Not a bird

On 2014-01-04, Floyd L. Davidson <> wrote:
> 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?

Seldom anywhere else.

> 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.

,----<http://www.hcc.commnet.edu/artmuseum/anseladams/details/moonrise.html>
| F. Technical Aspects
|
| Camera: 8 X 10 view camera
| Lens: Cooke triple convertible lens.
| Light meter: lost!
| Film: Speed: ASA 64
| Filter: Wratten No. 15 (G) filter
| Exposure: 1 second at f/32.
| Development: dilute D-23 and ten developer to water sequences.
| Years later - refixed, washed the negative, and treated the lower
| section with a dilute solution of Kodak IN-5 intensifier.
`----

A Wratten No. 15 filter is 'deep yellow' and would normally call for
an extra 1.5 or 2 'stops' exposure to take advantage of its 'darken the
sky' effect while leaving landscape relatively normally exposed (all
other things being equal).

An exposure of 1 second at f/32 ('EV 10') on ASA 64 emulsion should put
the face of the moon into Adam's 'zone 8' or 'zone 9' (not quite
'maximum density' in the negative); the deep yellow filter might make
the moon slightly darker - as Mr Adams later said, he thought the moon
would be in 'zone 7' (see below).

The landscape will of course be a darker, and not very different from
the sky.

I don't think that would be "underexposed" for a dark scene which he
wanted to show as a dark image. The difficulty in printing is down to
the tricky subject, not to faulty camera technique. Mr Adams had enough
experience to be confident that he'd get a usable negative even though
he estimated the exposure (based on his knowledge of the brightness of
the moon, which is of course in full sunlight) without using his
exposure meter. He even described his choice of exposure in terms of
his usual "Weston" exposure meter's dial, in at least one description of
the occasion.

,----<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moonrise,_Hernandez,_New_Mexico&oldid=585518771>
|
| The making of Moonrise has attracted unusually strong interest. In 1941,
| Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes hired Adams for six months to
| create photographs of lands under the jurisdiction of the Department of
| the Interior. Adams was accompanied by his young son Michael and his
| best friend Cedric Wright on a long road trip around the west. They came
| upon the scene while traveling through the Chama River valley toward
| Española in late afternoon on November 1; accounts of what transpired
| differ considerably.
|
| The image appeared in U.S. Camera Annual 1943, and Adams gave this
| account:[7]
| It was made after sundown, there was a twilight glow on the distant
| peaks and clouds. The average light values of the foreground were placed
| on the "U" of the Weston Master meter; apparently the values of the moon
| and distant peaks did not lie higher than the "A" of the meter. . . .
| Some may consider this photograph a "tour de force" but I think of it as
| a rather normal photograph of a typical New Mexican landscape. Twilight
| photography is unfortunately neglected; what may be drab and
| uninteresting by daylight may assume a magnificent quality in the
| halflight between sunset and dark.
|
| Later accounts were considerably more dramatic. According to Mary
| Alinder, they encountered a "fantastic scene", a church and cemetery
| near Hernandez, New Mexico, and pulled to the side of the road. Adams
| recalled that he yelled at his son Michael and at Wright to "Get this!
| Get that, for God's sake! We don't have much time!"[8] Desperate to
| capture the image in the fading light, they scrambled to set up the
| tripod and camera, knowing that only moments remained before the light
| was gone.
|
| Adams gave a similar account in Examples[9]
| I could not find my Weston exposure meter! The situation was desperate:
| the low sun was trailing the edge of clouds in the west, and shadow
| would soon dim the white crosses. . . . I suddenly realized that I knew
| the luminance of the moon—250 cd/ft2. Using the Exposure Formula, I
| placed this value on Zone VII. . . . Realizing as I released the shutter
| that I had an unusual photograph which deserved a duplicate negative, I
| quickly reversed the film holder, but as I pulled the darkslide, the
| sunlight passed from the white crosses; I was a few seconds too late!
| The lone negative suddenly became precious.
`----

,----<http://www.hcc.commnet.edu/artmuseum/anseladams/details/moonrise.html>
| E. Once the photograph is taken, is the development and printing a
| mechanical process?
| No, it is not mechanical. Although there is a procedure, there is much
| judgment involved on the part of the artist. Ansel said that the
| negative for Moonrise was difficult to print. He tried many methods
| using different chemicals and times and papers. With the negative in the
| enlarger, he increased the light hitting certain areas (burning-in)
| which made the sky blacker and the clouds less bright so the moon would
| stand out more. With all these artistic adjustments, Adams said "it is
| safe to say that no two prints are precisely the same."
`----

Not unusual to try different enlarging and printing techniques for a
"difficult" negative, particularly one so lucrative.

He had a track record of getting great images at short notice as
unplanned opportunities arose. He was very good at choosing exposure
values and processing techniques.

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

Well it added to the lustre of the fame that had been growing for 20
years, and probably brought his work to the attention of more people.

> 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.

You'll notice that Mr Adams had time to stop the car, set up his tripod
and 8"x10" field camera and lens, and frame and focus the shot manually,
before inserting the dark-slide with the film. PeterN is sitting or
standing in a boat or on land, with a digital SLR in his hands ready to
shoot. That gives him a huge time advantage over Mr Adams with /his/
kit. His camera even has an exposure meter built in (albeit not
conveniently for taking manual incident-light readings).

,----<http://www.hcc.commnet.edu/artmuseum/anseladams/details/moonrise.html>
| B. How did chance lead him to take this photograph?
| Ansel Adams was returning to Santa Fe, New Mexico after a discouraging
| day of photography. From the highway he glanced left and "saw an
| extraordinary situation - an inevitable photograph! I almost ditched the
| car and rushed to set up my 8 X 10" camera. I was yelling to my
| companions to bring me things from the car…I had a clear visualization
| of the image I wanted but…I could not find my exposure meter! The
| situation was desperate: the low sun was trailing the edge of clouds in
| the west, and shadow would soon dim the white crosses." He felt at a
| loss to guess the correct exposure, but suddenly realized he knew the
| luminance of the moon and quickly took the shot.
`----

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

Sometimes. For certain values of "high end".

>>> 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!

If the exposure is set manually, the camera knows nothing about
'exposure compensation'; the only purpose for an 'exposure compensation'
is to over-ride an automatic exposure system.

>>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.

Did I say that? I said that for a subject an automatic system can't
handle, manual is the best approach. PeterN is clearly relying on
automation, and getting into difficulties as a result.

Yes, I'm biased; I learnt to take photographs before anything was
automated. I still believe that knowing how to do things manually is
going to help you to understand what an automatic system is trying to
do, and what it can't do. I also like to think that *I* am taking the
photograph, not the camera. You are of course free to disagree.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

 

me <> wrote:
>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.

Which controls exposure. Auto ISO doesn't.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

 

On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 22:52:11 +0000, Whiskers
<> wrote:

>You'll notice that Mr Adams had time to stop the car, set up his tripod
>and 8"x10" field camera and lens, and frame and focus the shot manually,
>before inserting the dark-slide with the film. PeterN is sitting or
>standing in a boat or on land, with a digital SLR in his hands ready to
>shoot. That gives him a huge time advantage over Mr Adams with /his/
>kit. His camera even has an exposure meter built in (albeit not
>conveniently for taking manual incident-light readings).

No doubt Adams was gratified that the moon didn't flit around the way
that birds tend to do. For probably quite different reasons, so too am
I.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

 

On 2014-01-04 23:57:51 +0000, Eric Stevens <> said:

> On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 22:52:11 +0000, Whiskers
> <> wrote:
>
>> You'll notice that Mr Adams had time to stop the car, set up his tripod
>> and 8"x10" field camera and lens, and frame and focus the shot manually,
>> before inserting the dark-slide with the film. PeterN is sitting or
>> standing in a boat or on land, with a digital SLR in his hands ready to
>> shoot. That gives him a huge time advantage over Mr Adams with /his/
>> kit. His camera even has an exposure meter built in (albeit not
>> conveniently for taking manual incident-light readings).
>
> No doubt Adams was gratified that the moon didn't flit around the way
> that birds tend to do. For probably quite different reasons, so too am
> I.

Yup! Tracking a bird with that 8''x10'' would have been a bitch, and
would have given the old guy quite a workout.
<
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/Shared Images/Adams/Photo Oct 01, 9 11 03 AM.png
>

....and sometimes folks forget that he shot in B&W & color.
<
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/Shared Images/Adams/Photo Apr 12, 6 29 54 PM.png
>

--
Regards,

Savageduck

 

On 1/4/2014 5:52 PM, Whiskers wrote:
> On 2014-01-04, Floyd L. Davidson <> wrote:
>> 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?
>
> Seldom anywhere else.
>
>> 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.
>
> ,----<http://www.hcc.commnet.edu/artmuseum/anseladams/details/moonrise.html>
> | F. Technical Aspects
> |
> | Camera: 8 X 10 view camera
> | Lens: Cooke triple convertible lens.
> | Light meter: lost!
> | Film: Speed: ASA 64
> | Filter: Wratten No. 15 (G) filter
> | Exposure: 1 second at f/32.
> | Development: dilute D-23 and ten developer to water sequences.
> | Years later - refixed, washed the negative, and treated the lower
> | section with a dilute solution of Kodak IN-5 intensifier.
> `----
>
> A Wratten No. 15 filter is 'deep yellow' and would normally call for
> an extra 1.5 or 2 'stops' exposure to take advantage of its 'darken the
> sky' effect while leaving landscape relatively normally exposed (all
> other things being equal).
>
> An exposure of 1 second at f/32 ('EV 10') on ASA 64 emulsion should put
> the face of the moon into Adam's 'zone 8' or 'zone 9' (not quite
> 'maximum density' in the negative); the deep yellow filter might make
> the moon slightly darker - as Mr Adams later said, he thought the moon
> would be in 'zone 7' (see below).
>
> The landscape will of course be a darker, and not very different from
> the sky.
>
> I don't think that would be "underexposed" for a dark scene which he
> wanted to show as a dark image. The difficulty in printing is down to
> the tricky subject, not to faulty camera technique. Mr Adams had enough
> experience to be confident that he'd get a usable negative even though
> he estimated the exposure (based on his knowledge of the brightness of
> the moon, which is of course in full sunlight) without using his
> exposure meter. He even described his choice of exposure in terms of
> his usual "Weston" exposure meter's dial, in at least one description of
> the occasion.
>
> ,----<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moonrise,_Hernandez,_New_Mexico&oldid=585518771>
> |
> | The making of Moonrise has attracted unusually strong interest. In 1941,
> | Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes hired Adams for six months to
> | create photographs of lands under the jurisdiction of the Department of
> | the Interior. Adams was accompanied by his young son Michael and his
> | best friend Cedric Wright on a long road trip around the west. They came
> | upon the scene while traveling through the Chama River valley toward
> | Española in late afternoon on November 1; accounts of what transpired
> | differ considerably.
> |
> | The image appeared in U.S. Camera Annual 1943, and Adams gave this
> | account:[7]
> | It was made after sundown, there was a twilight glow on the distant
> | peaks and clouds. The average light values of the foreground were placed
> | on the "U" of the Weston Master meter; apparently the values of the moon
> | and distant peaks did not lie higher than the "A" of the meter. . . .
> | Some may consider this photograph a "tour de force" but I think of it as
> | a rather normal photograph of a typical New Mexican landscape. Twilight
> | photography is unfortunately neglected; what may be drab and
> | uninteresting by daylight may assume a magnificent quality in the
> | halflight between sunset and dark.
> |
> | Later accounts were considerably more dramatic. According to Mary
> | Alinder, they encountered a "fantastic scene", a church and cemetery
> | near Hernandez, New Mexico, and pulled to the side of the road. Adams
> | recalled that he yelled at his son Michael and at Wright to "Get this!
> | Get that, for God's sake! We don't have much time!"[8] Desperate to
> | capture the image in the fading light, they scrambled to set up the
> | tripod and camera, knowing that only moments remained before the light
> | was gone.
> |
> | Adams gave a similar account in Examples[9]
> | I could not find my Weston exposure meter! The situation was desperate:
> | the low sun was trailing the edge of clouds in the west, and shadow
> | would soon dim the white crosses. . . . I suddenly realized that I knew
> | the luminance of the moon—250 cd/ft2. Using the Exposure Formula, I
> | placed this value on Zone VII. . . . Realizing as I released the shutter
> | that I had an unusual photograph which deserved a duplicate negative, I
> | quickly reversed the film holder, but as I pulled the darkslide, the
> | sunlight passed from the white crosses; I was a few seconds too late!
> | The lone negative suddenly became precious.
> `----
>
> ,----<http://www.hcc.commnet.edu/artmuseum/anseladams/details/moonrise.html>
> | E. Once the photograph is taken, is the development and printing a
> | mechanical process?
> | No, it is not mechanical. Although there is a procedure, there is much
> | judgment involved on the part of the artist. Ansel said that the
> | negative for Moonrise was difficult to print. He tried many methods
> | using different chemicals and times and papers. With the negative in the
> | enlarger, he increased the light hitting certain areas (burning-in)
> | which made the sky blacker and the clouds less bright so the moon would
> | stand out more. With all these artistic adjustments, Adams said "it is
> | safe to say that no two prints are precisely the same."
> `----
>
> Not unusual to try different enlarging and printing techniques for a
> "difficult" negative, particularly one so lucrative.
>
> He had a track record of getting great images at short notice as
> unplanned opportunities arose. He was very good at choosing exposure
> values and processing techniques.
>
>> The photograph was "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico". It made
>> Ansel Adams famous.
>
> Well it added to the lustre of the fame that had been growing for 20
> years, and probably brought his work to the attention of more people.
>
>> 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.
>
> You'll notice that Mr Adams had time to stop the car, set up his tripod
> and 8"x10" field camera and lens, and frame and focus the shot manually,
> before inserting the dark-slide with the film. PeterN is sitting or
> standing in a boat or on land, with a digital SLR in his hands ready to
> shoot. That gives him a huge time advantage over Mr Adams with /his/
> kit. His camera even has an exposure meter built in (albeit not
> conveniently for taking manual incident-light readings).
>
> ,----<http://www.hcc.commnet.edu/artmuseum/anseladams/details/moonrise.html>
> | B. How did chance lead him to take this photograph?
> | Ansel Adams was returning to Santa Fe, New Mexico after a discouraging
> | day of photography. From the highway he glanced left and "saw an
> | extraordinary situation - an inevitable photograph! I almost ditched the
> | car and rushed to set up my 8 X 10" camera. I was yelling to my
> | companions to bring me things from the car…I had a clear visualization
> | of the image I wanted but…I could not find my exposure meter! The
> | situation was desperate: the low sun was trailing the edge of clouds in
> | the west, and shadow would soon dim the white crosses." He felt at a
> | loss to guess the correct exposure, but suddenly realized he knew the
> | luminance of the moon and quickly took the shot.
> `----
>
>> Auto ISO or Auto Exposure modes are extremely useful for high
>> end photography.
>
> Sometimes. For certain values of "high end".
>
>>>> 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!
>
> If the exposure is set manually, the camera knows nothing about
> 'exposure compensation'; the only purpose for an 'exposure compensation'
> is to over-ride an automatic exposure system.
>
>>> 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.
>
> Did I say that? I said that for a subject an automatic system can't
> handle, manual is the best approach. PeterN is clearly relying on
> automation, and getting into difficulties as a result.
>

Not completely true. When there is time, I meter and chimp. In my film
days I eyeballed the exposure, and wa fairly accurate.
I use autofocus only for critters in motion.

> Yes, I'm biased; I learnt to take photographs before anything was
> automated. I still believe that knowing how to do things manually is
> going to help you to understand what an automatic system is trying to
> do, and what it can't do. I also like to think that *I* am taking the
> photograph, not the camera. You are of course free to disagree.
>


--
PeterN

 

In article <>, says...
>
> 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.

So if you use the same settings for Panatomic X and Tri-X both will be
properly exposed?

Try again.

 

"J. Clarke" <> wrote:
>In article <>, says...
>>
>> 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.
>
>So if you use the same settings for Panatomic X and Tri-X both will be
>properly exposed?
>
>Try again.

Not exactly astute, son.

The amount of exposure necessary to be "properly exposed" is
different. But to change that exposure doesn't mean changing
films, it means just exactly that: change the exposure (aperture
or shutter speed).

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

 

Whiskers <> wrote:
>On 2014-01-04, Floyd L. Davidson <> wrote:
>> 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.

Why did you have to post all this obfuscation? Why didn't
you just say, "Yeah, good example, and it does change too fast
to monitor or predict that closely!"

....

>| near Hernandez, New Mexico, and pulled to the side of the road. Adams
>| recalled that he yelled at his son Michael and at Wright to "Get this!
>| Get that, for God's sake! We don't have much time!"[8] Desperate to
>| capture the image in the fading light, they scrambled to set up the
>| tripod and camera, knowing that only moments remained before the light
>| was gone.

So much for you trying to contradict the above conclusion...

>| ... Realizing as I released the shutter
>| that I had an unusual photograph which deserved a duplicate negative, I
>| quickly reversed the film holder, but as I pulled the darkslide, the
>| sunlight passed from the white crosses; I was a few seconds too late!

So much for you trying to contradict the above conclusion...

>> The photograph was "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico". It made
>> Ansel Adams famous.
>
>Well it added to the lustre of the fame that had been growing for 20
>years, and probably brought his work to the attention of more people.

Moonrise was the photograph that made him famous. Period.
Before that he was never sure of making enough money to pay the
bills, after that he never had need to worry.

>You'll notice that Mr Adams had time to stop the car, set up his tripod
>and 8"x10" field camera and lens, and frame and focus the shot manually,
>before inserting the dark-slide with the film.

That doesn't address the question at hand, which is whether
light can change rapidly. Clearly it does and often enough that
things such simple as flipping over the negative carrier takes too
long. One second the light was right, and then it isn't.

>PeterN is sitting or
>standing in a boat or on land, with a digital SLR in his hands ready to
>shoot. That gives him a huge time advantage over Mr Adams with /his/
>kit. His camera even has an exposure meter built in (albeit not
>conveniently for taking manual incident-light readings).

But the advantage of a DSLR is that it can automate exposure,
focus, and ISO more accurately and quicker than can be done
manually.

>> Auto ISO or Auto Exposure modes are extremely useful for high
>> end photography.
>
>Sometimes. For certain values of "high end".

Apparently a type you don't do? Or at least haven't enough
experience at to know what matters as opposed to what doesn't.

>> 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!
>
>If the exposure is set manually, the camera knows nothing about
>'exposure compensation'; the only purpose for an 'exposure compensation'
>is to over-ride an automatic exposure system.

Exposure compensation is nothing more and nothing less than
calibration of the light meter. It does not override anything.
And the light meter is used for manually setting exposure just
as it is for automatically setting exposure.

>>>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.
>
>Did I say that? I said that for a subject an automatic system can't
>handle, manual is the best approach. PeterN is clearly relying on
>automation, and getting into difficulties as a result.

That is almost exactly what you have said, and it isn't correct.
You said that it only works for "average subjects", which is
also to say that for others it does not work. That's not true.

It doesn't really have much to do with the subject, it has to do
with the light!

>Yes, I'm biased; I learnt to take photographs before anything was
>automated.

And haven't been able to learn anything since? That's a shame,
there have been many changes that are well worth learning.

>I still believe that knowing how to do things manually is
>going to help you to understand what an automatic system is trying to
>do, and what it can't do.

It should help, but given what you've said it is clearly not
necessarily going to be enough.

>I also like to think that *I* am taking the
>photograph, not the camera. You are of course free to disagree.

'You don't take a photograph, you make it.'
Ansel Adams

Of course one has to understand how it works to make a
photograph...

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

 

In article <>, says...
>
> "J. Clarke" <> wrote:
> >In article <>, says...
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> >So if you use the same settings for Panatomic X and Tri-X both will be
> >properly exposed?
> >
> >Try again.
>
> Not exactly astute, son.
>
> The amount of exposure necessary to be "properly exposed" is
> different. But to change that exposure doesn't mean changing
> films, it means just exactly that: change the exposure (aperture
> or shutter speed).

But the exposure is only correct for the film being used. I don't know
why you've got this need to argue over minutiae of nomenclature.

 

On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 19:10:23 -0900, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

>That doesn't address the question at hand, which is whether
>light can change rapidly. Clearly it does and often enough that
>things such simple as flipping over the negative carrier takes too
>long. One second the light was right, and then it isn't.

I wonder if you don't notice light changing quicker than we do
considering where you live.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL

 

On 2014-01-05 04:10:23 +0000, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:

> Whiskers <> wrote:
>> On 2014-01-04, Floyd L. Davidson <> wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> Why did you have to post all this obfuscation? Why didn't
> you just say, "Yeah, good example, and it does change too fast
> to monitor or predict that closely!"
>
> ...
>
>> | near Hernandez, New Mexico, and pulled to the side of the road. Adams
>> | recalled that he yelled at his son Michael and at Wright to "Get this!
>> | Get that, for God's sake! We don't have much time!"[8] Desperate to
>> | capture the image in the fading light, they scrambled to set up the
>> | tripod and camera, knowing that only moments remained before the light
>> | was gone.
>
> So much for you trying to contradict the above conclusion...
>
>> | ... Realizing as I released the shutter
>> | that I had an unusual photograph which deserved a duplicate negative, I
>> | quickly reversed the film holder, but as I pulled the darkslide, the
>> | sunlight passed from the white crosses; I was a few seconds too late!
>
> So much for you trying to contradict the above conclusion...
>
>>> The photograph was "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico". It made
>>> Ansel Adams famous.
>>
>> Well it added to the lustre of the fame that had been growing for 20
>> years, and probably brought his work to the attention of more people.
>
> Moonrise was the photograph that made him famous. Period.
> Before that he was never sure of making enough money to pay the
> bills, after that he never had need to worry.

"Moonrise" was shot in 1941. It is undeniable that it was one of his
most popular and famous photographs, but it didn't make him "famous",
he was "famous" long before that shot saw light in his darkroom. It was
only published in 1943, and first shown in a gallery in 1944. As a
member of Group f/64 in 1932 he was among a group of "famous"
photographers twelve years before "Moonrise" was seen by the public.

He had his own gallery in 1933 and was participating in museum &
gallery exhibits all through the 1930's. He published has first
instructional book in 1935. He was instrumental in having his imagery
used by the Sierra Club to aid the National Park cause, and he
testified before Congress in 1940 to assist in having Sequoia & Kings
Canyon designated National Parks. That was a year before he shot
"Moonrise".

He held contracts with Eastman Kodak and a few other entities including
the Department of The Interior. Not bad for a guy who only became
"famous" in 1943 after slaving away since the early 1920's.

Here is a little of what he had to say about his involvement with
Eastman Kodak as a yet to be "famous" photographer being used for some
exclusive color work for them:

Excerpt From: Adams, Ansel. “Ansel Adams In Color.

“High Ho!! Believe it or not the Eastman Kulak (I mean Kodak) Co. are
paying me $250.00 per shot for at least three 8×10 Kodachromes of
Waterfalls mit Rainbows! (No discount if there ain’t no rainboo!) Some
new experimental film. HUshhhhhhhhhh. So, next week I go off to that
hole in the ground Yosemite and click some shutters.â€

“Got some magnificent 8×10 Kodachromes for the Eastman Kodak
Company—they took five! Waterfalls with Rainbows, Big Trees, etc.
Really quite pleased! Got $250.00 each, plus fifty sheets of 8×10 film,
plus having my lens opticoated for nuttings! Now have enough cash to
buy film for Guggenheim (Stipend will barely cover travel expenses....)â€

“This is a combined functional trip, as follows:
A. Kodachromes for Standard Oil
B. Kodachromes and Ektachromes for Eastman Kodak Company
C. Black and whites for FORTUNE
D. A sniff at some Guggenheim material
E. A vacation for Virginia and Mike
My schedule is as follows:
Yellowstone National Park Sept. 27–8 Wyoming
Glacier National Park Sept. 29–Oct. 6 Montana
....This tour should net enough cash to carry me for quite a while. Two
jobs for Eastman have netted more than entire Guggenheim stipend. But
find I can’t combine creative and commercial work.
From a letter to Beaumont and Nancy Newhall from St. George, Utahâ€






--
Regards,

Savageduck

 

Tony Cooper <> wrote:
>On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 19:10:23 -0900, (Floyd L.
>Davidson) wrote:
>
>>That doesn't address the question at hand, which is whether
>>light can change rapidly. Clearly it does and often enough that
>>things such simple as flipping over the negative carrier takes too
>>long. One second the light was right, and then it isn't.
>
>I wonder if you don't notice light changing quicker than we do
>considering where you live.

Well, since it hasn't changed much here for a over a month now,
probably not! The sun comes up again in three weeks though.

Highly directional light tends to change every time the camera
is pointed in a different direction.

Obviously other causes exist too, such as the setting or rising
of the sun, movement of clouds, and so on.

Incidentally, at the eqinox we get the same rate of change
between daylight and darkness that everyone else does, but at
other times our transitions take much longer and provide very
*slow* changes.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

 

"J. Clarke" <> wrote:
>In article <>, says...
>>
>> "J. Clarke" <> wrote:
>> >In article <>, says...
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> >So if you use the same settings for Panatomic X and Tri-X both will be
>> >properly exposed?
>> >
>> >Try again.
>>
>> Not exactly astute, son.
>>
>> The amount of exposure necessary to be "properly exposed" is
>> different. But to change that exposure doesn't mean changing
>> films, it means just exactly that: change the exposure (aperture
>> or shutter speed).
>
>But the exposure is only correct for the film being used. I don't know
>why you've got this need to argue over minutiae of nomenclature.

Because *it* *is* *signficant*. That is true whether you
understand it or not.

The exposure need not be correct for this film and/or that one.
You *can't* *change* *exposure* by switching film! Only by
changing the amount of light that hits the film is the exposure
changed.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

 

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>On 2014-01-05 04:10:23 +0000, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:
>> Moonrise was the photograph that made him famous. Period.
>> Before that he was never sure of making enough money to pay the
>> bills, after that he never had need to worry.
>
>"Moonrise" was shot in 1941. It is undeniable that it was one of his
>most popular and famous photographs, but it didn't make him "famous",
>he was "famous" long before that shot saw light in his darkroom. It was
>only published in 1943, and first shown in a gallery in 1944. As a
>member of Group f/64 in 1932 he was among a group of "famous"
>photographers twelve years before "Moonrise" was seen by the public.

Moonrise was the image that made his name a household word. It was
by a considerable degree his most popular image.

Prior to that he was a "successful" commercial photographer,
not a well known artist.

>He had his own gallery in 1933 and was participating in museum &
>gallery exhibits all through the 1930's. He published has first
>instructional book in 1935. He was instrumental in having his imagery
>used by the Sierra Club to aid the National Park cause, and he
>testified before Congress in 1940 to assist in having Sequoia & Kings
>Canyon designated National Parks. That was a year before he shot
>"Moonrise".
>
>He held contracts with Eastman Kodak and a few other entities including
>the Department of The Interior. Not bad for a guy who only became
>"famous" in 1943 after slaving away since the early 1920's.

He was a working commercial photographer, not the household name
and celebrity that he became later in life.

>Here is a little of what he had to say about his involvement with
>Eastman Kodak as a yet to be "famous" photographer being used for some
>exclusive color work for them:
>
>Excerpt From: Adams, Ansel. âEURoeAnsel Adams In Color.
>
>âEURoeHigh Ho!! Believe it or not the Eastman Kulak (I mean Kodak) Co. are
>paying me $250.00 per shot for at least three 8Ã---10 Kodachromes of
>Waterfalls mit Rainbows! (No discount if there ainâEUR(Tm)t no rainboo!) Some
>new experimental film. HUshhhhhhhhhh. So, next week I go off to that
>hole in the ground Yosemite and click some shutters.âEUR

You seem to be confused, as this was *after* Moonrise was taken
and had been published. It appears to be quoted from a letter
he wrote in 1946 to Beaumont and Nancy Newhall.

>âEURoeGot some magnificent 8Ã---10 Kodachromes for the Eastman Kodak
>CompanyâEUR"they took five! Waterfalls with Rainbows, Big Trees, etc.
>Really quite pleased! Got $250.00 each, plus fifty sheets of 8Ã---10 film,
>plus having my lens opticoated for nuttings! Now have enough cash to
>buy film for Guggenheim (Stipend will barely cover travel expenses....)âEUR

This is a quote from an even later letter in 1946, to David McAlpin.

>âEURoeThis is a combined functional trip, as follows:
>A. Kodachromes for Standard Oil
>B. Kodachromes and Ektachromes for Eastman Kodak Company
>C. Black and whites for FORTUNE
>D. A sniff at some Guggenheim material
>E. A vacation for Virginia and Mike
>My schedule is as follows:
>Yellowstone National Park Sept. 27âEUR"8 Wyoming
>Glacier National Park Sept. 29âEUR"Oct. 6 Montana
>...This tour should net enough cash to carry me for quite a while. Two
>jobs for Eastman have netted more than entire Guggenheim stipend. But
>find I canâEUR(Tm)t combine creative and commercial work.
>From a letter to Beaumont and Nancy Newhall from St. George, UtahâEUR

So you did get one attribution correct, but clipped the fact
that it was written even later than the others.

These are all right at the point where the effects of Moonrise
were being felt! In "Ansel Adams: A Biography" by Mary Street
Alinde he was described thus, "always near desperation for
money", in late 1940.

Even into the 1960's a print by Adams would only sell for as
much as $100. In the early 1970's that went up to $500 and only
in the late 70's did his work start bringing in truly high
prices.

Most of the Moonrise prints (roughly totalling 1200) were made
in the 1970's and it wasn't really until then that Adams became
able to give up commercial photograph for his art.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

 

On 2014-01-05 07:06:00 +0000, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:

> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>> On 2014-01-05 04:10:23 +0000, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:
>>> Moonrise was the photograph that made him famous. Period.
>>> Before that he was never sure of making enough money to pay the
>>> bills, after that he never had need to worry.
>>
>> "Moonrise" was shot in 1941. It is undeniable that it was one of his
>> most popular and famous photographs, but it didn't make him "famous",
>> he was "famous" long before that shot saw light in his darkroom. It was
>> only published in 1943, and first shown in a gallery in 1944. As a
>> member of Group f/64 in 1932 he was among a group of "famous"
>> photographers twelve years before "Moonrise" was seen by the public.
>
> Moonrise was the image that made his name a household word. It was
> by a considerable degree his most popular image.

I am sure you remember this snapshot from 1937.
< https://db.tt/ypvVl2pG >


> Prior to that he was a "successful" commercial photographer,
> not a well known artist.

....and yet his work with Group f/64 is considered art. That was what
Stieglitz and some of the other photographers of the 30's&30's thought.

He was certainly working on a project for the Department of the
Interior when he shot "Moonrise" in 1941, and had to show that he was
not on tje Government's dime when he tripped the shutter. otherwise he
would not have owned the image, the Gonernment would have. That was
what happened with this 1942 shot.
< https://db.tt/wXj8Bag2 >

Anyway, here he is about to hit the road for that trip to the South
West, and the appointment with that "Moonrise".
< https://db.tt/inqrcgLp >

>
>> He had his own gallery in 1933 and was participating in museum &
>> gallery exhibits all through the 1930's. He published has first
>> instructional book in 1935. He was instrumental in having his imagery
>> used by the Sierra Club to aid the National Park cause, and he
>> testified before Congress in 1940 to assist in having Sequoia & Kings
>> Canyon designated National Parks. That was a year before he shot
>> "Moonrise".
>>
>> He held contracts with Eastman Kodak and a few other entities including
>> the Department of The Interior. Not bad for a guy who only became
>> "famous" in 1943 after slaving away since the early 1920's.
>
> He was a working commercial photographer, not the household name
> and celebrity that he became later in life.

Hmmm... he certainly had to do some commercial work so he wouldn't be a
starving artist. However, through the 1930's he published several
books, gave instructional lectures, and gallery exhibits, along with
work for the Sierra Club/ I refer you to the above shot:
< https://db.tt/ypvVl2pG >
and these:
< https://db.tt/EjFq2HIj >
< https://db.tt/rjc6fALq >
< https://db.tt/Y62eqOUo >

>
>> Here is a little of what he had to say about his involvement with
>> Eastman Kodak as a yet to be "famous" photographer being used for some
>> exclusive color work for them:
>>
>> Excerpt From: Adams, Ansel. âEURoeAnsel Adams In Color.
>>
>> âEURoeHigh Ho!! Believe it or not the Eastman Kulak (I mean Kodak) Co. are
>> paying me $250.00 per shot for at least three 8Ã---10 Kodachromes of
>> Waterfalls mit Rainbows! (No discount if there ainâEUR(Tm)t no rainboo!) Some
>> new experimental film. HUshhhhhhhhhh. So, next week I go off to that
>> hole in the ground Yosemite and click some shutters.âEURÂ
>
> You seem to be confused, as this was *after* Moonrise was taken
> and had been published. It appears to be quoted from a letter
> he wrote in 1946 to Beaumont and Nancy Newhall.

Yes. Here is one of those $250 rainbow shots for Kodak.
< https://db.tt/tIWskYV4 >


>> âEURoeGot some magnificent 8Ã---10 Kodachromes for the Eastman Kodak
>> CompanyâEUR"they took five! Waterfalls with Rainbows, Big Trees, etc.
>> Really quite pleased! Got $250.00 each, plus fifty sheets of 8Ã---10 film,
>> plus having my lens opticoated for nuttings! Now have enough cash to
>> buy film for Guggenheim (Stipend will barely cover travel expenses....)âEURÂ
>
> This is a quote from an even later letter in 1946, to David McAlpin.
>
>> âEURoeThis is a combined functional trip, as follows:
>> A. Kodachromes for Standard Oil
>> B. Kodachromes and Ektachromes for Eastman Kodak Company
>> C. Black and whites for FORTUNE
>> D. A sniff at some Guggenheim material
>> E. A vacation for Virginia and Mike
>> My schedule is as follows:
>> Yellowstone National Park Sept. 27âEUR"8 Wyoming
>> Glacier National Park Sept. 29âEUR"Oct. 6 Montana
>> ...This tour should net enough cash to carry me for quite a while. Two
>> jobs for Eastman have netted more than entire Guggenheim stipend. But
>> find I canâEUR(Tm)t combine creative and commercial work.
>> From a letter to Beaumont and Nancy Newhall from St. George, UtahâEURÂ
>
> So you did get one attribution correct, but clipped the fact
> that it was written even later than the others.
>
> These are all right at the point where the effects of Moonrise
> were being felt! In "Ansel Adams: A Biography" by Mary Street
> Alinde he was described thus, "always near desperation for
> money", in late 1940.

As he stated, he barely covered his travel expenses with his grants.

>
> Even into the 1960's a print by Adams would only sell for as
> much as $100. In the early 1970's that went up to $500 and only
> in the late 70's did his work start bringing in truly high
> prices.
>
> Most of the Moonrise prints (roughly totalling 1200) were made
> in the 1970's and it wasn't really until then that Adams became
> able to give up commercial photograph for his art.

However, through the 50's &60's he did some serious work for, and
received a healthy sponsorship from Hasselblad.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

 

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>On 2014-01-05 07:06:00 +0000, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:
>
>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>> On 2014-01-05 04:10:23 +0000, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:
>>>> Moonrise was the photograph that made him famous. Period.
>>>> Before that he was never sure of making enough money to pay the
>>>> bills, after that he never had need to worry.
>>> "Moonrise" was shot in 1941. It is undeniable that it was one
>>> of his
>>> most popular and famous photographs, but it didn't make him "famous",
>>> he was "famous" long before that shot saw light in his darkroom. It was
>>> only published in 1943, and first shown in a gallery in 1944. As a
>>> member of Group f/64 in 1932 he was among a group of "famous"
>>> photographers twelve years before "Moonrise" was seen by the public.
>> Moonrise was the image that made his name a household word.
>> It was
>> by a considerable degree his most popular image.
>
>I am sure you remember this snapshot from 1937.
>< https://db.tt/ypvVl2pG >

Ansel Adams said of Moonrise, "certainly my most popular single image."

>> Prior to that he was a "successful" commercial photographer,
>> not a well known artist.
>
>...and yet his work with Group f/64 is considered art. That was what
>Stieglitz and some of the other photographers of the 30's&30's thought.

He was an artist... but he was not the famous artist that he had
become by say 1970.

>He was certainly working on a project for the Department of the
>Interior when he shot "Moonrise" in 1941, and had to show that he was
>not on tje Government's dime when he tripped the shutter. otherwise he
>would not have owned the image, the Gonernment would have. That was
>what happened with this 1942 shot.
>< https://db.tt/wXj8Bag2 >
>
>Anyway, here he is about to hit the road for that trip to the South
>West, and the appointment with that "Moonrise".
>< https://db.tt/inqrcgLp >

Great, you know where there are images he made... but you aren't
supporting your claims as to their signficance or not.

>>> He had his own gallery in 1933 and was participating in museum &
>>> gallery exhibits all through the 1930's. He published has first
>>> instructional book in 1935. He was instrumental in having his imagery
>>> used by the Sierra Club to aid the National Park cause, and he
>>> testified before Congress in 1940 to assist in having Sequoia & Kings
>>> Canyon designated National Parks. That was a year before he shot
>>> "Moonrise".
>>> He held contracts with Eastman Kodak and a few other entities
>>> including
>>> the Department of The Interior. Not bad for a guy who only became
>>> "famous" in 1943 after slaving away since the early 1920's.
>> He was a working commercial photographer, not the household
>> name
>> and celebrity that he became later in life.
>
>Hmmm... he certainly had to do some commercial work so he wouldn't be a
>starving artist. However, through the 1930's he published several
>books, gave instructional lectures, and gallery exhibits, along with
>work for the Sierra Club/ I refer you to the above shot:
>< https://db.tt/ypvVl2pG >
>and these:
>< https://db.tt/EjFq2HIj >
>< https://db.tt/rjc6fALq >
>< https://db.tt/Y62eqOUo >

You still aren't proving your claims though. He had to do
commercial photography simply because that is what put food on
the table.

He wasn't a famous high class art photographer. His images sold
for relatively peanuts.

>>> Here is a little of what he had to say about his involvement with
>>> Eastman Kodak as a yet to be "famous" photographer being used for some
>>> exclusive color work for them:
>>> Excerpt From: Adams, Ansel. âEURoeAnsel Adams In Color.
>>> âEURoeHigh Ho!! Believe it or not the Eastman Kulak (I mean
>>> Kodak) Co. are
>>> paying me $250.00 per shot for at least three 8Ãf---10 Kodachromes of
>>> Waterfalls mit Rainbows! (No discount if there ainâEUR(Tm)t no rainboo!) Some
>>> new experimental film. HUshhhhhhhhhh. So, next week I go off to that
>>> hole in the ground Yosemite and click some shutters.âEURÂ
>> You seem to be confused, as this was *after* Moonrise was taken
>> and had been published. It appears to be quoted from a letter
>> he wrote in 1946 to Beaumont and Nancy Newhall.
>
>Yes. Here is one of those $250 rainbow shots for Kodak.
>< https://db.tt/tIWskYV4 >

Proves my point though, not yours! After Moonrise the fortunes
of Ansel Adams rose significantly.

>>> âEURoeGot some magnificent 8Ãf---10 Kodachromes for the Eastman Kodak
>>> CompanyâEUR"they took five! Waterfalls with Rainbows, Big Trees, etc.
>>> Really quite pleased! Got $250.00 each, plus fifty sheets of 8Ãf---10 film,
>>> plus having my lens opticoated for nuttings! Now have enough cash to
>>> buy film for Guggenheim (Stipend will barely cover travel expenses....)âEURÂ
>> This is a quote from an even later letter in 1946, to David
>> McAlpin.
>>
>>> âEURoeThis is a combined functional trip, as follows:
>>> A. Kodachromes for Standard Oil
>>> B. Kodachromes and Ektachromes for Eastman Kodak Company
>>> C. Black and whites for FORTUNE
>>> D. A sniff at some Guggenheim material
>>> E. A vacation for Virginia and Mike
>>> My schedule is as follows:
>>> Yellowstone National Park Sept. 27âEUR"8 Wyoming
>>> Glacier National Park Sept. 29âEUR"Oct. 6 Montana
>>> ...This tour should net enough cash to carry me for quite a while. Two
>>> jobs for Eastman have netted more than entire Guggenheim stipend. But
>>> find I canâEUR(Tm)t combine creative and commercial work.
>>> From a letter to Beaumont and Nancy Newhall from St. George, UtahâEURÂ
>> So you did get one attribution correct, but clipped the fact
>> that it was written even later than the others.
>> These are all right at the point where the effects of Moonrise
>> were being felt! In "Ansel Adams: A Biography" by Mary Street
>> Alinde he was described thus, "always near desperation for
>> money", in late 1940.
>
>As he stated, he barely covered his travel expenses with his grants.

Because he just simply wasn't famous until *after* Moonrise.
That's the image that put him on the map, and on the minds of
Americans.

>> Even into the 1960's a print by Adams would only sell for as
>> much as $100. In the early 1970's that went up to $500 and only
>> in the late 70's did his work start bringing in truly high
>> prices.
>> Most of the Moonrise prints (roughly totalling 1200) were made
>> in the 1970's and it wasn't really until then that Adams became
>> able to give up commercial photograph for his art.
>
>However, through the 50's &60's he did some serious work for, and
>received a healthy sponsorship from Hasselblad.

All *after* he shot Moonrise, of course.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

 

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

> 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.

You are correct that iso does not effect the amount of light hitting the
light gathering medium, but it does have a direct effect on the results
obtained by that light gathering medium.

> 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.

Most people, when talking about exposure, would be referencing what they
considered to be correct exposure, in which case iso has to be part of the
equation.

>>> 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.

The point is that unless you put your camera into fully manual mode, no auto
anything, you are relying on the cameras interpretation of what is correct
exposure to set one or more parameters.

>
>>> 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.

So how does the camera decide which iso to set when using manual mode with
auto iso? Judging by how my camera works, I do use it set that way often, I
have to assume that the camera reads the exposure meter and sets the iso to
what it considers to be correct exposure based on the aperture and shutter
speed set.

--
sid

 

sid <> wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>You are correct that iso does not effect the amount of light hitting the
>light gathering medium, but it does have a direct effect on the results
>obtained by that light gathering medium.

Yes. It just isn't something that changes the exposure though!

>> 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.
>
>Most people, when talking about exposure, would be referencing what they
>considered to be correct exposure, in which case iso has to be part of the
>equation.

People say, and believe, all sorts of things about exposure.
"Correct exposure" means different things to different people.
But regardless of what is or is not correct exposure, changing
the film never did change exposure. And it still doesn't.

>>>> 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.
>
>The point is that unless you put your camera into fully manual mode, no auto
>anything, you are relying on the cameras interpretation of what is correct
>exposure to set one or more parameters.

Except, you aren't.

Auto ISO does not change the exposure. Got it?

>>>> 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.
>
>So how does the camera decide which iso to set when using manual mode with
>auto iso? Judging by how my camera works, I do use it set that way often, I
>have to assume that the camera reads the exposure meter and sets the iso to
>what it considers to be correct exposure based on the aperture and shutter
>speed set.

No, you set the exposure by adjusting the aperture and the
shutter speed.

The camera reads the amount of light and adjusts the ISO, not
the exposure, such that the specific exposure you have set is
the "correct exposure".

Changing the ISO has no effect on what the exposure is
specifically. Whether that is correct or not is a matter of
personal judgment, which the photographer can change with
"Exposure Compensation" (which doesn't affect exposure, it
changes the calibration of the light meter).

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

 

On 1/4/2014 11:44 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 19:10:23 -0900, (Floyd L.
> Davidson) wrote:
>
>> That doesn't address the question at hand, which is whether
>> light can change rapidly. Clearly it does and often enough that
>> things such simple as flipping over the negative carrier takes too
>> long. One second the light was right, and then it isn't.
>
> I wonder if you don't notice light changing quicker than we do
> considering where you live.
>

Unless I had too much coffee, it seems to me that the magic hour light
in FL changes faster that the light in NY.
There are reasons for it that are not relevant. The fact is that light
can, and does change rapidly.

--
PeterN

 

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

>>>>>>>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.
>>
>>You are correct that iso does not effect the amount of light hitting the
>>light gathering medium, but it does have a direct effect on the results
>>obtained by that light gathering medium.
>
> Yes. It just isn't something that changes the exposure though!
>
>>> 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.
>>
>>Most people, when talking about exposure, would be referencing what they
>>considered to be correct exposure, in which case iso has to be part of the
>>equation.
>
> People say, and believe, all sorts of things about exposure.
> "Correct exposure" means different things to different people.
> But regardless of what is or is not correct exposure, changing
> the film never did change exposure. And it still doesn't.

But it does change the results one obtains at any given 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
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>The point is that unless you put your camera into fully manual mode, no
>>auto anything, you are relying on the cameras interpretation of what is
>>correct exposure to set one or more parameters.
>
> Except, you aren't.

Of course you are. That's what auto means. The camera is setting something
by it's own determination.

> Auto ISO does not change the exposure. Got it?

No it doesn't, it affects how the data captured during that exposure is
recorded by the sensor. Got it?

>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>>So how does the camera decide which iso to set when using manual mode with
>>auto iso? Judging by how my camera works, I do use it set that way often,
>>I have to assume that the camera reads the exposure meter and sets the iso
>>to what it considers to be correct exposure based on the aperture and
>>shutter speed set.
>
> No, you set the exposure by adjusting the aperture and the
> shutter speed.
>
> The camera reads the amount of light and adjusts the ISO, not
> the exposure, such that the specific exposure you have set is
> the "correct exposure".
>
> Changing the ISO has no effect on what the exposure is
> specifically. Whether that is correct or not is a matter of
> personal judgment, which the photographer can change with
> "Exposure Compensation" (which doesn't affect exposure, it
> changes the calibration of the light meter).

Yes quite, just as I have been saying.

--
sid