Not a bird

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

  1. PeterN

    Whiskers Guest

    On 2014-01-05, Floyd L. Davidson <> wrote:
    > Whiskers <> wrote:
    >>On 2014-01-04, Floyd L. Davidson <> wrote:
    >>> Whiskers <> wrote:
    >>>>On 2014-01-03, PeterN <> wrote:


    [...]

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


    [...]

    It certainly can. But it can never know what the photographer intended,
    and it can never set the exposure and focus in advance of the
    photographer framing the shot and squeezing the button. Manual metering
    _in_advance_ and having known focus settings _in_advance_ can do that,
    resulting in no time at all between squeezing the button and the photo
    actually being taken - because the human involved has already set the
    exposure and got the focus close to what's needed before even framing
    the shot. If zone focussing is used, exploiting depth of field or
    hyperfocal distance, the first shot is in the bag before precise
    focussing is even tried.

    Don't just react to things you want to photograph, predict them. When
    you react without planning, you get snapshots. Fine if that's what you
    want, and better than nothing if an unexpected opportunity arises (such
    as moonrise over Hernandez) but if you've planned to be there and
    planned to take photos of [whatever it is] then why haven't you planned
    _how_ those photos will be taken?

    --
    -- ^^^^^^^^^^
    -- Whiskers
    -- ~~~~~~~~~~
     
    Whiskers, Jan 5, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  2. PeterN

    Whiskers Guest

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


    This might help clarify what a digital camera does:
    <http://photo.net/learn/raw/> "Learn about RAW, JPEG, and TIFF with the
    digital photography experts at Photo.net."

    --
    -- ^^^^^^^^^^
    -- Whiskers
    -- ~~~~~~~~~~
     
    Whiskers, Jan 5, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  3. Whiskers <> 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.

    >
    >This might help clarify what a digital camera does:
    ><http://photo.net/learn/raw/


    That article, by Bob Atkins, is pretty good. It has nothing at all to
    do with this thread though...

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jan 5, 2014
  4. PeterN

    Whiskers Guest

    On 2014-01-05, sid <> wrote:
    > 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.


    There are several automatic exposure modes possible, eg:

    - camera sets everything
    - camera sets everything except shutter speed
    - camera sets everything except aperture
    - camera sets everything except ISO 'speed'
    - camera sets only ISO 'speed'
    - camera sets only aperture
    - camera sets only shutter speed

    and so on. If the camera sets /anything/ for itself, then you are using
    'automatic exposure'. There is only one setting that isn't automatic
    exposure, namely:

    - camera sets nothing, photographer makes all decisions.

    --
    -- ^^^^^^^^^^
    -- Whiskers
    -- ~~~~~~~~~~
     
    Whiskers, Jan 5, 2014
  5. PeterN

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 19:07:32 +0000, Whiskers
    <> wrote:

    --- snip ----

    >There are several automatic exposure modes possible, eg:
    >
    > - camera sets everything
    > - camera sets everything except shutter speed
    > - camera sets everything except aperture
    > - camera sets everything except ISO 'speed'
    > - camera sets only ISO 'speed'
    > - camera sets only aperture
    > - camera sets only shutter speed
    >
    >and so on. If the camera sets /anything/ for itself, then you are using
    >'automatic exposure'. There is only one setting that isn't automatic
    >exposure, namely:
    >
    > - camera sets nothing, photographer makes all decisions.


    While we are quibbling - ISO is not a measure of speed. It's a measure
    of sensitivity to light.
    --

    Regards,

    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Jan 5, 2014
  6. Whiskers <> wrote:
    >On 2014-01-05, sid <> wrote:
    >> 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.

    >
    >There are several automatic exposure modes possible, eg:
    >
    > - camera sets everything
    > - camera sets everything except shutter speed
    > - camera sets everything except aperture
    > - camera sets everything except ISO 'speed'
    > - camera sets only ISO 'speed'
    > - camera sets only aperture
    > - camera sets only shutter speed
    >
    >and so on. If the camera sets /anything/ for itself, then you are using
    >'automatic exposure'. There is only one setting that isn't automatic
    >exposure, namely:
    >
    > - camera sets nothing, photographer makes all decisions.


    And when the "camera sets only ISO". The photographer sets the exposure.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jan 5, 2014
  7. PeterN

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 17:05:57 +0000, Whiskers
    <> wrote:

    >On 2014-01-05, Floyd L. Davidson <> wrote:
    >> Whiskers <> wrote:
    >>>On 2014-01-04, Floyd L. Davidson <> wrote:
    >>>> Whiskers <> wrote:
    >>>>>On 2014-01-03, PeterN <> wrote:

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

    >
    >[...]
    >
    >It certainly can. But it can never know what the photographer intended,
    >and it can never set the exposure and focus in advance of the
    >photographer framing the shot and squeezing the button. Manual metering
    >_in_advance_ and having known focus settings _in_advance_ can do that,
    >resulting in no time at all between squeezing the button and the photo
    >actually being taken - because the human involved has already set the
    >exposure and got the focus close to what's needed before even framing
    >the shot. If zone focussing is used, exploiting depth of field or
    >hyperfocal distance, the first shot is in the bag before precise
    >focussing is even tried.
    >
    >Don't just react to things you want to photograph, predict them. When
    >you react without planning, you get snapshots. Fine if that's what you
    >want, and better than nothing if an unexpected opportunity arises (such
    >as moonrise over Hernandez) but if you've planned to be there and
    >planned to take photos of [whatever it is] then why haven't you planned
    >_how_ those photos will be taken?


    I do plan how the photos will be taken.

    That's why my camera is left on 'Scene' mode. :)
    --

    Regards,

    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Jan 5, 2014
  8. PeterN

    Whiskers Guest

    On 2014-01-05, Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 19:07:32 +0000, Whiskers
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > --- snip ----
    >
    >>There are several automatic exposure modes possible, eg:
    >>
    >> - camera sets everything
    >> - camera sets everything except shutter speed
    >> - camera sets everything except aperture
    >> - camera sets everything except ISO 'speed'
    >> - camera sets only ISO 'speed'
    >> - camera sets only aperture
    >> - camera sets only shutter speed
    >>
    >>and so on. If the camera sets /anything/ for itself, then you are using
    >>'automatic exposure'. There is only one setting that isn't automatic
    >>exposure, namely:
    >>
    >> - camera sets nothing, photographer makes all decisions.

    >
    > While we are quibbling - ISO is not a measure of speed. It's a measure
    > of sensitivity to light.


    Which generations of photographers have referred to as "film speed".
    Notice my use of scare quotes. If we're /really/ quibbling, in a
    digital camera the "ISO setting" doesn't change the sensitivity of
    anything, instead it changes the amount of electronic &/or digital
    "amplification" applied to the signal from the sensor.

    --
    -- ^^^^^^^^^^
    -- Whiskers
    -- ~~~~~~~~~~
     
    Whiskers, Jan 5, 2014
  9. PeterN

    Whiskers Guest

    On 2014-01-05, Floyd L. Davidson <> wrote:
    > Whiskers <> wrote:
    >>On 2014-01-05, sid <> wrote:
    >>> Floyd L. Davidson wrote:


    [...]

    >>There are several automatic exposure modes possible, eg:
    >>
    >> - camera sets everything
    >> - camera sets everything except shutter speed
    >> - camera sets everything except aperture
    >> - camera sets everything except ISO 'speed'
    >> - camera sets only ISO 'speed'
    >> - camera sets only aperture
    >> - camera sets only shutter speed
    >>
    >>and so on. If the camera sets /anything/ for itself, then you are using
    >>'automatic exposure'. There is only one setting that isn't automatic
    >>exposure, namely:
    >>
    >> - camera sets nothing, photographer makes all decisions.

    >
    > And when the "camera sets only ISO". The photographer sets the exposure.


    .... and then the camera automatically decides what 'film speed' to use
    to get as near as it can to whatever its programming dictates the
    correct image characteristics are. This is *not* a manual exposure
    setting, it's just one particular mode of automation.

    If you want to dictate the properties of the image recorded by the
    camera, do not allow the camera to do anything automatically.

    --
    -- ^^^^^^^^^^
    -- Whiskers
    -- ~~~~~~~~~~
     
    Whiskers, Jan 5, 2014
  10. PeterN

    Whiskers Guest

    On 2014-01-05, Floyd L. Davidson <> wrote:
    > Whiskers <> 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.

    >>
    >>This might help clarify what a digital camera does:
    >><http://photo.net/learn/raw/

    >
    > That article, by Bob Atkins, is pretty good. It has nothing at all to
    > do with this thread though...


    Apart from describing what the "ISO setting" on a digital camera
    actually does, which seems to me to be something very much to do with
    this thread.

    --
    -- ^^^^^^^^^^
    -- Whiskers
    -- ~~~~~~~~~~
     
    Whiskers, Jan 5, 2014
  11. PeterN

    Whiskers Guest

    On 2014-01-05, Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 17:05:57 +0000, Whiskers
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>On 2014-01-05, Floyd L. Davidson <> wrote:
    >>> Whiskers <> wrote:
    >>>>On 2014-01-04, Floyd L. Davidson <> wrote:
    >>>>> Whiskers <> wrote:
    >>>>>>On 2014-01-03, PeterN <> wrote:

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

    >>
    >>[...]
    >>
    >>It certainly can. But it can never know what the photographer intended,
    >>and it can never set the exposure and focus in advance of the
    >>photographer framing the shot and squeezing the button. Manual metering
    >>_in_advance_ and having known focus settings _in_advance_ can do that,
    >>resulting in no time at all between squeezing the button and the photo
    >>actually being taken - because the human involved has already set the
    >>exposure and got the focus close to what's needed before even framing
    >>the shot. If zone focussing is used, exploiting depth of field or
    >>hyperfocal distance, the first shot is in the bag before precise
    >>focussing is even tried.
    >>
    >>Don't just react to things you want to photograph, predict them. When
    >>you react without planning, you get snapshots. Fine if that's what you
    >>want, and better than nothing if an unexpected opportunity arises (such
    >>as moonrise over Hernandez) but if you've planned to be there and
    >>planned to take photos of [whatever it is] then why haven't you planned
    >>_how_ those photos will be taken?

    >
    > I do plan how the photos will be taken.
    >
    > That's why my camera is left on 'Scene' mode. :)


    In that case, whoever wrote the program used by your camera "in 'Scene'
    mode" planned how the photos will be taken. You choose what and when,
    but not how.

    --
    -- ^^^^^^^^^^
    -- Whiskers
    -- ~~~~~~~~~~
     
    Whiskers, Jan 5, 2014
  12. PeterN

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 21:47:20 +0000, Whiskers
    <> wrote:

    >On 2014-01-05, Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >> On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 17:05:57 +0000, Whiskers
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On 2014-01-05, Floyd L. Davidson <> wrote:
    >>>> Whiskers <> wrote:
    >>>>>On 2014-01-04, Floyd L. Davidson <> wrote:
    >>>>>> Whiskers <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>On 2014-01-03, PeterN <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>[...]
    >>>
    >>>> But the advantage of a DSLR is that it can automate exposure,
    >>>> focus, and ISO more accurately and quicker than can be done
    >>>> manually.
    >>>
    >>>[...]
    >>>
    >>>It certainly can. But it can never know what the photographer intended,
    >>>and it can never set the exposure and focus in advance of the
    >>>photographer framing the shot and squeezing the button. Manual metering
    >>>_in_advance_ and having known focus settings _in_advance_ can do that,
    >>>resulting in no time at all between squeezing the button and the photo
    >>>actually being taken - because the human involved has already set the
    >>>exposure and got the focus close to what's needed before even framing
    >>>the shot. If zone focussing is used, exploiting depth of field or
    >>>hyperfocal distance, the first shot is in the bag before precise
    >>>focussing is even tried.
    >>>
    >>>Don't just react to things you want to photograph, predict them. When
    >>>you react without planning, you get snapshots. Fine if that's what you
    >>>want, and better than nothing if an unexpected opportunity arises (such
    >>>as moonrise over Hernandez) but if you've planned to be there and
    >>>planned to take photos of [whatever it is] then why haven't you planned
    >>>_how_ those photos will be taken?

    >>
    >> I do plan how the photos will be taken.
    >>
    >> That's why my camera is left on 'Scene' mode. :)

    >
    >In that case, whoever wrote the program used by your camera "in 'Scene'
    >mode" planned how the photos will be taken. You choose what and when,
    >but not how.


    Didn't you see the smiley?

    My most common mode is aperture priority. I do make adjustments to the
    exposure according to my evaluation of what is needed. If I'm at all
    in doubt I check the histogram in the display. I find I can't tell
    much about what the final image is going to look like from the display
    in the back of the camera.
    --

    Regards,

    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Jan 5, 2014
  13. PeterN

    George Kerby Guest

    On 1/4/14 10:44 PM, in article ,
    "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.


    Actually the opposite. Days are long in the summer as well as nights in the
    winter. In between it is minimal transition during the Equinox. OTOH, near
    the Equator, the transition period is rapid. Think about it and it will make
    sense.

    One thing that makes sense to me right now is that I wish I was where you
    are. Quickly. Low tonight in the high teens and not getting out of the mid
    thirties until Tuesday afternoon. Crazy!
     
    George Kerby, Jan 6, 2014
  14. Whiskers <> wrote:
    >On 2014-01-05, Floyd L. Davidson <> wrote:
    >> Whiskers <> 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.
    >>>
    >>>This might help clarify what a digital camera does:
    >>><http://photo.net/learn/raw/

    >>
    >> That article, by Bob Atkins, is pretty good. It has nothing at all to
    >> do with this thread though...

    >
    >Apart from describing what the "ISO setting" on a digital camera
    >actually does, which seems to me to be something very much to do with
    >this thread.


    It says as little as possible about it, in a very clear attempt to
    totally avoid the subject.


    --
    Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jan 6, 2014
  15. PeterN

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 18:05:02 -0600, George Kerby
    <> wrote:

    >
    >
    >
    >On 1/4/14 10:44 PM, in article ,
    >"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.

    >
    >Actually the opposite. Days are long in the summer as well as nights in the
    >winter. In between it is minimal transition during the Equinox. OTOH, near
    >the Equator, the transition period is rapid. Think about it and it will make
    >sense.
    >
    >One thing that makes sense to me right now is that I wish I was where you
    >are. Quickly. Low tonight in the high teens and not getting out of the mid
    >thirties until Tuesday afternoon. Crazy!


    My wife and I are leaving town Tuesday because it's too cold here!
    It's 72 (F) as I write this, but supposed to drop down to the 40s in
    the coming week. We're heading south to Vero Beach or Stuart or
    somewhere down there.

    We'd leave Monday, but Rick Sammon is speaking at my camera club
    Monday evening, and then the Florida State/Auburn game is on. Gotta
    be here to watch that.

    http://kelbytraining.com/author/rick-sammon/

    I just hope Rick isn't coming in from somewhere where the flights
    aren't flighting.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, Jan 6, 2014
  16. PeterN

    Whiskers Guest

    On 2014-01-05, Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 21:47:20 +0000, Whiskers
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>On 2014-01-05, Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>> On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 17:05:57 +0000, Whiskers
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>On 2014-01-05, Floyd L. Davidson <> wrote:
    >>>>> Whiskers <> wrote:
    >>>>>>On 2014-01-04, Floyd L. Davidson <> wrote:
    >>>>>>> Whiskers <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>On 2014-01-03, PeterN <> wrote:


    [...]

    >>> I do plan how the photos will be taken.
    >>>
    >>> That's why my camera is left on 'Scene' mode. :)

    >>
    >>In that case, whoever wrote the program used by your camera "in 'Scene'
    >>mode" planned how the photos will be taken. You choose what and when,
    >>but not how.

    >
    > Didn't you see the smiley?


    Not all the way over there.

    > My most common mode is aperture priority. I do make adjustments to the
    > exposure according to my evaluation of what is needed. If I'm at all
    > in doubt I check the histogram in the display. I find I can't tell
    > much about what the final image is going to look like from the display
    > in the back of the camera.


    Only one's mind's eye can envisage the final result, and only experience
    can help one achieve it.

    --
    -- ^^^^^^^^^^
    -- Whiskers
    -- ~~~~~~~~~~
     
    Whiskers, Jan 6, 2014
  17. PeterN

    George Kerby Guest

    On 1/5/14 8:11 PM, in article ,
    "Tony Cooper" <> wrote:

    > On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 18:05:02 -0600, George Kerby
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> On 1/4/14 10:44 PM, in article ,
    >> "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.

    >>
    >> Actually the opposite. Days are long in the summer as well as nights in the
    >> winter. In between it is minimal transition during the Equinox. OTOH, near
    >> the Equator, the transition period is rapid. Think about it and it will make
    >> sense.
    >>
    >> One thing that makes sense to me right now is that I wish I was where you
    >> are. Quickly. Low tonight in the high teens and not getting out of the mid
    >> thirties until Tuesday afternoon. Crazy!

    >
    > My wife and I are leaving town Tuesday because it's too cold here!
    > It's 72 (F) as I write this, but supposed to drop down to the 40s in
    > the coming week. We're heading south to Vero Beach or Stuart or
    > somewhere down there.
    >


    Have fun! We're going to Key West next month before Southwest cancels the
    route. Go for 14, FSU!!!

    > We'd leave Monday, but Rick Sammon is speaking at my camera club
    > Monday evening, and then the Florida State/Auburn game is on. Gotta
    > be here to watch that.
    >
    > http://kelbytraining.com/author/rick-sammon/
    >
    > I just hope Rick isn't coming in from somewhere where the flights
    > aren't flighting.
     
    George Kerby, Jan 6, 2014
  18. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    On 1/5/2014 9:11 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
    > On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 18:05:02 -0600, George Kerby
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> On 1/4/14 10:44 PM, in article ,
    >> "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.

    >>
    >> Actually the opposite. Days are long in the summer as well as nights in the
    >> winter. In between it is minimal transition during the Equinox. OTOH, near
    >> the Equator, the transition period is rapid. Think about it and it will make
    >> sense.
    >>
    >> One thing that makes sense to me right now is that I wish I was where you
    >> are. Quickly. Low tonight in the high teens and not getting out of the mid
    >> thirties until Tuesday afternoon. Crazy!

    >
    > My wife and I are leaving town Tuesday because it's too cold here!
    > It's 72 (F) as I write this, but supposed to drop down to the 40s in
    > the coming week. We're heading south to Vero Beach or Stuart or
    > somewhere down there.
    >
    > We'd leave Monday, but Rick Sammon is speaking at my camera club
    > Monday evening, and then the Florida State/Auburn game is on. Gotta
    > be here to watch that.
    >
    > http://kelbytraining.com/author/rick-sammon/
    >
    > I just hope Rick isn't coming in from somewhere where the flights
    > aren't flighting.
    >


    I have met him several times. He is a gentlemen in every sense of the
    word. while I will not go into details, the first time I met him he
    offered to give someone I know personal advice and become a personal
    career mentor for this person, without charge.
    I was astounded at the generosity of his offer. When I mentioned it to
    someone else, he said Rick often does things like that.


    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Jan 7, 2014
  19. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    On 1/5/2014 7:05 PM, George Kerby wrote:

    <snip>
    >
    > One thing that makes sense to me right now is that I wish I was where you
    > are. Quickly. Low tonight in the high teens and not getting out of the mid
    > thirties until Tuesday afternoon. Crazy!
    >


    Just to rub it in, I am now south of tony Cooper, and plan a short drive
    to the Keys today. I don't expect much wildlife, but will be looking for
    landscape potential. Most likely, it will just be a pleasant drive.

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Jan 7, 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:
    662
    Ed Ruf
    Mar 15, 2005
  2. Gaderian

    Name that Bird

    Gaderian, Jun 18, 2005, in forum: Digital SLR
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    452
    Gaderian
    Jun 19, 2005
  3. nick c

    Bird People

    nick c, Aug 1, 2005, in forum: Digital SLR
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    1,050
  4. Robert R Kircher, Jr.

    A Bird in the Hand

    Robert R Kircher, Jr., Oct 24, 2005, in forum: Digital SLR
    Replies:
    47
    Views:
    1,326
    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:
    758
    jimkramer
    Jun 7, 2004
  6. TAFKAB

    Yet Another Bird Photo

    TAFKAB, Nov 26, 2004, in forum: 35mm Cameras
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    369
    Annika1980
    Nov 27, 2004
  7. Mike Henley

    Crazy little bird

    Mike Henley, Jun 27, 2006, in forum: 35mm Cameras
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    377
  8. PeterN

    Not a bird

    PeterN, Jan 1, 2014, in forum: Digital Cameras
    Replies:
    139
    Views:
    1,110
    PeterN
    Jan 7, 2014
Loading...