Three Great Tips

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

If there were three tips you could share with the world of digital
photography what would they be? Understanding your audience is whomever
you believe them to be, what three bits of advice do you have to offer?

Me? I have nothing to offer yet. I'm still using the presets of the
D70 but someday hope to upgrade my status to amateur. ;-)

And THANKS for any advice you have to share!

Avery
74 answers Last reply
More about three great tips
  1. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    "Avery" <avery@ramblingsnail.net> wrote in message
    news:1118506018.022369.198240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    > If there were three tips you could share with the world of digital
    > photography what would they be? Understanding your audience is whomever
    > you believe them to be, what three bits of advice do you have to offer?
    >
    > Me? I have nothing to offer yet. I'm still using the presets of the
    > D70 but someday hope to upgrade my status to amateur. ;-)
    >
    > And THANKS for any advice you have to share!
    >
    > Avery

    1. Practice. Take a safari with your camera in your backyard before you
    take that trip to Africa.
    2. Watch your shutter speed. Rule of thumb, no lower than your focal length
    (hand held).
    3. Especially if you use a DSLR - reset your settings back to normal when
    you finish a session. Nothing like grabbing your camera and shooting a
    bunch of great photos with the white balance set to something not even close
    to what you need..
  2. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    Avery wrote:

    > If there were three tips you could share with the world of digital
    > photography what would they be? Understanding your audience is whomever
    > you believe them to be, what three bits of advice do you have to offer?
    >
    > Me? I have nothing to offer yet. I'm still using the presets of the
    > D70 but someday hope to upgrade my status to amateur. ;-)
    >
    > And THANKS for any advice you have to share!
    >
    > Avery
    >

    Being a rank amateur myself, I only have one:

    Call your CC company and ask (no, demand) for a large line increase.
    --
    Slack
  3. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    On 11/06/2005 12:06 PM, Avery wrote:
    > If there were three tips you could share with the world of digital
    > photography what would they be?

    1. Stop reading this news group and get outside and shoot....
    2. ..........................................................
    3. ..........................................................
  4. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    In article <1118506018.022369.198240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
    avery@ramblingsnail.net says...
    >
    >
    >If there were three tips you could share with the world of digital
    >photography what would they be?


    Regarding digital - We should all take a minute to realize and
    understand the most fundamental of fundamentals: 1) That digital images
    consist of pixels, and 2) specifically that digital image size is
    dimensioned in pixels (not inches), and 3) we should understand the
    important differences between scaling and resampling.

    Too many of us try to ignore the concept of pixels, which is of course a
    real shame in digital work.

    --
    Wayne
    http://www.scantips.com "A few scanning tips"
  5. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    "Avery" <avery@ramblingsnail.net> wrote in message
    news:1118506018.022369.198240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    > If there were three tips you could share with the world of digital
    > photography what would they be? Understanding your audience is whomever
    > you believe them to be, what three bits of advice do you have to offer?
    >
    > Me? I have nothing to offer yet. I'm still using the presets of the
    > D70 but someday hope to upgrade my status to amateur. ;-)
    >
    > And THANKS for any advice you have to share!
    >
    > Avery
    >

    .. Expose for the highlights,
    .. Fill the frame
    .. And most importantly have fun!

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

    Craig Marston wrote:

    > "Avery" <avery@ramblingsnail.net> wrote in message
    > news:1118506018.022369.198240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    >
    >>If there were three tips you could share with the world of digital
    >>photography what would they be? Understanding your audience is whomever
    >>you believe them to be, what three bits of advice do you have to offer?
    >>
    >>Me? I have nothing to offer yet. I'm still using the presets of the
    >>D70 but someday hope to upgrade my status to amateur. ;-)
    >>
    >>And THANKS for any advice you have to share!
    >>
    >>Avery
    >>
    >
    >
    > . Expose for the highlights,
    > . Fill the frame
    > . And most importantly have fun!


    Assuming this is for DSLR shooting...

    Expose for the highlights

    Shoot RAW (+ HQ JPEG for a canon then dump raw if OK)

    Use aperture priority for effect but keep an eye on shutter speed for
    motion blur & don't be afraid to bump ISO especially for low contrast
    scenes where you darken in RAW conversion.

    --
    Paul Furman
    http://www.edgehill.net/1
    san francisco native plants
  7. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    > Use aperture priority for effect but keep an eye on shutter speed for
    > motion blur & don't be afraid to bump ISO especially for low contrast
    > scenes where you darken in RAW conversion.
    >
    > --
    > Paul Furman
    > http://www.edgehill.net/1
    > san francisco native plants

    I agree, it's better to increase the ISO and introduce a little noise rather
    than ruin the shot completely through motion blur or focus due to small DoF.

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

    "Avery" <avery@ramblingsnail.net> wrote in message
    news:1118506018.022369.198240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    > If there were three tips you could share with the world of digital
    > photography what would they be? Understanding your audience is whomever
    > you believe them to be, what three bits of advice do you have to offer?
    >
    > Me? I have nothing to offer yet. I'm still using the presets of the
    > D70 but someday hope to upgrade my status to amateur. ;-)
    >
    > And THANKS for any advice you have to share!
    >
    > Avery
    >

    Here are some tips from an amatuer:

    1) Try different things and experiment - shoot from different perspectives
    and experiment with aperture/shutter. Dont get caught in a rut of inane
    photography.
    2) Stop and think about what it is you are trying to capture and focus on
    how to best capture it (for example, should you use a telephoto to remove
    clutter from a shot etc)
    3) Lighting - pay attention to the lighting situation in your favourite
    shots. Pay attention to how time of day, weather and seasons affect light

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

    > If there were three tips you could share with the world of digital
    > photography what would they be?

    Tip 1 - Shoot A LOT!
    Tip 2 - Read a lot.
    Tip 3 - Show your work to others with an interest in photography, but don't
    let negative criticisms of your work discourage you - instead view these as
    positive learning opportunities.

    Tip 4 - Have fun.

    --
    Mark

    Photos, Ideas & Opinions
    http://www.marklauter.com
  10. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    "Slack" <slacker7_ReMoVe_ThIs@scglobal.net> wrote in message
    news:OPGdnXfmw4isojbfRVn-2Q@giganews.com...
    >
    > Being a rank amateur myself, I only have one:
    >
    > Call your CC company and ask (no, demand) for a large line increase.
    > --

    No need - once you CC company sees how much you are spending, they will
    continually keep increasing you limit in the hope that you will spend enough
    such that you cannot pay off the full balance and will perhaps one day pay a
    dime of interest. If you do however owe money on a credit card and are
    taking up photography, then there is no hope.
  11. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    On 6/11/05 11:06 AM, in article
    1118506018.022369.198240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com, "Avery"
    <avery@ramblingsnail.net> wrote:

    > If there were three tips you could share with the world of digital
    > photography what would they be? Understanding your audience is whomever
    > you believe them to be, what three bits of advice do you have to offer?
    >
    > Me? I have nothing to offer yet. I'm still using the presets of the
    > D70 but someday hope to upgrade my status to amateur. ;-)
    >
    > And THANKS for any advice you have to share!
    >
    > Avery
    >
    Actually read your instruction booklet.
    Use the features available on your camera (experiment).
    Look at the work of great photographers past and present.
    Chuck
  12. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    1) Always, always, shoot best quality JPEGs or RAW and not the smaller
    sizes that DSLRs offer, curiously...

    2) Make sure that data isn't clipped - this shows up as sharp peaks at
    the extreme ends of the histogram. If necessary take two shots at
    different exposure values. Check histogram regularly. (Shadow info lost
    is more acceptable than highlight info blown.)

    3) ALWAYS take more than one fully-charged battery with you!

    For DSLR/SLR Amateurs & Novices:
    www.theimageplane.net
  13. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    > 3) Lighting - pay attention to the lighting situation in your favourite
    > shots. Pay attention to how time of day, weather and seasons affect light

    3b) Try to take photos during the morning or evening, when the lighting is
    more dramatic. Instead of worrying too much about details lost in the
    shadows, embrace the contrast and use it to good effect.

    --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
    www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


    "Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote in message
    news:30Gqe.41474$PR6.27830@tornado.texas.rr.com...
    >
    > "Avery" <avery@ramblingsnail.net> wrote in message
    > news:1118506018.022369.198240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    >> If there were three tips you could share with the world of digital
    >> photography what would they be? Understanding your audience is whomever
    >> you believe them to be, what three bits of advice do you have to offer?
    >>
    >> Me? I have nothing to offer yet. I'm still using the presets of the
    >> D70 but someday hope to upgrade my status to amateur. ;-)
    >>
    >> And THANKS for any advice you have to share!
    >>
    >> Avery
    >>
    >
    > Here are some tips from an amatuer:
    >
    > 1) Try different things and experiment - shoot from different perspectives
    > and experiment with aperture/shutter. Dont get caught in a rut of inane
    > photography.
    > 2) Stop and think about what it is you are trying to capture and focus on
    > how to best capture it (for example, should you use a telephoto to remove
    > clutter from a shot etc)
    > 3) Lighting - pay attention to the lighting situation in your favourite
    > shots. Pay attention to how time of day, weather and seasons affect light
    >
    > Musty.
    >
    >
  14. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    1. Insure your gear and take it everywhere you go - you never know when the
    opportunity will come up.
    2. Experiment continuously with your gear - when you become truly
    comfortable with it the technical will melt away into the background.
    3. Print your really good images. There's a tendency not to get so many
    prints now, but once you get a good print on the wall the compliments will
    flow and so will the motivation.
  15. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    > 3. Print your really good images. There's a tendency not to get so many
    > prints now, but once you get a good print on the wall the compliments will
    > flow and so will the motivation.

    That's a good bit of advice. One of the best early motivators for me was
    when a friend specifically asked to take one of my framed images home with
    him.

    --
    Mark

    Photos, Ideas & Opinions
    http://www.marklauter.com
  16. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    In article <1118565061.195398.8340@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
    Sharp Shooter <theimageplane@uk2.net> wrote:

    [ ... ]

    >2) Make sure that data isn't clipped - this shows up as sharp peaks at
    >the extreme ends of the histogram. If necessary take two shots at
    >different exposure values. Check histogram regularly. (Shadow info lost
    >is more acceptable than highlight info blown.)

    And the Nikon cameras (at least the D70, which is what I use)
    have a display mode in which blown highlights are blinking back and
    forth between white and black, to make them easy to spot. If there
    *are* any blown highlights, that is the mode which is shown to you after
    the shot.

    >3) ALWAYS take more than one fully-charged battery with you!

    Amen.

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

    DoN. Nichols wrote:

    > And the Nikon cameras (at least the D70, which is what I use)
    > have a display mode in which blown highlights are blinking back and
    > forth between white and black, to make them easy to spot. If there
    > *are* any blown highlights, that is the mode which is shown to you after
    > the shot.
    >


    Is there post processing software that uses this same (or similar)
    effect for the same reason?

    --
    jer
    email reply - I am not a 'ten'
  18. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    Jer wrote:

    > DoN. Nichols wrote:
    >
    >> And the Nikon cameras (at least the D70, which is what I use)
    >> have a display mode in which blown highlights are blinking back and
    >> forth between white and black, to make them easy to spot. If there
    >> *are* any blown highlights, that is the mode which is shown to you after
    >> the shot.
    >>
    >
    >
    > Is there post processing software that uses this same (or similar)
    > effect for the same reason?

    Yes. BreezeBrowser is one that blinks, there are others. It helps with
    the editing as long as you bracketed in the field. With Adobe Camera
    Raw, when you make exposure and shadow increase adjustments and hold
    down the alt key, you can see when the image is getting blown out, as
    well as watching the histogram as you slide all the adjustments to see
    when the bump into the sides or top.

    --
    Paul Furman
    http://www.edgehill.net/1
    san francisco native plants
  19. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    "DoN. Nichols" <dnichols@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
    news:d8hoa0$ode$1@Fuego.d-
    >
    > And the Nikon cameras (at least the D70, which is what I use)
    > have a display mode in which blown highlights are blinking back and
    > forth between white and black, to make them easy to spot. If there
    > *are* any blown highlights, that is the mode which is shown to you after
    > the shot.
    >
    10D and 20D do this too (not sure about the XT). This is a good advice.

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

    Musty wrote:

    > "DoN. Nichols" <dnichols@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
    > news:d8hoa0$ode$1@Fuego.d-
    >
    >>And the Nikon cameras (at least the D70, which is what I use)
    >>have a display mode in which blown highlights are blinking back and
    >>forth between white and black, to make them easy to spot. If there
    >>*are* any blown highlights, that is the mode which is shown to you after
    >>the shot.
    >>
    >
    > 10D and 20D do this too (not sure about the XT). This is a good advice.
    >
    > Musty.
    >
    >
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos350d/page9.asp
    --
    Slack
  21. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    In article <fdudnaw75NBBHjHfRVn-1A@giganews.com>,
    Slack <slacker7_ReMoVe_ThIs@scglobal.net> wrote:
    >Musty wrote:
    >
    >> "DoN. Nichols" <dnichols@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
    >> news:d8hoa0$ode$1@Fuego.d-
    >>
    >>>And the Nikon cameras (at least the D70, which is what I use)
    >>>have a display mode in which blown highlights are blinking back and
    >>>forth between white and black, to make them easy to spot. If there
    >>>*are* any blown highlights, that is the mode which is shown to you after
    >>>the shot.
    >>>
    >>
    >> 10D and 20D do this too (not sure about the XT). This is a good advice.
    >>
    >> Musty.
    >>
    >>
    >http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos350d/page9.asp

    O.K. So there is a "sorta" display of blown highlights. It is
    only reduced in size to make room for the histogram and the detailed
    exposure information at the same time.

    Sometimes, I may want to zoom into the display to see whether I
    really feel that the blown highlights are enough of a problem to worry
    about. Sometimes they aren't.

    I don't see an option for zooming into the image while
    displaying the blown highlight information, but it is certainly enough
    information to tell when you have *badly* blown highlights.

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

    "Avery" <avery@ramblingsnail.net> wrote in message
    news:1118506018.022369.198240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    > If there were three tips you could share with the world of digital
    > photography what would they be? Understanding your audience is whomever
    > you believe them to be, what three bits of advice do you have to offer?
    >
    > Me? I have nothing to offer yet. I'm still using the presets of the
    > D70 but someday hope to upgrade my status to amateur. ;-)
    >
    > And THANKS for any advice you have to share!
    >
    > Avery

    >


    1 - Don't take your DSLR to Swinger's orgies - it'll probably get rolled on
    or dropped.

    2 - When photographing your neighbour's naked wife at the bathroom window,
    try not to use flash as it will draw attention to you.

    3 - When photographing courting couples enjoying sexual intercourse in
    public parks, always wear good Reebok's and have a well prepared escape
    route.

    That takes care of the basics....
  23. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    In message <42ab1ac4$0$17055$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net>,
    "Craig Marston" <binaries.newsgroup@craignospammarston.com> wrote:

    >I agree, it's better to increase the ISO and introduce a little noise rather
    >than ruin the shot completely through motion blur or focus due to small DoF.

    True, but also, using a higher ISO doesn't always mean introducing more
    noise. If the contrast is low in a scene, and you shoot at ISO 1600 and
    +2 EC, instead of ISO 400 with 0 EC, the exposure on the sensor is the
    same, and the noise in the sensor is the same, but the the ISO 1600
    image will be less posterized, and therefore, more editable, with
    less-pronounced noise.

    It isn't the ISO setting that causes noise - it is the exposure level in
    the sensor, and the intensity of the noise relative to it. High noise
    and high ISO settings are both symptoms or results of low absolute
    exposure levels.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
  24. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    In message <4s2dncG_OaAMtjbfRVn-rw@comcast.com>,
    "Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:

    >1. Practice. Take a safari with your camera in your backyard before you
    >take that trip to Africa.

    I saw a video with Galen Rowell, where he said something like, "if you
    can't take interesting pictures in your own back yard, you won't take
    any in Africa, either".
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
  25. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    In message <d8i2re$rq2$1@Fuego.d-and-d.com>,
    dnichols@d-and-d.com (DoN. Nichols) wrote:

    > I don't see an option for zooming into the image while
    >displaying the blown highlight information, but it is certainly enough
    >information to tell when you have *badly* blown highlights.

    Also, it would be better if they showed you the RAW data, if the camera
    is set to RAW. The histogram and clipped highlights are about the JPEG
    settings, not about the RAW data at all, which is all that matters when
    shooting RAW.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
  26. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    In message <2LHqe.39627$j51.13016@tornado.texas.rr.com>,
    "Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote:

    >
    >"Slack" <slacker7_ReMoVe_ThIs@scglobal.net> wrote in message
    >news:OPGdnXfmw4isojbfRVn-2Q@giganews.com...
    >>
    >> Being a rank amateur myself, I only have one:
    >>
    >> Call your CC company and ask (no, demand) for a large line increase.
    >> --
    >
    >No need - once you CC company sees how much you are spending, they will
    >continually keep increasing you limit in the hope that you will spend enough
    >such that you cannot pay off the full balance and will perhaps one day pay a
    >dime of interest. If you do however owe money on a credit card and are
    >taking up photography, then there is no hope.

    In the US, the minimum payment required by law is 2% of the balance, so
    if you interest rate is 24%, paying the minimum does nothing but pay
    interest; if the interest rate is below 24%, paying the minimum reduces
    the principal and balance some. If the interest rate is above 24%,
    paying only the minimum increases your balance, even if you don't buy
    anything else.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
  27. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    "Craig Marston" <binaries.newsgroup@craignospammarston.com> wrote:

    >"Avery" <avery@ramblingsnail.net> wrote in message
    >news:1118506018.022369.198240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    >> If there were three tips you could share with the world of digital
    >> photography what would they be? Understanding your audience is whomever
    >> you believe them to be, what three bits of advice do you have to offer?
    >>
    >> Me? I have nothing to offer yet. I'm still using the presets of the
    >> D70 but someday hope to upgrade my status to amateur. ;-)
    >>
    >> And THANKS for any advice you have to share!
    >>
    >> Avery
    >>
    >
    >. Expose for the highlights,
    >. Fill the frame
    >. And most importantly have fun!


    Good suggestions Craig.

    I would say:

    1. Expose for the highlights
    2. Use a tripod, monopod or other camera support whenever possible
    3. Buy the best wide angle lens(es) you can afford
  28. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    > True, but also, using a higher ISO doesn't always mean introducing more
    > noise. If the contrast is low in a scene, and you shoot at ISO 1600 and
    > +2 EC, instead of ISO 400 with 0 EC, the exposure on the sensor is the
    > same, and the noise in the sensor is the same, but the the ISO 1600
    > image will be less posterized, and therefore, more editable, with
    > less-pronounced noise.
    >
    > It isn't the ISO setting that causes noise - it is the exposure level in
    > the sensor, and the intensity of the noise relative to it. High noise
    > and high ISO settings are both symptoms or results of low absolute
    > exposure levels.


    Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you are saying John, but that makes
    absolutely no sense to me at all!! LOL

    If you crank up the ISO sensitivity you are amplifying the output from the
    sensor to a greater degree, which will also amplify the noise [inherently
    present in the sensors*] to a greater degree. It's about signal to noise
    ratio: the signal which in our case is light needs to be as high as
    possible, and the amplification as low as possible (thus less amplification
    of the noise), to gain the highest signal to noise ratio.
    Am I missing something..?

    *Telescope CCDs are cooled with liquid nitrogen to reduce the amount of
    noise they generate.

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

    In message <42aca0cd$0$41895$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>,
    "Craig Marston" <binaries.newsgroup@craignospammarston.com> wrote:

    >> True, but also, using a higher ISO doesn't always mean introducing more
    >> noise. If the contrast is low in a scene, and you shoot at ISO 1600 and
    >> +2 EC, instead of ISO 400 with 0 EC, the exposure on the sensor is the
    >> same, and the noise in the sensor is the same, but the the ISO 1600
    >> image will be less posterized, and therefore, more editable, with
    >> less-pronounced noise.

    >> It isn't the ISO setting that causes noise - it is the exposure level in
    >> the sensor, and the intensity of the noise relative to it. High noise
    >> and high ISO settings are both symptoms or results of low absolute
    >> exposure levels.

    >Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you are saying John, but that makes
    >absolutely no sense to me at all!! LOL

    That's not surprising; common wisdom suggests that noise comes directly
    from the ISO setting.

    >If you crank up the ISO sensitivity you are amplifying the output from the
    >sensor to a greater degree, which will also amplify the noise [inherently
    >present in the sensors*] to a greater degree.

    Yes, but you are also amplifying the signal the same amount, so the S/N
    ratio is still the same, at the analog level.

    >It's about signal to noise
    >ratio: the signal which in our case is light needs to be as high as
    >possible, and the amplification as low as possible (thus less amplification
    >of the noise), to gain the highest signal to noise ratio.
    >Am I missing something..?

    Yes; the amplifier amplifies both the signal *and* the noise. The
    amplification does not determine the ratio; the absolute exposure
    (lighting of subject, f-stop, and shutter speed) does. The difference
    is, the lower the ISO setting on the camera is, the less RAW, digitized
    numbers there are to represent the subject, therefore posterizing it
    more.

    >*Telescope CCDs are cooled with liquid nitrogen to reduce the amount of
    >noise they generate.

    Yes, the less noise in the sensor, the higher the S/N ratio, all other
    things being equal.

    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
  30. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    Craig Marston wrote:

    >>True, but also, using a higher ISO doesn't always mean introducing more
    >>noise. If the contrast is low in a scene, and you shoot at ISO 1600 and
    >>+2 EC, instead of ISO 400 with 0 EC, the exposure on the sensor is the
    >>same, and the noise in the sensor is the same, but the the ISO 1600
    >>image will be less posterized, and therefore, more editable, with
    >>less-pronounced noise.
    >>
    >>It isn't the ISO setting that causes noise - it is the exposure level in
    >>the sensor, and the intensity of the noise relative to it. High noise
    >>and high ISO settings are both symptoms or results of low absolute
    >>exposure levels.
    >
    >
    >
    > Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you are saying John, but that makes
    > absolutely no sense to me at all!! LOL
    >
    > If you crank up the ISO sensitivity you are amplifying the output from the
    > sensor to a greater degree, which will also amplify the noise [inherently
    > present in the sensors*] to a greater degree. It's about signal to noise
    > ratio: the signal which in our case is light needs to be as high as
    > possible, and the amplification as low as possible (thus less amplification
    > of the noise), to gain the highest signal to noise ratio.
    > Am I missing something..?


    It does work. I did a test to prove it to myself:
    http://localhost/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/expose-right
    The only caveat is that it'll blow out highlights so is only useful for
    low contrast scenes. The simple rule then is to expose for the
    highlights in all cases rather than final exposure, assuming you are
    willing to adjust later.

    It wouldn't seem too hard for camera makers to integrate this in the
    exposure mode, even for jpeg shooting.


    --
    Paul Furman
    http://www.edgehill.net/1
    san francisco native plants
  31. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 09:06:58 -0700, Avery wrote:

    > If there were three tips you could share with the world of digital
    > photography what would they be? Understanding your audience is whomever
    > you believe them to be, what three bits of advice do you have to offer?
    >
    > Me? I have nothing to offer yet. I'm still using the presets of the D70
    > but someday hope to upgrade my status to amateur. ;-)
    >
    > And THANKS for any advice you have to share!
    >
    > Avery

    1. Don't worry about how many pixels your camera doesn't have.

    2. Get the camera to do most of the processing (sharpening, saturating,
    etc).

    3. Never listen to anything that Alan Browne or Steven Scharf say.

    --
    email: drop rods and insert surfaces
  32. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    JPS@no.komm wrote:
    > In message <d8i2re$rq2$1@Fuego.d-and-d.com>,
    > dnichols@d-and-d.com (DoN. Nichols) wrote:
    >
    >> I don't see an option for zooming into the image while
    >>displaying the blown highlight information, but it is certainly enough
    >>information to tell when you have *badly* blown highlights.
    >
    > Also, it would be better if they showed you the RAW data, if the camera
    > is set to RAW. The histogram and clipped highlights are about the JPEG
    > settings, not about the RAW data at all, which is all that matters when
    > shooting RAW.

    It seems than on 350D the histogram is for a calculated color. It won't
    show if one color is clipped. This can get you badly if the scene
    contains for example a lot of blue which has a low weight for the
    calculated contrast. For such scenes I tend to take a slightly under
    exposured picture too.

    There is a color display, I can't see why they don't have lines for
    individual colors available as well like a white weighed plus colored
    lines for each channel. The same problem applies to quite a few DSLRs.
    --
    Harri
  33. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    <snip>
    > 1 - Don't take your DSLR to Swinger's orgies - it'll probably get rolled
    > on or dropped.
    >
    > 2 - When photographing your neighbour's naked wife at the bathroom window,
    > try not to use flash as it will draw attention to you.
    >
    > 3 - When photographing courting couples enjoying sexual intercourse in
    > public parks, always wear good Reebok's and have a well prepared escape
    > route.
    >
    > That takes care of the basics....


    If nothing else, an interesting window on your sexual proclivities/psyche.


    Explains a lot actually...
  34. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 07:37:43 +0200, Roxy d'Urban <not@home.com> wrote:

    >1. Don't worry about how many pixels your camera doesn't have.
    >
    >2. Get the camera to do most of the processing (sharpening, saturating,
    >etc).
    >
    >3. Never listen to anything that Alan Browne or Steven Scharf say.

    That's a load of twaddle.

    My three most important tips:

    Shoot RAW,
    Shoot RAW,
    Shoot RAW.

    --
    Owamanga!
    http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
  35. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    Owamanga wrote:
    > On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 07:37:43 +0200, Roxy d'Urban <not@home.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> 1. Don't worry about how many pixels your camera doesn't have.
    >>
    >> 2. Get the camera to do most of the processing (sharpening,
    >> saturating, etc).
    >>
    >> 3. Never listen to anything that Alan Browne or Steven Scharf say.
    >
    > That's a load of twaddle.
    >
    > My three most important tips:
    >
    > Shoot RAW,
    > Shoot RAW,
    > Shoot RAW.

    Smart. Very Smart.

    1- You _can_ get it exactly right, perfect in fact

    2- It may take lots of practice, lots and lots of attempts-make that
    lots and lots and LOTS

    3- If you don't enjoy #2, the chance for #1 recedes geometrically
    3b- #1 is not a religion-founding principle, but an _ideal_
    3c- You can explain not-perfect works by alluding to the
    carpet-weaver's practice of leaving a thread or two out of place, on
    the assumption that only Bog is perfect

    --
    Frank ess
    "In this universe there are things that just plain don't yield to
    thinking-plain or fancy-Dude".
    -J. Spicoli, PolyPartyPerson
  36. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    In message <35Odnf6dpcYcQDDfRVn-1g@giganews.com>,
    "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:

    >Owamanga wrote:

    >> Shoot RAW,
    >> Shoot RAW,
    >> Shoot RAW.

    >Smart. Very Smart.

    >1- You _can_ get it exactly right, perfect in fact

    You rely heavily on assumptions by the reader. What *are* you talking
    about? Do you think you could state your opinion instead of coding it
    in such a way that you have to already know what it is to decipher it?

    Just in case you meant, "you can get a shot perfect in JPEG, so there is
    no need to shoot RAW", that is a misleading idea, as there is a limit to
    how you can process an image in-camera to form JPEGs; usually just a few
    standard transfer curves which may be nothing like the curves your image
    needs. RAW is not "mistake lattitude", per se; it is also the best
    capture of your data possible with the camera, and you can shoot things
    in RAW that you couldn't shoot at all in JPEG. RAW has a stop or more
    dynamic range in the highlights on most cameras, and perhaps another
    usable stop or more on the bottom due to a lack of JPEG compression.

    You can use a low contrast setting to capture some of this in a JPEG,
    but not all of it, and the compressed dynamic range is even worse than a
    normal one for post-processing.

    >2- It may take lots of practice, lots and lots of attempts-make that
    >lots and lots and LOTS

    >3- If you don't enjoy #2, the chance for #1 recedes geometrically
    > 3b- #1 is not a religion-founding principle, but an _ideal_
    > 3c- You can explain not-perfect works by alluding to the
    >carpet-weaver's practice of leaving a thread or two out of place, on
    >the assumption that only Bog is perfect

    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
  37. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 18:28:17 +0000, Owamanga wrote:

    > On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 07:37:43 +0200, Roxy d'Urban <not@home.com> wrote:
    >
    >>1. Don't worry about how many pixels your camera doesn't have.
    >>
    >>2. Get the camera to do most of the processing (sharpening, saturating,
    >>etc).
    >>
    >>3. Never listen to anything that Alan Browne or Steven Scharf say.
    >
    > That's a load of twaddle.
    >
    > My three most important tips:
    >
    > Shoot RAW,
    > Shoot RAW,
    > Shoot RAW.

    Why? An amateur shooting RAW is a waste of time and will teach them
    nothing about the joy of photography if they have to sit and fiddle with
    every single image they shoot, just to get something to print.

    No, I say RAW is for the obsessed who like to spend time in front of the
    monitor.

    --
    email: drop rods and insert surfaces
  38. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    Roxy d'Urban wrote:

    > On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 18:28:17 +0000, Owamanga wrote:
    >
    >>My three most important tips:
    >>
    >>Shoot RAW,
    >>Shoot RAW,
    >>Shoot RAW.
    >
    >
    > Why? An amateur shooting RAW is a waste of time and will teach them
    > nothing about the joy of photography if they have to sit and fiddle with
    > every single image they shoot, just to get something to print.
    >
    > No, I say RAW is for the obsessed who like to spend time in front of the
    > monitor.

    Owama is pulling some legs, he's a jpeg shooter if I recall correctly.


    --
    Paul Furman
    http://www.edgehill.net/1
    san francisco native plants
  39. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 06:43:41 GMT, JPS@no.komm wrote:

    >In message <35Odnf6dpcYcQDDfRVn-1g@giganews.com>,
    >"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:
    >
    >>Owamanga wrote:
    >
    >>> Shoot RAW,
    >>> Shoot RAW,
    >>> Shoot RAW.
    >
    >>Smart. Very Smart.
    >
    >>1- You _can_ get it exactly right, perfect in fact
    >
    >You rely heavily on assumptions by the reader. What *are* you talking
    >about? Do you think you could state your opinion instead of coding it
    >in such a way that you have to already know what it is to decipher it?

    At the risk of putting words in Frank's mouth, I think there's two
    completely different parts to his post. The first was a compliment for
    Owamanga's three points; the second was an entirely unrelated three point
    suggestion of his own, which can be summarised as: "it takes a lot of
    practice to take the 'perfect' shot, but it can't be done; if a shot's not
    perfect, claim you did it deliberately so as not to be conceited!".


    Regards,
    Graham Holden (g-holden AT dircon DOT co DOT uk)
    --
    There are 10 types of people in the world;
    those that understand binary and those that don't.
  40. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 09:48:44 +0100, Graham Holden
    <look@bottom.of.post> wrote:

    >On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 06:43:41 GMT, JPS@no.komm wrote:
    >
    >>In message <35Odnf6dpcYcQDDfRVn-1g@giganews.com>,
    >>"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Owamanga wrote:
    >>
    >>>> Shoot RAW,
    >>>> Shoot RAW,
    >>>> Shoot RAW.
    >>
    >>>Smart. Very Smart.
    >>
    >>>1- You _can_ get it exactly right, perfect in fact
    >>
    >>You rely heavily on assumptions by the reader. What *are* you talking
    >>about? Do you think you could state your opinion instead of coding it
    >>in such a way that you have to already know what it is to decipher it?
    >
    >At the risk of putting words in Frank's mouth, I think there's two
    >completely different parts to his post. The first was a compliment for
    >Owamanga's three points; the second was an entirely unrelated three point
    >suggestion of his own, which can be summarised as: "it takes a lot of
    >practice to take the 'perfect' shot, but it can't be done; if a shot's not
    >perfect, claim you did it deliberately so as not to be conceited!".

    That's how I read it. The glass is half full, not half empty. But only
    Frank knows what he meant ;-)

    --
    Owamanga!
    http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
  41. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    Owamanga wrote:
    > On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 09:48:44 +0100, Graham Holden
    > <look@bottom.of.post> wrote:
    >
    >> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 06:43:41 GMT, JPS@no.komm wrote:
    >>
    >>> In message <35Odnf6dpcYcQDDfRVn-1g@giganews.com>,
    >>> "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Owamanga wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> Shoot RAW,
    >>>>> Shoot RAW,
    >>>>> Shoot RAW.
    >>>
    >>>> Smart. Very Smart.
    >>>
    >>>> 1- You _can_ get it exactly right, perfect in fact
    >>>
    >>> You rely heavily on assumptions by the reader. What *are* you
    >>> talking about? Do you think you could state your opinion instead
    >>> of coding it in such a way that you have to already know what it
    >>> is
    >>> to decipher it?
    >>
    >> At the risk of putting words in Frank's mouth, I think there's two
    >> completely different parts to his post. The first was a compliment
    >> for Owamanga's three points; the second was an entirely unrelated
    >> three point suggestion of his own, which can be summarised as: "it
    >> takes a lot of practice to take the 'perfect' shot, but it can't be
    >> done; if a shot's not perfect, claim you did it deliberately so as
    >> not to be conceited!".
    >
    > That's how I read it. The glass is half full, not half empty. But
    > only
    > Frank knows what he meant ;-)


    You rely heavily on assumptions ... ;-)


    I always enjoy what little I understand of JPS's posts and admit to
    carelessness in not


    separating my "points" from the "smart" comment. Graham was right.


    I will add:
    Some may not see it as dangerous, but I believe there is a risk of
    losing track of the purpose of photography as a human communicative
    activity; technical performance-art is cool, too, but not prime.

    --
    Frank ess
    "In this universe there are things that just plain don't yield to
    thinking-plain or fancy-Dude".
    -J. Spicoli, PolyPartyPerson


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

    "Owamanga" <owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:bfkta1l9aeo0cdnijapt8iaphivmqdcp1a@4ax.com...
    >
    > Okay, I was intending to rattle some cages. For the record, I shoot
    > RAW and have done so ever since my second digital 'roll' (full-card).
    >
    > I've got some problems with Roxy's original suggestions, and his
    > statements above. Firstly, in my books an Amateur is anybody who
    > doesn't make a living from Photography. Therefore, I don't see any
    > requirement to offer differing advice on how a Pro or Amateur should
    > shoot when using digital cameras.
    >
    > I shot the first 300 or so pictures on my new D70 (my first digital
    > camera) in JPEG, mainly for the reasons Roxy gives in that I didn't
    > want to screw around with RAW files until I was happy with how to use
    > the camera. However, one shot I took in that set quickly changed my
    > mind.
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/owamanga/image/40643539
    >
    > It's one of my favorite shots, but sadly suffers a blown highlight on
    > the shoulder of the creature caused by the high dynamic range of the
    > scene which was then set in stone by the on-camera JPEG encoding. I've
    > taken similar shots since, using RAW, and have been able to avoid this
    > issue recurring.
    >

    <snipped more well-said points in favor of RAW>

    My experience pretty much echoes Owamanga's. I shot quite a bit of JPEG
    when I first got my Digital Rebel but with encouragement from reading
    r.p.d.s-s I started shooting RAW. I find that even if I use the defaults in
    ACR or DPP my images look much better than camera processed JPGs. I sold my
    Digital Rebel to my friend and recommended to him to not waste his first
    card of shots on JPEGs. He's grateful for the advice because he can do
    minimal processing to the RAW files now. If he ever wants to revisit his
    favorites after he gets to know digital post-processing better he can go
    back to unadulterated files and see the improvments in his technique.

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

    On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 21:52:16 GMT, the cup of JPS@no.komm overfloweth with
    the following:

    > [snip]

    > ...The difference
    > is, the lower the ISO setting on the camera is, the less RAW, digitized
    > numbers there are to represent the subject, therefore posterizing it
    > more.

    How does this work exactly? Why shoudl a lower ISO reduce the digitization
    range of the camera? I don't see that the dynamic range is changed at all,
    but that you are simply shifting the range to represent values that have
    been amplified from the shadow areas and therefore have a little noise
    amongst them. This isn't *reducing* the range though. The problem seems to
    me that you're simply more likely to have a greater contrast and/or dynamic
    range that requires representation when shooting in low light.

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

    In message <ja8ta19mhkdjbus4m9e4gmaga5k7dqcrtq@4ax.com>,
    G Winstanley <stan@orange.net> wrote:

    >On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 21:52:16 GMT, the cup of JPS@no.komm overfloweth with
    >the following:
    >
    >> [snip]
    >
    >> ...The difference
    >> is, the lower the ISO setting on the camera is, the less RAW, digitized
    >> numbers there are to represent the subject, therefore posterizing it
    >> more.
    >
    >How does this work exactly? Why shoudl a lower ISO reduce the digitization
    >range of the camera?

    Did you catch the context from which that was snipped. The context was,
    given a fixed *absolute* exposure (same f-stop and shutter speed; same
    lighting on subject), the higher ISO will digitize the data better (if
    it's gain-based ISO).

    >I don't see that the dynamic range is changed at all,

    I wasn't talking about DR, per se, but about digitization data. If a
    certain absolute exposure gives RAW data just short of clipping (4095)
    at ISO 1600, then the highest RAW numbers will be just below 256 at ISO
    100. Dark areas that average 160 at ISO 1600 will average 10 at ISO
    100, becoming highly posterized.

    >but that you are simply shifting the range to represent values that have
    >been amplified from the shadow areas and therefore have a little noise
    >amongst them. This isn't *reducing* the range though. The problem seems to
    >me that you're simply more likely to have a greater contrast and/or dynamic
    >range that requires representation when shooting in low light.

    I can't figure out what you're trying to say here; I can think of
    multiple things you might mean and none of them click.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
  45. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    G Winstanley wrote:

    > On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 21:52:16 GMT, the cup of JPS@no.komm overfloweth with
    > the following:
    >
    >
    >>[snip]
    >
    >
    >> ...The difference
    >>is, the lower the ISO setting on the camera is, the less RAW, digitized
    >>numbers there are to represent the subject, therefore posterizing it
    >>more.
    >
    >
    > How does this work exactly? Why shoudl a lower ISO reduce the digitization
    > range of the camera? I don't see that the dynamic range is changed at all,
    > but that you are simply shifting the range to represent values that have
    > been amplified from the shadow areas and therefore have a little noise
    > amongst them. This isn't *reducing* the range though. The problem seems to
    > me that you're simply more likely to have a greater contrast and/or dynamic
    > range that requires representation when shooting in low light.


    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

    <quote>

    Why? Because CCD and CMOS chips are linear devices. And, of course, each
    F/Stop records half of the light of the previous one, and therefore half
    the remaining data space available. This little table tells the tale.

    Within the first F/Stop, which contains the Brightest Tones
    2048 levels available

    Within the second F/Stop, which contains Bright Tones
    1024 levels available

    Within the third F/Stop, which contains the Mid-Tones
    512 levels available

    Within the fourth F/Stop, which contains Dark Tones
    256 levels available

    Within the fifth F/Stop, which contains the Darkest Tones
    128 levels available

    </quote>
  46. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 22:55:56 GMT, JPS@no.komm <JPS@no.komm> wrote:
    >
    > Did you catch the context from which that was snipped. The context was,
    > given a fixed *absolute* exposure (same f-stop and shutter speed; same
    > lighting on subject), the higher ISO will digitize the data better (if
    > it's gain-based ISO).

    I know you've addressed this in the past, but I can't remember how
    this formulation differs practically from the "expose to the right"
    dictum.

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

    In message <slrndauo9f.s1q.br@panix5.panix.com>,
    Ben Rosengart <br+rpdss@panix.com> wrote:

    >On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 22:55:56 GMT, JPS@no.komm <JPS@no.komm> wrote:
    >>
    >> Did you catch the context from which that was snipped. The context was,
    >> given a fixed *absolute* exposure (same f-stop and shutter speed; same
    >> lighting on subject), the higher ISO will digitize the data better (if
    >> it's gain-based ISO).

    >I know you've addressed this in the past, but I can't remember how
    >this formulation differs practically from the "expose to the right"
    >dictum.

    Simply "exposing to the right" can result in blurry pictures, and/or
    pictures with too little DOF.

    What I am suggesting is to go to a higher ISO when exposing to the
    right, to maintain the needed DOF and shutter speed.

    This is an important distinction, because people tend to think that
    along with boosting the signal, higher ISOs "sprinkle more noise into
    the image", which is not true at all. The noise is mainly due to the
    low signal level in the sensor, which is the cause of both the noise
    *and* the need for a higher ISO. For any given noise level in the
    sensor, the lower the ISO, the more visible it is, due to posterization
    (which distorts the signal, as well).
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
  48. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 23:40:00 GMT, JPS@no.komm <JPS@no.komm> wrote:
    >
    > Simply "exposing to the right" can result in blurry pictures, and/or
    > pictures with too little DOF.
    >
    > What I am suggesting is to go to a higher ISO when exposing to the
    > right, to maintain the needed DOF and shutter speed.

    In other words, expose to the right, with the shutter speed and
    aperture you want, and if that means going to a higher ISO, don't
    be shy.

    Makes sense to me.

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

    In message <slrndaus35.reh.br@panix5.panix.com>,
    Ben Rosengart <br+rpdss@panix.com> wrote:

    >In other words, expose to the right, with the shutter speed and
    >aperture you want, and if that means going to a higher ISO, don't
    >be shy.

    >Makes sense to me.

    Yes; what I like to stress is that it's not even a compromise to go to
    the higher ISO; it is better, absolute exposure being equal. This is
    counter-intuitive to people who have come to believe that noise is
    proportional to ISO. When I first theorized this, I found it hard to
    believe myself, but when I actually tried it, results were even better
    than I theorized, but of course, the shadows are the most affected; you
    don't see a significant difference in highlights, unless you expand
    their contrast in PP.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Ask a new question

Read More

SLR Photo Systems Cameras