Not a bird

Discussion in 'Photography' started by PeterN, Jan 1, 2014.

  1. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    On 1/3/2014 4:40 PM, me wrote:
    > On Fri, 03 Jan 2014 15:37:09 -0500, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 1/3/2014 2:01 PM, me wrote:
    >>> Use Aperture priority and set your desired F-stop. The camera will
    >>> keep increasing iso until the exposure program is happy with the
    >>> exposure up until the max allowable iso is hit.
    >>>
    >>> This keeps the aperture fixed but floats the iso as needed as the
    >>> available light capture by your exposure subject changes.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Thanks.
    >> I tried that yesterday strictly as a test. The results were not great,
    >> but somewhat reasonable. When pushing things, I found that the minimum
    >> shtter speed adjustment didn't seem to hold. I am also testing varying
    >> the ISO using manual, with no limit on the ISO. However, when I get to
    >> the higher ISOs I will see noticable lack of tonal range. I may be using
    >> too high an ISO limit. Tomorrow I will limit the ISO to 2400, and
    >> minimum shutter speed to 1000, at f8, or less.

    >
    > You have to remember that unless you are using manual exposure mode
    > the mode you are using will limit things. Meaning using as described
    > the aperture priority exposure program raises the iso up to the limit
    > specified. Given the fixed aperture the only thing further which can
    > be done if this does not allow enough light to satisfy the exposure
    > program is reduce the shutter speed. On the fly you can modify this by
    > dialing in _EV exposure compensation which is then an input to the
    > exposure program. specified.
    >
    > One alternative is to use shutter priority and set shutter speed., but
    > you then lose control of the aperture. If you use full manual exposure
    > you will keep aperture and shutter settings and float iso. However,
    > this only provides a higher light level floor from your prescribed
    > shutter and aperture settings. If you still need more light there is
    > nothing the camera can adjust.
    >


    I have ny recently started using auto ISO. While I think I understand
    the basic theory, I still have to understand how it works in the real world.

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Jan 4, 2014
    #81
    1. Advertisements

  2. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    On 1/3/2014 4:45 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Fri, 03 Jan 2014 13:45:58 -0500, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 1/3/2014 3:13 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>> On 2014-01-03 07:02:16 +0000, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:
    >>>
    >>>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>>> Peter has
    >>>>> some of the best equipment available and he is not using it to its full
    >>>>> potential.
    >>>>
    >>>> You need to get over *yourself*! Peter isn't using his
    >>>> equipment to make photographs designed to your likes. That's not
    >>>> really here nor there though!
    >>>>
    >>>> He does a very good job of producing what he wants to make.
    >>>> Technically it is what he wants, whether it looks like art to
    >>>> you or not.
    >>>>
    >>>> I personally could care less if Peter makes a photograph that is
    >>>> what I like. That's what I do, and he need not bother. His
    >>>> technical reasons for what he does are valid. His method, as an
    >>>> example, for determining the exposure to use, ISO's, and that
    >>>> sort of thing are dead on correct.
    >>>>
    >>>> It makes no difference at all if *you* happen to like the
    >>>> results. For that matter it makes no difference if anyone
    >>>> posting here, other than Peter, likes the results.
    >>>>
    >>>> The question is only if he is using the correct technical
    >>>> configuration for what he wants, and it's rather clear that he
    >>>> is.
    >>>
    >>> Just an personal opinion from an old fart in California Floyd. I am sure
    >>> you don't mind if I have an opinion. I am not going to say I find a
    >>> particular image pleasing if I don't.

    >>
    >> Nor should you. As you ae aware, I am far from bashful, and have a
    >> pretty thick skin.

    >
    > I suppose that comes with your legal training.
    >


    And my Army training (MP)
    And another gubbmint enforcement job


    >
    >> Yes I feel good when others like my images. But, I do not want, or need
    >> false praise. when you don't like something I produce, I hope you tell
    >> me how you feel, and more importantly, why.
    >> It takes a lot of effort to be critical, and the effort is appreciated.
    >> Also, please don't take my rebuttal as a personal thing.
    >>
    >>> … and you are correct, it doesn't matter one bit whether I like those
    >>> particular shots, or not as long as Peter is happy with what he is
    >>> doing. Just as it doesn't matter if you or anybody else here finds any
    >>> of my shared images pleasing or interesting. That said, I continue to
    >>> learn when I receive sincere constructive criticism of what I share. It
    >>> is a free World and we have a group of folks in these groups who are
    >>> outspoken, you certainly are, and right or wrong (that happens from time
    >>> to time) I will speak my mind if I am driven to.
    >>>
    >>>



    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Jan 4, 2014
    #82
    1. Advertisements

  3. PeterN

    Savageduck Guest

    On 2014-01-04 01:42:53 +0000, PeterN <> said:

    > On 1/3/2014 4:45 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    >> On Fri, 03 Jan 2014 13:45:58 -0500, PeterN
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 1/3/2014 3:13 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>>> On 2014-01-03 07:02:16 +0000, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>>>> Peter has
    >>>>>> some of the best equipment available and he is not using it to its full
    >>>>>> potential.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> You need to get over *yourself*! Peter isn't using his
    >>>>> equipment to make photographs designed to your likes. That's not
    >>>>> really here nor there though!
    >>>>>
    >>>>> He does a very good job of producing what he wants to make.
    >>>>> Technically it is what he wants, whether it looks like art to
    >>>>> you or not.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I personally could care less if Peter makes a photograph that is
    >>>>> what I like. That's what I do, and he need not bother. His
    >>>>> technical reasons for what he does are valid. His method, as an
    >>>>> example, for determining the exposure to use, ISO's, and that
    >>>>> sort of thing are dead on correct.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> It makes no difference at all if *you* happen to like the
    >>>>> results. For that matter it makes no difference if anyone
    >>>>> posting here, other than Peter, likes the results.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The question is only if he is using the correct technical
    >>>>> configuration for what he wants, and it's rather clear that he
    >>>>> is.
    >>>>
    >>>> Just an personal opinion from an old fart in California Floyd. I am sure
    >>>> you don't mind if I have an opinion. I am not going to say I find a
    >>>> particular image pleasing if I don't.
    >>>
    >>> Nor should you. As you ae aware, I am far from bashful, and have a
    >>> pretty thick skin.

    >>
    >> I suppose that comes with your legal training.
    >>

    >
    > And my Army training (MP)


    That should do it, but I knew some pretty sensitive MPs. ;-)

    > And another gubbmint enforcement job


    You should try my former line of work and see what can be handed out by
    some of the clientele and a few of those subordinates I had to
    supervise. Then there were upper level administrators, managers, and
    politicians each with conflicting agenda.

    >
    >>
    >>> Yes I feel good when others like my images. But, I do not want, or need
    >>> false praise. when you don't like something I produce, I hope you tell
    >>> me how you feel, and more importantly, why.
    >>> It takes a lot of effort to be critical, and the effort is appreciated.
    >>> Also, please don't take my rebuttal as a personal thing.
    >>>
    >>>> … and you are correct, it doesn't matter one bit whether I like those
    >>>> particular shots, or not as long as Peter is happy with what he is
    >>>> doing. Just as it doesn't matter if you or anybody else here finds any
    >>>> of my shared images pleasing or interesting. That said, I continue to
    >>>> learn when I receive sincere constructive criticism of what I share. It
    >>>> is a free World and we have a group of folks in these groups who are
    >>>> outspoken, you certainly are, and right or wrong (that happens from time
    >>>> to time) I will speak my mind if I am driven to.



    --
    Regards,

    Savageduck
     
    Savageduck, Jan 4, 2014
    #83
  4. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    On 1/3/2014 6:31 PM, MC wrote:
    > PeterN wrote:
    >
    >> On 1/2/2014 10:22 AM, Sandman wrote:
    >>> In article <>, PeterN wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Here are prior years captures.
    >>>
    >>>>

    > <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/Don%27t%20Come%20Back.jpg>
    >>>
    >>> Utterly destroyed in opst, why not show the original capture?
    >>>
    >>>> <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_Red%20Heron.jpg>
    >>>
    >>> Same here, I'm sure the original image looks just fine. This wasn't
    >>> as destroyed as the above, though.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> Well, the judges in several competitions decided otherwise. The first
    >> did fairly well, and the second was runner up in several others.

    >
    > You are kidding, right?


    Nope. Not all my imagesdo well. Indeed far from it. However, after a
    portfolio evaluation, I have been invited to compete for the privilege
    of displaying some of my images in a gallery. It is a legitimate
    competition. No entry fee, and no gallery fee. The truth is that I am
    struggling for improvement. I know I have a tendency to overprocess in
    post, and am fighting that.

    Having

    >
    > What/where were these "several" competitions, how many entrants were
    > there in each and where can we see other entries for comparison. I
    > have to ask this because no judge worth their salt would have commended
    > or even placed the first image.
    >


    That image was a deliberate exaggeration that was intended to be a
    characterized image of the cattle egrets. I made another version where I
    used Fratcills, but do not have it here. I have no concern that some
    don't like the effects.

    BTW here is one where i used that program for a different effect.
    In this image I used the trial version:
    <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/6Nubble%20%20impression.jpg>




    > The second image is far from pin sharp and seems to have had a tad to
    > much noise reduction. I would be surprised if this was given runner up
    > status unless there was very little competition.
    >

    Surprise! What can I say.
    You are looking at a low quality jpeg.
    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Jan 4, 2014
    #84
  5. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    On 1/3/2014 6:52 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > "MC" <> wrote:
    >> Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    >>
    >>> He does a very good job of producing what he wants to make.
    >>> Technically it is what he wants, whether it looks like art to
    >>> you or not.

    >>
    >> I do not believe this. I think he is trying to make good from
    >> something that did NOT turn out how he envisaged.
    >>
    >>> I personally could care less if Peter makes a photograph that is
    >>> what I like. That's what I do, and he need not bother. His
    >>> technical reasons for what he does are valid. His method, as an
    >>> example, for determining the exposure to use, ISO's, and that
    >>> sort of thing are dead on correct.
    >>>
    >>> It makes no difference at all if you happen to like the
    >>> results. For that matter it makes no difference if anyone
    >>> posting here, other than Peter, likes the results.
    >>>
    >>> The question is only if he is using the correct technical
    >>> configuration for what he wants, and it's rather clear that he
    >>> is.

    >>
    >> Again, I do not believe these images are what he originally set out to
    >> achieve. As I see it, and I am yet to be convinced otherwise, what he
    >> wants and what he ends up with seem to be two completely different
    >> things, even though he makes the excuse that it is what he wants.
    >> He is relying too much on post production and cropping. Anyone can
    >> fire up photoshop (or equivalent) and use a couple of plug-ins to try
    >> and create something they say they "intended" to create. It shows no
    >> skill at all and reeks of "clutching at straws" to try and produce
    >> something acceptable (albeit acceptable only to himself).

    >
    > Van Gogh had the same problem... So did Ansel Adams. And a
    > lot of great artists who liked something "different".
    >


    I wish I was one hundredth as good as those guys. But, i do strive for
    my individuality, and accept the lack of general acceptance that comes
    with it.
    I still have a lot of technique to learn.

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Jan 4, 2014
    #85
  6. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    On 1/3/2014 8:10 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
    > On Fri, 03 Jan 2014 23:31:00 GMT, "MC" <> wrote:
    >
    >> PeterN wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 1/2/2014 10:22 AM, Sandman wrote:
    >>>> In article <>, PeterN wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Here are prior years captures.
    >>>>
    >>>>>

    >> <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/Don%27t%20Come%20Back.jpg>
    >>>>
    >>>> Utterly destroyed in opst, why not show the original capture?
    >>>>
    >>>>> <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_Red%20Heron.jpg>
    >>>>
    >>>> Same here, I'm sure the original image looks just fine. This wasn't
    >>>> as destroyed as the above, though.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Well, the judges in several competitions decided otherwise. The first
    >>> did fairly well, and the second was runner up in several others.

    >>
    >> You are kidding, right?
    >>
    >> What/where were these "several" competitions, how many entrants were
    >> there in each and where can we see other entries for comparison. I
    >> have to ask this because no judge worth their salt would have commended
    >> or even placed the first image.

    >
    > Don't be too quick to judge.
    >
    > I don't know what competitions Peter enters, but my camera club has
    > competitions in three categories: Color A, Color B, Monochrome, and
    > Creative. A person can enter two images, and an average Competition
    > night will have from 60 to over 100 entries.
    >
    > Professional photographers, and we have many in the club, must enter
    > Color A. Color B, Monochrome, and Creative are open to all others.
    > Any photo with significant alteration in post, or photos that are
    > composites of more than one original photo, must be in Creative.
    >
    > The tack-sharp bird photos are in Color A, and if the bird has a
    > caterpillar in its beak, you better be able to count the legs. Many
    > of the non-pros in Color B submit images equally well done.
    >
    > Anything goes in Creative. I'd rate Peter's shot as right up there
    > with most of the entries in this group, and could well have been the
    > winner on some nights. In Creative, it's not necessarily what you
    > might like in a photo, but how well the photographer has done what the
    > photographer was going for. "Impact" is the major grading point.
    >
    > I have a certain appreciation for Creative shots because I'm unable to
    > do it. It seems like it would be simple to do something creative, but
    > it isn't. You can take any photograph and go wild with the sliders
    > and the filters and come up with something, but you have to come up
    > with something that other people relate to.
    >
    > I entered Creative once. With this:
    > https://www.dropbox.com/s/hq1tpnwimd0kjwt/2012-10-26-4.jpg
    > It was in Creative because I used a radial blur and significantly
    > altered the image because the figure on the right's eyes were closed
    > and I brought in the eyes from a completely different photograph of
    > the same person and changed the position of the irises. It didn't
    > place well. Top-middle.
    >
    > I challenge you to come up with a Creative shot yourself. Try to do
    > something bizarre that you like. See if the others here like it.
    >


    My CC has an anything goes policy. We have print categories monochrome &
    color. Groups B, A, & AA. We have digital B, A & AA and creative.
    Members are permitted to submit up to three images in each category. I
    am in group A, in all classes. Our creative group is for submissions
    that contain altered reality. since altered reality images are permitted
    in any other category, it is up to the maker to decide whether the image
    will go into his regular group, or creative.
    As to how well my images do, you may Google Syosset Camera Club,
    Viewfinder.



    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Jan 4, 2014
    #86
  7. PeterN

    Whiskers Guest

    On 2014-01-03, PeterN <> wrote:
    > On 1/3/2014 10:06 AM, Whiskers wrote:
    >> On 2014-01-03, PeterN <> wrote:
    >>> On 1/2/2014 7:31 AM, Whiskers wrote:
    >>>> On 2014-01-02, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>>> On 2014-01-02 00:37:48 +0000, "MC" <> said:
    >>>>>> PeterN wrote:


    [...]

    > \early morning light has a bad habit of changing rapidly, as does
    > evening light.


    Not so rapidly that you can't monitor it and to some extent predict it.

    > there is no question that I am having some exposure issues. This morning
    > I was getting the blinkies with a 1.7 underexposure, when someone who
    > was shooting right next to me was not, using .3 underexposure. I
    > suspect what the issue is, and will try to correct it this evening.


    I don't know what "getting the blinkies" means, but talking about "1.7
    underexposure" suggests to me that you are using automatic exposure, not
    a manual setting. Automation is OK with average subjects for which you
    are content with average results, but your subjects are far from
    average.

    --
    -- ^^^^^^^^^^
    -- Whiskers
    -- ~~~~~~~~~~
     
    Whiskers, Jan 4, 2014
    #87
  8. PeterN

    Whiskers Guest

    On 2014-01-03, Floyd L. Davidson <> wrote:
    > "MC" <> wrote:
    >>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    >>
    >>> He does a very good job of producing what he wants to make.
    >>> Technically it is what he wants, whether it looks like art to
    >>> you or not.

    >>
    >>I do not believe this. I think he is trying to make good from
    >>something that did NOT turn out how he envisaged.
    >>
    >>> I personally could care less if Peter makes a photograph that is
    >>> what I like. That's what I do, and he need not bother. His
    >>> technical reasons for what he does are valid. His method, as an
    >>> example, for determining the exposure to use, ISO's, and that
    >>> sort of thing are dead on correct.
    >>>
    >>> It makes no difference at all if you happen to like the
    >>> results. For that matter it makes no difference if anyone
    >>> posting here, other than Peter, likes the results.
    >>>
    >>> The question is only if he is using the correct technical
    >>> configuration for what he wants, and it's rather clear that he
    >>> is.

    >>
    >>Again, I do not believe these images are what he originally set out to
    >>achieve. As I see it, and I am yet to be convinced otherwise, what he
    >>wants and what he ends up with seem to be two completely different
    >>things, even though he makes the excuse that it is what he wants.
    >>He is relying too much on post production and cropping. Anyone can
    >>fire up photoshop (or equivalent) and use a couple of plug-ins to try
    >>and create something they say they "intended" to create. It shows no
    >>skill at all and reeks of "clutching at straws" to try and produce
    >>something acceptable (albeit acceptable only to himself).

    >
    > Van Gogh had the same problem... So did Ansel Adams. And a
    > lot of great artists who liked something "different".


    Both those people worked very hard at understanding their materials and
    perfecting basic technique. One of them went mad.

    The fundamental work of Ansel Adams on assessing light and shade and
    determining exposure to achieve a desired result, is well worth learning
    about - even if only via simplified explanations. The "zone system" he
    devised may not be directly transferable to hand-held digital cameras,
    but the underlying approach certainly is.

    --
    -- ^^^^^^^^^^
    -- Whiskers
    -- ~~~~~~~~~~
     
    Whiskers, Jan 4, 2014
    #88
  9. PeterN

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 06:25:20 -0500, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    >On 1/3/2014 6:31 PM, MC wrote:
    >> PeterN wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 1/2/2014 10:22 AM, Sandman wrote:
    >>>> In article <>, PeterN wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Here are prior years captures.
    >>>>
    >>>>>

    >> <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/Don%27t%20Come%20Back.jpg>
    >>>>
    >>>> Utterly destroyed in opst, why not show the original capture?
    >>>>
    >>>>> <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_Red%20Heron.jpg>
    >>>>
    >>>> Same here, I'm sure the original image looks just fine. This wasn't
    >>>> as destroyed as the above, though.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Well, the judges in several competitions decided otherwise. The first
    >>> did fairly well, and the second was runner up in several others.

    >>
    >> You are kidding, right?

    >
    >Nope. Not all my imagesdo well. Indeed far from it. However, after a
    >portfolio evaluation, I have been invited to compete for the privilege
    >of displaying some of my images in a gallery. It is a legitimate
    >competition. No entry fee, and no gallery fee. The truth is that I am
    >struggling for improvement. I know I have a tendency to overprocess in
    >post, and am fighting that.
    >
    >Having
    >
    >>
    >> What/where were these "several" competitions, how many entrants were
    >> there in each and where can we see other entries for comparison. I
    >> have to ask this because no judge worth their salt would have commended
    >> or even placed the first image.
    >>

    >
    >That image was a deliberate exaggeration that was intended to be a
    >characterized image of the cattle egrets. I made another version where I
    >used Fratcills, but do not have it here. I have no concern that some
    >don't like the effects.
    >
    >BTW here is one where i used that program for a different effect.
    >In this image I used the trial version:
    ><https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/6Nubble%20%20impression.jpg>
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >> The second image is far from pin sharp and seems to have had a tad to
    >> much noise reduction. I would be surprised if this was given runner up
    >> status unless there was very little competition.
    >>

    >Surprise! What can I say.
    >You are looking at a low quality jpeg.


    People just aren't going to understand, Peter, that not everyone's
    goal is the tack-sharp image that exactly replicates nature.

    I don't particularly like the image you've linked to above. It's not
    a style that I'd go for under any circumstances. I'm not going to
    knock it, though, because I understand that what you and I go for are
    two completely different things.

    Success for both of us is an image that we look at feel good about
    having taken and processed. It's nice to have someone else admire it,
    but it's not necessary.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, Jan 4, 2014
    #89
  10. PeterN

    me Guest

    On Fri, 03 Jan 2014 20:28:48 -0500, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    >I have ny recently started using auto ISO. While I think I understand
    >the basic theory, I still have to understand how it works in the real world.



    Just remember the autoiso programming loop is running inside the
    exposure programming loop.
     
    me, Jan 4, 2014
    #90
  11. Whiskers <> wrote:
    >On 2014-01-03, PeterN <> wrote:
    >
    >> \early morning light has a bad habit of changing rapidly, as does
    >> evening light.

    >
    >Not so rapidly that you can't monitor it and to some extent predict it.


    Do you ever use a camera outside?

    I'm reminded of a shot that Ansel Adams took. He later
    described it various ways, but the fun description was from his
    son (aged 10 or so at the time) years later after his father had
    passed on. Whatever, Adams stopped his car jumped out and in a
    frantic rush was able to get exactly 1, count 'em, just 1
    exposure! But, he blew it.

    He couldn't find his lightmeter, estimated the exposure, and was
    seriously wrong.

    You might have heard the story of how much work he spend
    enhancing that one underexposed negative. Months, and every
    chemical process he could think of.

    The photograph was "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico". It made
    Ansel Adams famous.

    The point is that light can and does change very very fast. It
    can change as fast as you can turn from looking that direction
    to looking this direction.

    Auto ISO or Auto Exposure modes are extremely useful for high
    end photography.

    >> there is no question that I am having some exposure issues. This morning
    >> I was getting the blinkies with a 1.7 underexposure, when someone who
    >> was shooting right next to me was not, using .3 underexposure. I
    >> suspect what the issue is, and will try to correct it this evening.

    >
    >I don't know what "getting the blinkies" means, but talking about "1.7
    >underexposure" suggests to me that you are using automatic exposure, not
    >a manual setting.


    You are 1) wrong, and 2) off base anyway. What he (clearly)
    meant was that he has set Exposure Compensation to -1.7 stops,
    and is still getting indications of overexposure on the LCD's
    Highlight display. We don't know if he is using Auto Exposure
    or Manual Exposure, or Auto ISO, or not. It doesn't make any
    difference!

    >Automation is OK with average subjects for which you
    >are content with average results, but your subjects are far from
    >average.


    Automation is OK when it works, Manual is also OK when it works.
    Saying that only one or the other ever works is blindingly
    ignorant.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jan 4, 2014
    #91
  12. Whiskers <> wrote:
    >On 2014-01-03, Floyd L. Davidson <> wrote:
    >>
    >> Van Gogh had the same problem... So did Ansel Adams. And a
    >> lot of great artists who liked something "different".

    >
    >Both those people worked very hard at understanding their materials and
    >perfecting basic technique. One of them went mad.


    But the point is still that they decided what they wanted to do
    was not what everyone else was doing. Eventually, and in
    neither case did it happen quickly, their ideas were accepted as
    better than what they had decided not to do...

    >The fundamental work of Ansel Adams on assessing light and shade and
    >determining exposure to achieve a desired result, is well worth learning
    >about - even if only via simplified explanations. The "zone system" he
    >devised may not be directly transferable to hand-held digital cameras,
    >but the underlying approach certainly is.


    You are missing the point entirely. That is certainly useful,
    but it isn't something that anyone ever suggested was
    essentially wrong and to be avoided. That's merely part of the
    technical methodology, and was just as useful to someone who
    artistically was at the other end of the spectrum from Adams.

    Adams' point was that 1) photography should bring out the
    beauty, 2) it should not emulate other art forms, such as the
    Pictorialism style of painting, and 3) it should be "straight
    photography" expressing in sharp detail what existed in a scene.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jan 4, 2014
    #92
  13. me <> wrote:
    >On Fri, 03 Jan 2014 20:28:48 -0500, PeterN
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>I have ny recently started using auto ISO. While I think I understand
    >>the basic theory, I still have to understand how it works in the real world.

    >
    >Just remember the autoiso programming loop is running inside the
    >exposure programming loop.


    And the way to get it out is with Manual Exposure mode.

    You choose the aperture and shutter speed and let the camera
    select an ISO value to ensure the image is bright enough. That
    avoids trying to keep track of conflicting automatic loops that
    affect artistic intent, thus making it easier to track what
    effect the auto adjustment is having on the image.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jan 4, 2014
    #93
  14. PeterN

    me Guest

    On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 10:39:43 -0900, (Floyd L.
    Davidson) wrote:

    >me <> wrote:
    >>On Fri, 03 Jan 2014 20:28:48 -0500, PeterN
    >><> wrote:
    >>
    >>>I have ny recently started using auto ISO. While I think I understand
    >>>the basic theory, I still have to understand how it works in the real world.

    >>
    >>Just remember the autoiso programming loop is running inside the
    >>exposure programming loop.

    >
    >And the way to get it out is with Manual Exposure mode.


    Actually, no. You are still running under the constraints imposed by
    the exposure program. In this case it is manual. If this were not the
    case then iso wouldn't float up until it's max allowable setting as
    the available light changes.
     
    me, Jan 4, 2014
    #94
  15. me <> wrote:
    >On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 10:39:43 -0900, (Floyd L.
    >Davidson) wrote:
    >
    >>me <> wrote:
    >>>On Fri, 03 Jan 2014 20:28:48 -0500, PeterN
    >>><> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>I have ny recently started using auto ISO. While I think I understand
    >>>>the basic theory, I still have to understand how it works in the real world.
    >>>
    >>>Just remember the autoiso programming loop is running inside the
    >>>exposure programming loop.

    >>
    >>And the way to get it out is with Manual Exposure mode.

    >
    >Actually, no. You are still running under the constraints imposed by
    >the exposure program.


    Not at all.

    >In this case it is manual. If this were not the
    >case then iso wouldn't float up until it's max allowable setting as
    >the available light changes.


    ISO has nothing to do with exposure.

    Exposure is how much light falls on the sensor, and determines how much
    signal is produced.

    ISO is how sensitive the "sensor module" is to light, which is
    to say how much the signal produced is amplified.

    Two very different things.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jan 4, 2014
    #95
  16. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    On 1/4/2014 9:06 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
    > On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 06:25:20 -0500, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 1/3/2014 6:31 PM, MC wrote:
    >>> PeterN wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 1/2/2014 10:22 AM, Sandman wrote:
    >>>>> In article <>, PeterN wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Here are prior years captures.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>> <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/Don%27t%20Come%20Back.jpg>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Utterly destroyed in opst, why not show the original capture?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_Red%20Heron.jpg>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Same here, I'm sure the original image looks just fine. This wasn't
    >>>>> as destroyed as the above, though.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Well, the judges in several competitions decided otherwise. The first
    >>>> did fairly well, and the second was runner up in several others.
    >>>
    >>> You are kidding, right?

    >>
    >> Nope. Not all my imagesdo well. Indeed far from it. However, after a
    >> portfolio evaluation, I have been invited to compete for the privilege
    >> of displaying some of my images in a gallery. It is a legitimate
    >> competition. No entry fee, and no gallery fee. The truth is that I am
    >> struggling for improvement. I know I have a tendency to overprocess in
    >> post, and am fighting that.
    >>
    >> Having
    >>
    >>>
    >>> What/where were these "several" competitions, how many entrants were
    >>> there in each and where can we see other entries for comparison. I
    >>> have to ask this because no judge worth their salt would have commended
    >>> or even placed the first image.
    >>>

    >>
    >> That image was a deliberate exaggeration that was intended to be a
    >> characterized image of the cattle egrets. I made another version where I
    >> used Fratcills, but do not have it here. I have no concern that some
    >> don't like the effects.
    >>
    >> BTW here is one where i used that program for a different effect.
    >> In this image I used the trial version:
    >> <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/6Nubble%20%20impression.jpg>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> The second image is far from pin sharp and seems to have had a tad to
    >>> much noise reduction. I would be surprised if this was given runner up
    >>> status unless there was very little competition.
    >>>

    >> Surprise! What can I say.
    >> You are looking at a low quality jpeg.

    >
    > People just aren't going to understand, Peter, that not everyone's
    > goal is the tack-sharp image that exactly replicates nature.
    >
    > I don't particularly like the image you've linked to above. It's not
    > a style that I'd go for under any circumstances. I'm not going to
    > knock it, though, because I understand that what you and I go for are
    > two completely different things.
    >
    > Success for both of us is an image that we look at feel good about
    > having taken and processed. It's nice to have someone else admire it,
    > but it's not necessary.
    >
    >
    >


    Yup!

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Jan 4, 2014
    #96
  17. PeterN

    sid Guest

    Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

    > me <> wrote:
    >>On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 10:39:43 -0900, (Floyd L.
    >>Davidson) wrote:
    >>
    >>>me <> wrote:
    >>>>On Fri, 03 Jan 2014 20:28:48 -0500, PeterN
    >>>><> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>I have ny recently started using auto ISO. While I think I understand
    >>>>>the basic theory, I still have to understand how it works in the real
    >>>>>world.
    >>>>
    >>>>Just remember the autoiso programming loop is running inside the
    >>>>exposure programming loop.
    >>>
    >>>And the way to get it out is with Manual Exposure mode.

    >>
    >>Actually, no. You are still running under the constraints imposed by
    >>the exposure program.

    >
    > Not at all.
    >
    >>In this case it is manual. If this were not the
    >>case then iso wouldn't float up until it's max allowable setting as
    >>the available light changes.

    >
    > ISO has nothing to do with exposure.


    Well, it does have to do with correct exposure.

    > Exposure is how much light falls on the sensor, and determines how much
    > signal is produced.
    >
    > ISO is how sensitive the "sensor module" is to light, which is
    > to say how much the signal produced is amplified.


    And the signal, when using auto iso, is amplified to a point the exposure
    program determines is the correct exposure

    > Two very different things.


    But the value of one leads directly to the value of the other, for all
    values of correct exposure. Incorrect exposure, neither make a blind bit of
    difference to the other.

    --
    sid
     
    sid, Jan 4, 2014
    #97
  18. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    On 1/4/2014 3:04 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > me <> wrote:
    >> On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 10:39:43 -0900, (Floyd L.
    >> Davidson) wrote:
    >>
    >>> me <> wrote:
    >>>> On Fri, 03 Jan 2014 20:28:48 -0500, PeterN
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> I have ny recently started using auto ISO. While I think I understand
    >>>>> the basic theory, I still have to understand how it works in the real world.
    >>>>
    >>>> Just remember the autoiso programming loop is running inside the
    >>>> exposure programming loop.
    >>>
    >>> And the way to get it out is with Manual Exposure mode.

    >>
    >> Actually, no. You are still running under the constraints imposed by
    >> the exposure program.

    >
    > Not at all.
    >
    >> In this case it is manual. If this were not the
    >> case then iso wouldn't float up until it's max allowable setting as
    >> the available light changes.

    >
    > ISO has nothing to do with exposure.
    >
    > Exposure is how much light falls on the sensor, and determines how much
    > signal is produced.
    >
    > ISO is how sensitive the "sensor module" is to light, which is
    > to say how much the signal produced is amplified.
    >
    > Two very different things.
    >


    I am thanking both of you for you helpful advice.


    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Jan 4, 2014
    #98
  19. sid <> wrote:
    >Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    >
    >> me <> wrote:
    >>>On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 10:39:43 -0900, (Floyd L.
    >>>Davidson) wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>me <> wrote:
    >>>>>On Fri, 03 Jan 2014 20:28:48 -0500, PeterN
    >>>>><> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>I have ny recently started using auto ISO. While I think I understand
    >>>>>>the basic theory, I still have to understand how it works in the real
    >>>>>>world.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Just remember the autoiso programming loop is running inside the
    >>>>>exposure programming loop.
    >>>>
    >>>>And the way to get it out is with Manual Exposure mode.
    >>>
    >>>Actually, no. You are still running under the constraints imposed by
    >>>the exposure program.

    >>
    >> Not at all.
    >>
    >>>In this case it is manual. If this were not the
    >>>case then iso wouldn't float up until it's max allowable setting as
    >>>the available light changes.

    >>
    >> ISO has nothing to do with exposure.

    >
    >Well, it does have to do with correct exposure.


    There is an indirect relationship, but ISO does not directly
    affect exposure. It directly changes the brightness of the
    recorded data, not how much light hits the sensor. There is a
    technical difference.

    However, most people aren't into techie distinctions, and see
    "exposure" as a triangle with aperture, shutter speed, and ISO
    as the three corners. For most purposes that works, even if it
    isn't correct.

    >> Exposure is how much light falls on the sensor, and determines how much
    >> signal is produced.
    >>
    >> ISO is how sensitive the "sensor module" is to light, which is
    >> to say how much the signal produced is amplified.

    >
    >And the signal, when using auto iso, is amplified to a point the exposure
    >program determines is the correct exposure


    You're missing the point though. The problem was that when Auto
    Exposure and Auto ISO are used there are two feedback loops, and
    the stated purpose of using Manual Exposure was to get out of
    that situation by disabling one of the two loops.

    >> Two very different things.

    >
    >But the value of one leads directly to the value of the other, for all
    >values of correct exposure. Incorrect exposure, neither make a blind bit of
    >difference to the other.


    And the way it is done is entirely different. With Manual
    Exposure set, you manually set exposure! That can be done for
    artistic effect, or for technical reasons, but it is done
    manually. What Auto ISO does is only set how bright the
    recorded data is. That makes it a fairly simple (once a person
    gets a handle on the technical specifics) operation that
    requires less time and effort in the field to keep track of than
    using fully automatic exposure as well as fully automatic ISO.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jan 4, 2014
    #99
  20. PeterN

    me Guest

    On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 11:04:13 -0900, (Floyd L.
    Davidson) wrote:


    >
    >ISO has nothing to do with exposure.


    I didn't say exposure. I said the exposure program within the camera.
     
    me, Jan 4, 2014
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Similar Threads
  1. Ed Ruf

    Blue Bird of Happiness

    Ed Ruf, Mar 13, 2005, in forum: Digital SLR
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    644
    Ed Ruf
    Mar 15, 2005
  2. Gaderian

    Name that Bird

    Gaderian, Jun 18, 2005, in forum: Digital SLR
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    432
    Gaderian
    Jun 19, 2005
  3. nick c

    Bird People

    nick c, Aug 1, 2005, in forum: Digital SLR
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    982
  4. Robert R Kircher, Jr.

    A Bird in the Hand

    Robert R Kircher, Jr., Oct 24, 2005, in forum: Digital SLR
    Replies:
    47
    Views:
    1,281
    Harry
    Oct 27, 2005
  5. jimkramer

    [pics] Florida trip, Cara Cara Bird and more

    jimkramer, Jun 2, 2004, in forum: 35mm Cameras
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    741
    jimkramer
    Jun 7, 2004
  6. TAFKAB

    Yet Another Bird Photo

    TAFKAB, Nov 26, 2004, in forum: 35mm Cameras
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    358
    Annika1980
    Nov 27, 2004
  7. Mike Henley

    Crazy little bird

    Mike Henley, Jun 27, 2006, in forum: 35mm Cameras
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    367
  8. PeterN

    Not a bird

    PeterN, Jan 1, 2014, in forum: Digital Cameras
    Replies:
    139
    Views:
    1,040
    PeterN
    Jan 7, 2014
Loading...