«

then you're me, I guess. At any rate, for the past few months I've
been keeping up a blog others may find useful. Though the equipment
talk is somewhat Nikon-centric, I've also developed an array of
articles on general photographic technique and composition you may
find useful or something to laugh at after you've finished your
coffee. Or you can just ignore this thread and my blog and join the
silent majority. Your call.

http://esfotoclix.com/blog1

~~~
eNo
http://esfotoclix.com

On Wed, 5 May 2010 08:34:06 -0700 (PDT), eNo <>
wrote:

>then you're me, I guess. At any rate, for the past few months I've
>been keeping up a blog others may find useful. Though the equipment
>talk is somewhat Nikon-centric, I've also developed an array of
>articles on general photographic technique and composition you may
>find useful or something to laugh at after you've finished your
>coffee. Or you can just ignore this thread and my blog and join the
>silent majority. Your call.
>
>http://esfotoclix.com/blog1
>
>~~~
>eNo
>http://esfotoclix.com

The idea of "if you build it, they will come" only works in movies for
imaginary baseball fields. Nobody's going to come and participate in a blog
to read someone's opinion and then allow that person to be the only one
with the top-most posted opinion, an opinion with so little real
photographic experience behind it too. Sorry, that's what I determined the
one or two times I read your blogs.

There are hundreds of people shouting their opinions from street corners
that people pass by and ignore every day. All of those people hoping that
that shouter of those opinions will go find some other street corner to
shout from. The internet has not changed that, other than to now allow
those street-corner shouters to get indoors away from inclement weather and
things being thrown at them. Now shouting indoors on their keyboards
instead. The internet has only increased the number of street-corner
shouters and the number of street corners exponentially. They call them
"bloggers" today.

I guess you'll just have to wait for a group of people who love nothing
better than to soak up everyone else's opinion because they have none of
their own, nor a mind of their own. It seems to be the only kind of people
that feed bloggers.

I've never understood this "blog" wave that swept through the internet, nor
have ever felt the need to create nor participate in one. Nor do I
understand this "twitter" or "face book" craze. I've never subscribed to
nor ever felt the need to participate in any of those. There must be an
awful lot of loneliness on this planet, is all I can figure. Moving it into
a virtual reality isn't going to fix that, it's only going to make it
worse. Once everyone realizes that they wasted that much time of their
lives and still they are alone.

On 05/05/2010 12:06 PM, Phil B. wrote:

>Once everyone realizes that they wasted that much time of their
> lives and still they are alone.
>

No one really gives a **** about your opinion on Usenet either.

On 05/05/2010 8:34 AM, eNo wrote:
> then you're me, I guess. At any rate, for the past few months I've
> been keeping up a blog others may find useful. Though the equipment
> talk is somewhat Nikon-centric, I've also developed an array of
> articles on general photographic technique and composition you may
> find useful or something to laugh at after you've finished your
> coffee. Or you can just ignore this thread and my blog and join the
> silent majority. Your call.
>
> http://esfotoclix.com/blog1
>
> ~~~
> eNo
> http://esfotoclix.com

Why don't you like to take your base ISO down to below 200? I don't get
that because the lower the ISO the better the quality. Back in film days
anything above ISO 100 was considered pushing the film. I still consider
ISO 100 my base and not 200.

gumby wrote:

> Why don't you like to take your base ISO down to below 200? I don't get
> that because the lower the ISO the better the quality. Back in film days
> anything above ISO 100 was considered pushing the film. I still consider
> ISO 100 my base and not 200.

Depends on the camera, specifically its sensor and processor. For some
Canons, ISO 200 is cleaner than 100, so I keep that as my baseline.

--
John McWilliams

On May 10, 9:02*am, gumby <gu...@here.com> wrote:
> Why don't you like to take your base ISO down to below 200? I don't get
> that because the lower the ISO the better the quality. Back in film days
> anything above ISO 100 was considered pushing the film. I still consider
> ISO 100 my base and not 200.


Good question. If a camera supports ISO 100 as its "base ISO", then
I'd use it in a heart-beat. However, many recent DSLRs, especially
those that support higher ISO, set their base at ISO 200. They enable
a pseudo ISO 100 mode (in Nikon speak, Lo.3), but they do so by
pushing the ISO the other way you're used to. They over-expose the
image at base ISO (200), then digitally process it to add -1EV of
exposure compensation. This has deleterious effects on your image
quality, because it essentially reduces dynamic range. You can do this
yourself by taking a photo at ISO 100 (try a bright, high contrast
scene), then taking one with the same shutter speed and aperture at
ISO 200, then applying -1EV of exposure compensation in post
processing. Even if you do this in the RAW format, the ISO 100 photo
will have better image quality, especially in the highlights.

~~~
eNo
http://esfotoclix.com

On 10/05/2010 9:07 AM, John McWilliams wrote:

> Depends on the camera, specifically its sensor and processor. For some
> Canons, ISO 200 is cleaner than 100, so I keep that as my baseline.
>

Really? How can ISO 200 be cleaner than ISO 100? The higher the ISO in
digital the more noise you get, usually. I'll have to do some
expermenting on my DSLR and see which is the best ISO to use now that
you have told me this.

gumby wrote:
> On 10/05/2010 9:07 AM, John McWilliams wrote:
>
>> Depends on the camera, specifically its sensor and processor. For some
>> Canons, ISO 200 is cleaner than 100, so I keep that as my baseline.
>>
>
> Really? How can ISO 200 be cleaner than ISO 100? The higher the ISO in
> digital the more noise you get, usually. I'll have to do some
> expermenting on my DSLR and see which is the best ISO to use now that
> you have told me this.

Think a curve. If lower ISO is always 'better', why not ISO 50, 25, 10,
0, -100, -10,000 (the latter used for atomic blasts)?? No need for ND
filter, huh!?

--
john mcwilliams

On 10/05/2010 9:12 AM, eNo wrote:

> Good question. If a camera supports ISO 100 as its "base ISO", then
> I'd use it in a heart-beat. However, many recent DSLRs, especially
> those that support higher ISO, set their base at ISO 200. They enable
> a pseudo ISO 100 mode (in Nikon speak, Lo.3), but they do so by
> pushing the ISO the other way you're used to. They over-expose the
> image at base ISO (200), then digitally process it to add -1EV of
> exposure compensation. This has deleterious effects on your image
> quality, because it essentially reduces dynamic range. You can do this
> yourself by taking a photo at ISO 100 (try a bright, high contrast
> scene), then taking one with the same shutter speed and aperture at
> ISO 200, then applying -1EV of exposure compensation in post
> processing. Even if you do this in the RAW format, the ISO 100 photo
> will have better image quality, especially in the highlights.

OK, thanks. I will do this test because I don't even know what the base
ISO of my Olympus E510 is supposed to be and had been assuming that ISO
100 would give me better quality than ISO 200 because that is always how
it worked with film. In film photography I used film that was as low as
ISO 25 (Kodak recording film).

On 10/05/2010 9:12 AM, eNo wrote:
>Even if you do this in the RAW format, the ISO 100 photo
> will have better image quality, especially in the highlights.
>
> ~~~
> eNo
> http://esfotoclix.com

Don't you mean the ISO 200 photo will have better IQ? You said the ISO
100 photo has been processed in the camera which would result in less
dynamic range than the base ISO 200 that most DSLRs use. At least that
is what I thought you were saying.