographers.

>>I understand what you mean about "ISO priority" as being a film
>>paradigm that you wish to escape. What you are getting around to is
>>"composition priority" (S + A locked, ISO variable),
>
>
> Yes, exactly so. "Composition priority" is a nice name for it --
> your coinage?

Yep. Today. OTOH I wouldn't faint if somebody else has beaten me to it.

But while were at it, and just in case:

For the public record, the term "Composition priority" (C) 2005 Alan Browne,
used in photography and photography systems for the locking of camera exposure
settings and allowing the sensor sensitivity (commonly known as "the ISO
setting") to float via the exposure reciprocity principle, is hereby Copyright
2005, Alan Browne, Quebec, Canada, this 1st day of March, 2005. [2005.03.01].

>
>
>>but bear also in mind that the ISO settings on some DSLR cameras is in
>>full stops (20D). (On others, D70, it is in 1/3 stops). I suppose it
>>would not be that big a deal to make the 20D successor 1/3 stops of
>>ISO, or for that matter stepless down as far as the system allows.
>
>
> I wonder whether this could _all_ be done with a firmware upgrade.

No reason why not, except that the analog gain portion of the circuitry in the
20D is possibly not driven by a fine resolution D/A but rather a few bits
changing the gain controls in discrete steps (and likely non-linear at that, and
individually for the RGB channels to make it uglier) that correspond to ISO
stops. If, however, it is controlled by a D/A with finer resolution, then a
firmware upgrade could be achieved. But Canon would rather sell their next body
with such an improvment and pay me a royalty for the use of the term Composition
Priority ((C) 2005 Alan Browne).

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- 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.
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 8:54:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 17:36:37 +0000 (UTC), Ben Rosengart <br@panix.com>
wrote:

>I wonder whether this could _all_ be done with a firmware upgrade.

Why not? Firmware can do anything that's not limited in some way by
the hardware, including the space needed to store the firmware.

Examples of things firmware can do:

All the amazin' stuff the camera does already.


Examples of things firmware can't do:

Hover mode. (Where the camera floats effortlessly in the air to
prevent camera shake).

Say cheese mode. (Where the camera says 'SAY CHEESE' just after you
press the button, but before the picture gets taken - the 20D would
need a forward-facing loud speaker).

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 8:54:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Owamanga wrote:

> Say cheese mode. (Where the camera says 'SAY CHEESE' just after you
> press the button, but before the picture gets taken - the 20D would
> need a forward-facing loud speaker).

In my experience most Canon SLR and DSLR's are equipped with forward-facing loud
speakers...

<runs like hell>

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- 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.
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 9:07:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

As was pointed out by Oswanga, the D70 has an auto ISO feature.

In the auto exposure modes, it will kick in and boost the sensitivity
(which is ISO 200 by default in these modes) when one reaches the
limits of the shutter speed, or aperture, or a combination of both,
depending on the mode.

The only information the user gets from the camera though, is that the
auto ISO feature is activated. It doesn't tell you when it's changing
the sensitivity or by how much.

The only way to use auto ISO the way you're describing is to shoot
manually and deliberately underexpose the shot.

I can't really see ever using it unless I'm caught without a tripod,
the light is fading fast, the photo ops are coming fast and furious,
and I don't care what the photos end up looking like as long as I get
them.
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 9:07:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <60b921du2rsof4poq29j0t0ue59b66us07@4ax.com>,
Brett Wheeler <spam_dumpster@comcast.net> wrote:
>As was pointed out by Oswanga, the D70 has an auto ISO feature.
>
>In the auto exposure modes, it will kick in and boost the sensitivity
>(which is ISO 200 by default in these modes) when one reaches the
>limits of the shutter speed, or aperture, or a combination of both,
>depending on the mode.
>
>The only information the user gets from the camera though, is that the
>auto ISO feature is activated. It doesn't tell you when it's changing
>the sensitivity or by how much.

Well ... aside from saying "ISO AUTO" when it is turned on, it
also *blinks* that message when the ISO is at anything other than the
default ISO 200, so it is telling you a little bit more. (You can find
out what ISO it used once the photo is taken by examining the first of
the two data windows in the display. (The second one displays shutter
speed and aperture.) It would be nice to add a display of which ISO is
selected by the camera at any given moment. Or to allow coupling it to
one of the two wheels.

Enjoy,
DoN.


--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 9:07:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"DoN. Nichols" <dnichols@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:D 02grs$80c$1@fuego.d-and-d.com...
> In article <60b921du2rsof4poq29j0t0ue59b66us07@4ax.com>,
> Brett Wheeler <spam_dumpster@comcast.net> wrote:
>>As was pointed out by Oswanga, the D70 has an auto ISO feature.
>>
>>In the auto exposure modes, it will kick in and boost the sensitivity
>>(which is ISO 200 by default in these modes) when one reaches the
>>limits of the shutter speed, or aperture, or a combination of both,
>>depending on the mode.
>>
>>The only information the user gets from the camera though, is that the
>>auto ISO feature is activated. It doesn't tell you when it's changing
>>the sensitivity or by how much.
>
> Well ... aside from saying "ISO AUTO" when it is turned on, it
> also *blinks* that message when the ISO is at anything other than the
> default ISO 200, so it is telling you a little bit more. (You can find
> out what ISO it used once the photo is taken by examining the first of
> the two data windows in the display. (The second one displays shutter
> speed and aperture.) It would be nice to add a display of which ISO is
> selected by the camera at any given moment. Or to allow coupling it to
> one of the two wheels.
>
> Enjoy,
> DoN.
>

I had auto ISO turned on, then turned it off. It frustrated me to know the
ISO was floating but not knowing what it was at until I actually took the
shot and examined it. I think it a good idea when you absolutely need a
shot, you are working in extreme lighting conditions, and you feel having a
minimum shutter speed is a great idea. The whole thing is Nikon's idea of
image stabilization. You set a minimum shutter speed, and the camera will
float the ISO to attempt to make it stick.
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 9:09:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 18:07:24 GMT, Brett Wheeler
<spam_dumpster@comcast.net> wrote:

>As was pointed out by Oswanga,

Oswanga? My apologies, Owamanga... I was referring to you by memory.
I've known better than to do that for longer than I'd like to admit,
but I still do it.
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 9:48:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <slrnd292d6.eep.br@panix5.panix.com>, Ben Rosengart
<br+rpdss@panix.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 10:23:30 -0500, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> > Ben Rosengart wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 03:51:58 GMT, JPS@no.komm <JPS@no.komm> wrote:
> >>
> >>>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.
> >
> > Sigh.
>
> Why sigh?

It's a shame when cousins marry.
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 10:00:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 18:09:47 GMT, Brett Wheeler
<spam_dumpster@comcast.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 18:07:24 GMT, Brett Wheeler
><spam_dumpster@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>As was pointed out by Oswanga,
>
>Oswanga? My apologies, Owamanga... I was referring to you by memory.
>I've known better than to do that for longer than I'd like to admit,
>but I still do it.

Hey, no worries, even I have to look at it sometimes to see how to
spell it. I chose a unique handle to make googling my own posts
straightforward.

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 11:07:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 14:52:41 -0500, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> Ben Rosengart wrote:
>
>> JPS had it right with his quip about "CameraBASIC".
>
> Missed that. Love it. But Pascal or C. Please! Okay, belay that, it
> has to be usable by photographers.

Seems like a good spot for a domain-specific language. Maybe
something built on FORTH. Are we off-topic yet? ;-)

> For the public record, the term "Composition priority" (C) 2005 Alan Browne,

Copyright won't help you here. Maybe trademark?

(BTW, if you wrap your lines a little sooner, they won't exceed 80
columns when I quote them, forcing me to re-flow them.)

--
Ben 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
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 11:07:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ben Rosengart wrote:

> On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 14:52:41 -0500, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>Ben Rosengart wrote:
>>
>>
>>>JPS had it right with his quip about "CameraBASIC".
>>
>>Missed that. Love it. But Pascal or C. Please! Okay, belay that, it
>>has to be usable by photographers.
>
>
> Seems like a good spot for a domain-specific language. Maybe
> something built on FORTH. Are we off-topic yet? ;-)

FORTH, FIFTH, whatever works... ;-)
OT when it doesn't apply to making cameras better.

>>For the public record, the term "Composition priority" (C) 2005 Alan Browne,
>
>
> Copyright won't help you here. Maybe trademark?

Trademarks have to be filed, Copyright declared and declared and declared... but
you're right, it is more a trademark. Here I go!

http://www.aliasimages.com/CompositionPriority.htm

And I'll register it too ... almost done...!


>
> (BTW, if you wrap your lines a little sooner, they won't exceed 80
> columns when I quote them, forcing me to re-flow them.)

My newsreader is set to 72 now. Was set to 80.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- 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.
March 2, 2005 1:11:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:51:15 -0700, "Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net>
wrote:

>
>"zeitgeist" <blkhatwhtdog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:iO-dnUlqX4vyfL_fRVn-qQ@comcast.com...
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>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.
>

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!
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 1:34:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <d022g9$ks3$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>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.

Digital cameras capture light and digitize the levels into *linear*
data. Once you have selected the aperture and shutter speed that you
want, you can do no better than to have the camera use the highest ISO
that allows the exposure without clipping wanted highlights. This
really *would* be a superior way to work, for many situations. The
control you are afraid of losing would only allow posterization and
clipping. You truly are thinking about this whole digital exposure
thing wrong (as are most people, not just you). If you want clipping,
and better shadow capture, then you can use positive exposure
compensation. If you want posterization and lots of headroom for
specular highlights, you can use negative exposure compensation.
Control is still there; the paradigm simply changes.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 1:34:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:

>
> Digital cameras capture light and digitize the levels into *linear*
> data. Once you have selected the aperture and shutter speed that you
> want, you can do no better than to have the camera use the highest ISO
> that allows the exposure without clipping wanted highlights. This
> really *would* be a superior way to work, for many situations. The
> control you are afraid of losing would only allow posterization and
> clipping. You truly are thinking about this whole digital exposure
> thing wrong (as are most people, not just you). If you want clipping,
> and better shadow capture, then you can use positive exposure
> compensation. If you want posterization and lots of headroom for
> specular highlights, you can use negative exposure compensation.
> Control is still there; the paradigm simply changes.

I understand the paradigm quite clearly, thank you.

A clip limited (or anti-blockup) exposure setting can't be done on a
DSLR as it has no idea of what you're about to shoot (mirror/shutter
down). This could easilly be done on a ZLR or P&S for that matter.
(There are a bunch of possible workarounds, including a Nikon F5 like
RGB metering system or simply getting the mirror/shutter out of the way
for a measurement before exposure; and aparently the 20Da has a preview
mode too, ... etc, I won't elaborate further, but feel free).

If a camera had Composition Priority [TM] then it would also require 1/3
stop (or finer) resolution control of ISO.

[Where I confess I do have trouble is in the finer points of avoiding
clipping (or blocking up) in special situations using 'normal' metering
techniques (spot or incident). I'll work on it when I actually get
around to purchasing a DSLR. But now I'm holding out for a DSLR with
Composition Priority [TM]. ...it may be a long wait]

One paradigm you cannot escape is consistent exposures for studio work.
Set the lighting for a desired aperture (and speed if hot lights) and
shoot that at constant ISO. All the images will have consistent color
in that lighting situation. If each image were adjusted for the clip
point in each individual shot, the color consistency would be bye-bye.
(Applies to hot or flash lighting, although studio flash would be manual
in any case).

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- 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.
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 1:50:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <sn69215te94mtfvco0cpfjget9ta750ajg@4ax.com>,
Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:

>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!


--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 1:55:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <d027mf$eva$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>I understand what you mean about "ISO priority" as being a film paradigm that
>you wish to escape. What you are getting around to is "composition priority" (S
>+ A locked, ISO variable), but bear also in mind that the ISO settings on some
>DSLR cameras is in full stops (20D). (On others, D70, it is in 1/3 stops). I
>suppose it would not be that big a deal to make the 20D successor 1/3 stops of
>ISO, or for that matter stepless down as far as the system allows.

It should be totally free, IMO.

So should aperture and shutter speed in current modes. I can see the
value in discreet steps in the selection process, as you don't want a
wheel to turn freely without the resistance of clicking, but the
floating variables should be as free as possible, at least as an option.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 1:55:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:

> In message <d027mf$eva$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>I understand what you mean about "ISO priority" as being a film paradigm that
>>you wish to escape. What you are getting around to is "composition priority" (S
>>+ A locked, ISO variable), but bear also in mind that the ISO settings on some
>>DSLR cameras is in full stops (20D). (On others, D70, it is in 1/3 stops). I
>>suppose it would not be that big a deal to make the 20D successor 1/3 stops of
>>ISO, or for that matter stepless down as far as the system allows.
>
>
> It should be totally free, IMO.

See my other reply.

>
> So should aperture and shutter speed in current modes. I can see the
> value in discreet steps in the selection process, as you don't want a
> wheel to turn freely without the resistance of clicking, but the
> floating variables should be as free as possible, at least as an option.

As an option, sure. Such a system would currently be very easilly done
in a zlr as the sensor can be used for the clipping and/or blockup point
determination. (See my other reply in this regard as well).

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- 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.
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 2:03:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <d02h67$rof$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>No reason why not, except that the analog gain portion of the circuitry in the
>20D is possibly not driven by a fine resolution D/A but rather a few bits
>changing the gain controls in discrete steps (and likely non-linear at that, and
>individually for the RGB channels to make it uglier)

It's totally linear, and color-blind.

Yes, under incandescent light, a greycard will average only about 125
out of about 3900 possible RAW levels in the blue channel.

White balance is nothing more than scaling information for a RAW
converter, unfortunately.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 2:03:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:

> In message <d02h67$rof$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>No reason why not, except that the analog gain portion of the circuitry in the
>>20D is possibly not driven by a fine resolution D/A but rather a few bits
>>changing the gain controls in discrete steps (and likely non-linear at that, and
>>individually for the RGB channels to make it uglier)
>
>
> It's totally linear, and color-blind.
>
> Yes, under incandescent light, a greycard will average only about 125
> out of about 3900 possible RAW levels in the blue channel.
>
> White balance is nothing more than scaling information for a RAW
> converter, unfortunately.

The more important part of my reply was wrt the fine control of the
analog gain prior to A/D conversion. That is where a fine res ISO
control would take place. If you say it's linear then so much the
easier to have a stepless (nearso) gain (ISO).

I assumed that the gains at that level are different across RGB
channels, but it doesn't really matter.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- 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.
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 2:13:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <tmr92197hhk4esa3098pjttlne69v4826n@4ax.com>, I,
JPS@no.komm hastily wrote:

>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


--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
March 2, 2005 2:13:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:
>
>>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?
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 2:13:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:

> In message <tmr92197hhk4esa3098pjttlne69v4826n@4ax.com>, I,
> JPS@no.komm hastily wrote:
>
>
>> 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


Great example. No surprise. But what the hell is that?


--
-- 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.
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 2:33:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 23:13:56 GMT, JPS@no.komm <JPS@no.komm> wrote:
> In message <tmr92197hhk4esa3098pjttlne69v4826n@4ax.com>, I,
> JPS@no.komm hastily wrote:
>
>>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"?

--
Ben 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
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 2:47:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <UrWdnT7vs87FZrnfRVn-jQ@speakeasy.net>,
paul <paul@not.net> wrote:

>JPS@no.komm wrote:

>>>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.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 2:50:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

>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.

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.
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 2:54:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <slrnd29utc.ab4.br@panix5.panix.com>,
Ben Rosengart <br+rpdss@panix.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 23:13:56 GMT, JPS@no.komm <JPS@no.komm> wrote:
>> In message <tmr92197hhk4esa3098pjttlne69v4826n@4ax.com>, I,
>> JPS@no.komm hastily wrote:
>>
>>>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?

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.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 2:57:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <d02uhp$mns$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>I assumed that the gains at that level are different across RGB
>channels, but it doesn't really matter.

There might be some cameras that do have different gains for different
channels. I don't think it is common, though. I think it would hard to
be consistent with all the switching, and it would probably be slower.
If it could be done without problems, though, images would probably be
better than they are now. Even under sunlight, most cameras have a
difference in sensitivity between the channels that makes them quite
unbalanced, even with greyscale subjects (like a white statue).
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 2:59:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 23:50:39 GMT, Brett Wheeler <spam_dumpster@comcast.net>
wrote:
>
> 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.

--
Ben 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
March 2, 2005 3:08:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Mister wrote:

>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.
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 3:13:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 23:54:12 GMT, JPS@no.komm <JPS@no.komm> wrote:
>
> 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"?

--
Ben 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
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 3:36:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <slrnd2a19r.ljh.br@panix5.panix.com>,
Ben Rosengart <br+rpdss@panix.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 23:54:12 GMT, JPS@no.komm <JPS@no.komm> wrote:

>> 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.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 3:38:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <d02veq$on4$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>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.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
!