If you photo-blog and nobody reads...

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by eNo, May 5, 2010.

  1. eNo

    eNo Guest

    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
     
    eNo, May 5, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. eNo

    Phil B. Guest

    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.
     
    Phil B., May 5, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. eNo

    gumby Guest

    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.
     
    gumby, May 10, 2010
    #3
  4. eNo

    gumby Guest

    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, May 10, 2010
    #4
  5. 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
     
    John McWilliams, May 10, 2010
    #5
  6. eNo

    eNo Guest

    On May 10, 9:02 am, 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.



    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
     
    eNo, May 10, 2010
    #6
  7. eNo

    gumby Guest

    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, May 12, 2010
    #7
  8. 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
     
    John McWilliams, May 12, 2010
    #8
  9. eNo

    gumby Guest

    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).
     
    gumby, May 12, 2010
    #9
  10. eNo

    gumby Guest

    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.
     
    gumby, May 12, 2010
    #10
  11. eNo

    gumby Guest

    On 12/05/2010 10:24 AM, John McWilliams wrote:

    > 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!?
    >


    Because those numbers are too low for most people to use and get a blur
    free shot. I've used film that was ISO 25 though.
     
    gumby, May 13, 2010
    #11
  12. eNo

    John Turco Guest

    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



    Your Web site is pretty professional-looking, but...it takes too long
    to load, on my meager dial-up connection. All those nice gallery photos
    tend to bog me down, no doubt.

    My sister also has a blog (mentioned in my "signature" file); it, too,
    is molasses-like, as far as I'm concerned. She advertises her paintings
    (for sale on eBay), there, and those many images are the culprits.

    Good luck, nonetheless!

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
     
    John Turco, May 31, 2010
    #12
  13. eNo

    John Turco Guest

    eNo wrote:
    >
    > On May 10, 9:02 am, 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.

    >
    > 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.



    My Pentax K100D (purchased in September of 2007) is that way, too.
    This 6MP "entry level" DSLR's lowest ISO is only 200.

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
     
    John Turco, May 31, 2010
    #13
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. JD
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,298
  2. DVD Verdict
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    410
    DVD Verdict
    Sep 2, 2003
  3. John

    blog blog blog

    John, Feb 13, 2005, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    485
  4. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    557
    Peter =?UTF-8?B?S8O2aGxtYW5u?=
    Sep 27, 2007
  5. SurfHide.us
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,551
    SurfHide.us
    Sep 30, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page