Re: [SI] Don't forget to send your favorites!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Robert Coe, Oct 23, 2009.

  1. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:57:17 -0400, "Bowser" <> wrote:
    : Don't forget, this month's mandate, Due on the 25th, is "Your Favorite of
    : the Month." Send us something you shot and tellus why you like it. Any
    : subject matter is OK. Except porn. Put a brief description in the e-mail and
    : I'll paste it into the description so we know why you like it. the gallery
    : is here:
    :
    : http://www.pbase.com/shootin/your_favorite
    :
    : And please send the pix here:
    :
    : si dot moderator at yahoo dot com
    :
    : We look forward to your entries.

    Martha and I are in, as soon as I finish reducing our entries to 300KB. :^(

    : PS: all I shoot this time of year is HS sports, so don't break my chops if
    : all I submit are football pix.

    Don't worry. You may recall that 11 months ago I had just tried to photograph
    a football game the night before Thanxgiving. (My daughter's husband's nephew
    is one of the best HS running backs in eastern Pennsylvania; if he doesn't get
    injured, we're hoping to see him playing for Mr Paterno in a couple of years.)
    My pix were pretty awful, so I know how hard it is!

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Oct 23, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Robert Coe

    Huh ... Guest

    On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 20:26:00 -0400, "Bowser" <> wrote:

    >
    >
    >"Robert Coe" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:57:17 -0400, "Bowser" <> wrote:
    >> : Don't forget, this month's mandate, Due on the 25th, is "Your Favorite
    >> of
    >> : the Month." Send us something you shot and tellus why you like it. Any
    >> : subject matter is OK. Except porn. Put a brief description in the e-mail
    >> and
    >> : I'll paste it into the description so we know why you like it. the
    >> gallery
    >> : is here:
    >> :
    >> : http://www.pbase.com/shootin/your_favorite
    >> :
    >> : And please send the pix here:
    >> :
    >> : si dot moderator at yahoo dot com
    >> :
    >> : We look forward to your entries.
    >>
    >> Martha and I are in, as soon as I finish reducing our entries to 300KB.
    >> :^(
    >>
    >> : PS: all I shoot this time of year is HS sports, so don't break my chops
    >> if
    >> : all I submit are football pix.
    >>
    >> Don't worry. You may recall that 11 months ago I had just tried to
    >> photograph
    >> a football game the night before Thanxgiving. (My daughter's husband's
    >> nephew
    >> is one of the best HS running backs in eastern Pennsylvania; if he doesn't
    >> get
    >> injured, we're hoping to see him playing for Mr Paterno in a couple of
    >> years.)
    >> My pix were pretty awful, so I know how hard it is!

    >
    >It is a pain, and in another NG I was foolishly debating John Navas who said
    >he could shoot night football with his FZ20. I challenged him to post
    >results, and he eventually killfiled me. He also claimed that contrast
    >detect AF was faster than Phase Detect AF, and a few other pretty silly
    >things. Anyway, it's not easy. I shoot at ISO 6400 just to get the shutter
    >above 1/250th at f4.


    Huh...

    And yet all high-school students on their yearbook staffs, armed with only
    ASA100 film can, and have, captured those exact types of images for the
    last half-century and more and had them published in books for the whole
    world to see. Back then they even had poorer lighting that what you have
    available now. A quite impressive feat when you consider everything those
    beginner photographer teenagers have done in every school across the
    country for so long.

    Must feel pretty bad that you can't even use a camera as well as a beginner
    photographer teenager. I guess you'll just have to keep posting why you
    NEED ISO6400 to justify not looking in the mirror and your own pathetic
    photography skills.

    Sucks to be you, doesn't it.
     
    Huh ..., Oct 25, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Robert Coe

    mikey4 Guest

    "Huh ..." <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 20:26:00 -0400, "Bowser" <> wrote:
    >
    >
    > And yet all high-school students on their yearbook staffs, armed with only
    > ASA100 film can, and have, captured those exact types of images for the
    > last half-century and more and had them published in books for the whole
    > world to see. Back then they even had poorer lighting that what you have
    > available now. A quite impressive feat when you consider everything those
    > beginner photographer teenagers have done in every school across the
    > country for so long.
    >

    Was a very long time ago, early 60's, I remember my high school newspaper
    photogs shot Tri-X at night sporting events. Of course back then everything
    shot for the school paper and year book B&W.
     
    mikey4, Oct 25, 2009
    #3
  4. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:03:03 -0400, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:
    : Huh ... wrote:
    : school students on their yearbook staffs, armed with only
    : > ASA100 film can, and have, captured those exact types of images for the
    : > last half-century and more and had them published in books for the whole
    : > world to see.
    :
    : Most yearbook photos are actually done by pros, companies that
    : specialize in school photos. My HS certainly was. Yearbooks also
    : include casual snaps of school life - usually done by students. But
    : that's a slim part of the whole.

    I wonder if you're just showing your age. (Don't take offense; I'm almost
    certainly older than you.) My sense is that more such activities are in the
    hands of students than was the case when we were kids. That's A Good Thing,
    IMO.

    I work for a city government, and we of course use HS interns (many with
    political connections, but almost all of them very bright) in our Information
    Technology Department. A few years ago a student (without any obvious
    political connections) badgered me for an interview until we finally invited
    him in. He turned out to one of the smartest kids I ever met. His HS and
    college careers behind him, he's now one of our most valuable system
    administrators. (FWIW, he's a Canon user.)

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Oct 25, 2009
    #4
  5. Robert Coe

    Huh ... Guest

    On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 12:30:21 -0400, "Bowser" <> wrote:

    >Nice try, troll. I'll pay yout $10,000 if you can shoot a night HS football
    >game with ISO 100 file as well as I do with my digital at ISO 6400.


    The next time I'm ever traveling through a location that's inhabited enough
    to have a high-school, you'll be out that $10,000.

    You should be more careful about making offers like that, there are
    thousands of previous high-school yearbook photographers in existence who
    have done nothing but what you are claiming can't be done. I'm certainly
    not the only one that can take your fool's money from such a rudimentary
    snapshooter.

    As for the other trolls claiming that putting those school-related
    activities into the hands of hired photographers ... this perfectly
    explains why there's so many poor snapshooters (and books written) today,
    causing such things like the photographs posted on Flickr groups to get
    such high praise. It all makes sense why things have gone from trash to
    gutter.
     
    Huh ..., Oct 25, 2009
    #5
  6. Robert Coe

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 13:07:29 -0700, "Frank ess" <>
    wrote:

    >
    >
    >Alan Browne wrote:
    >> Huh ... wrote:
    >> school students on their yearbook staffs, armed with only
    >>> ASA100 film can, and have, captured those exact types of images
    >>> for the last half-century and more and had them published in books
    >>> for the whole world to see.

    >>
    >> Most yearbook photos are actually done by pros, companies that
    >> specialize in school photos. My HS certainly was. Yearbooks also
    >> include casual snaps of school life - usually done by students. But
    >> that's a slim part of the whole.

    >
    >Some of all that in this middle 1950s album.
    >http://www.fototime.com/inv/026DBC694F3BE97
    >
    >Looks as if the football snaps were flash-lit, and some on the pages
    >of casual from-the-family-album shots of Seniors as children look
    >surprisingly good. I took several of the school-life shots with our
    >family's no-name camera, using 127 film if I recall correctly. Which
    >is increasingly doubtful, given the time lapse and ... what was I
    >saying?
    >
    >Do today's professionals bring a backdrop and do the shooting on
    >campuses? Several of the no-shows in this graduating class missed the
    >book because they worked on the family farm and couldn't get to the
    >photographer's studio when it was open.


    The student photographs for my high school yearbooks (1952/56) were
    taken by a professional in the school auditorium. He had a portable
    set-up much like what you see today where a baby photographer will set
    up in a store like K-Mart.

    The shots of the sports teams in action were taken by student
    photographers who worked on the yearbook staff or the school newspaper
    staff. All black-and-white. The group shots of clubs and
    organizations were also taken by student photographers.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Oct 25, 2009
    #6
  7. Robert Coe

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Huh ... <> wrote:
    >On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 12:30:21 -0400, "Bowser" <> wrote:
    >
    >>Nice try, troll. I'll pay yout $10,000 if you can shoot a night HS football
    >>game with ISO 100 file as well as I do with my digital at ISO 6400.

    >
    >The next time I'm ever traveling through a location that's inhabited enough
    >to have a high-school, you'll be out that $10,000.


    Bleats some anonymous coward who doesn't even use a real name or email
    address.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Oct 25, 2009
    #7
  8. On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 18:05:25 -0400, "Bowser" <> wrote:

    >
    >
    >"Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> Huh ... wrote:
    >>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 12:30:21 -0400, "Bowser" <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Nice try, troll. I'll pay yout $10,000 if you can shoot a night HS
    >>>> football game with ISO 100 file as well as I do with my digital at ISO
    >>>> 6400.
    >>>
    >>> The next time I'm ever traveling through a location that's inhabited
    >>> enough
    >>> to have a high-school, you'll be out that $10,000.
    >>>
    >>> You should be more careful about making offers like that, there are
    >>> thousands of previous high-school yearbook photographers in existence who

    >> <snip the ya-ya-ya-da>
    >>
    >> Shut up and put up. Walk the walk. Show the goods.

    >
    >Like Navas, we'll never see anything. 1/8th at f4? Good results? Right......


    Or ... 1/32s at f/2.8, or 1/64s at f/1.4. No, no way, there are no lenses
    of that size, never was. Panning with a subject, snapping the shutter just
    at the full extension of motion or when the subject is reversing positions.
    During that momentary pause that ALL decent sports photographer learn to
    predict and know like the back of their hand. Easy to do at those speeds
    and arrest all motion. Even easier if using Tri-X. Easy for anyone who is
    the least bit talented that is. Even teenage high-school yearbook
    photographers who are just learning to use a camera.

    The fact that you can't do what nearly every teenager on a year-book staff
    could do proves just how pathetic you are no matter what camera gear will
    ever be in your hands. Thanks for posting and zealously insisting what high
    ISOs you require, otherwise we wouldn't have realized just how bad you are
    with any camera. Your own words proved it. Unbeknownst to you, until now.

    Give it up, you useless talentless snapshooting know-nothing hack trolls.

    One more thing. Stop handing out your snapshooter's advice. NOBODY deserves
    the pitiable fate of having to learn anything photography related from
    talentless idiots like you.
     
    Move along folks - nothing but talentless snapshoo, Oct 25, 2009
    #8
  9. Robert Coe

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Bowser <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >"Ray Fischer" <> wrote in message
    >news:4ae4d05a$0$1659$...
    >> Huh ... <> wrote:
    >>>On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 12:30:21 -0400, "Bowser" <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Nice try, troll. I'll pay yout $10,000 if you can shoot a night HS
    >>>>football
    >>>>game with ISO 100 file as well as I do with my digital at ISO 6400.
    >>>
    >>>The next time I'm ever traveling through a location that's inhabited
    >>>enough
    >>>to have a high-school, you'll be out that $10,000.

    >>
    >> Bleats some anonymous coward who doesn't even use a real name or email
    >> address.

    >
    >Right. Just an attempt at privacy, that's all.


    A bullshit excuse.

    >As far as privacy, do you stand up in the middle of Grand Central Station
    >and shout out your personal info?


    Do you realize why that's a stupid question?

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Oct 25, 2009
    #9
  10. Robert Coe

    Catch Up Guest

    On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:50:09 -0400, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    >Bowser wrote:
    >
    >> Do you think that the troll is a Navas sock puppet? Seriously, 1/32nd?

    >
    >Some leaf shutters, marked 1/15, 1/30, 1/60 etc. are actually 1/16,
    >1/32, 1/64 ... in timing. (I'd bet many FP shutters from yore are as
    >well and I wouldn't be shocked if modern DSLR's are so).


    Anyone with any modern camera can easily test this for themselves. Set it
    for 15 seconds. It times out at 16 seconds. If unsure with the 15 second
    test, then set it for 30 seconds, watch the shutter close at a 32 duration.
    Easier for the photographer to double or half the numbers if they are
    rounded.

    1s, 2s, 4s, 8s, 15s, 30s. 60s.

    Rather than the true speeds which are

    1s, 2s. 4s. 8s. 16s. 32s. 64s

    The rounded numbers were only added for convenience. The CHDK team, for
    lack of a better term, has defined these rounded values the "marketed
    values". This numbering scheme, rounding f/stop, exposure, and even ISO
    values to the nearest round had been in existence since the beginning of
    photography.

    In the other direction, their "marketed value" might be named

    1/8, 1/15, 1/30, 1/60, 1/125, 1/250, 1/500

    But in reality they will always time to

    1/8, 1/16, 1/32, 1/64, 1/128, 1/248, 1/496

    This is quite confusing to newcomers to the CHDK team. They've never been
    aware of this. (Old-time photographers are, but none of the newer
    photographers know this.) When people new to CHDK get into the APEX
    numbering scheme for setting Av and Tv values, they have to rely on the
    true values, not the "marketed values".
     
    Catch Up, Oct 27, 2009
    #10
  11. Robert Coe

    Paul Furman Guest

    .... wrote:
    >
    >> 1/8th at f4? Good results? Right......

    >
    > Or ... 1/32s at f/2.8, or 1/64s at f/1.4.


    Apart from rounding, a stop got lost/mixed up...
    1/8 f/4
    1/15 f/2.8
    1/30 f/2
    1/60 f/1.4
     
    Paul Furman, Oct 27, 2009
    #11
  12. Robert Coe

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Bowser <> wrote:
    >"Ray Fischer" <> wrote in message
    >> Bowser <> wrote:
    >>>"Ray Fischer" <> wrote in message
    >>>> Huh ... <> wrote:
    >>>>>On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 12:30:21 -0400, "Bowser" <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>Nice try, troll. I'll pay yout $10,000 if you can shoot a night HS
    >>>>>>football
    >>>>>>game with ISO 100 file as well as I do with my digital at ISO 6400.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>The next time I'm ever traveling through a location that's inhabited
    >>>>>enough
    >>>>>to have a high-school, you'll be out that $10,000.
    >>>>
    >>>> Bleats some anonymous coward who doesn't even use a real name or email
    >>>> address.
    >>>
    >>>Right. Just an attempt at privacy, that's all.

    >>
    >> A bullshit excuse.

    >
    >Your opinion, my choice.


    And my choice to disreagrd your crap as being trollery.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Oct 27, 2009
    #12
  13. Robert Coe

    Bob Larter Guest

    Bowser wrote:
    >
    >
    > "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Huh ... wrote:
    >>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 12:30:21 -0400, "Bowser" <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Nice try, troll. I'll pay yout $10,000 if you can shoot a night HS
    >>>> football game with ISO 100 file as well as I do with my digital at
    >>>> ISO 6400.
    >>>
    >>> The next time I'm ever traveling through a location that's inhabited
    >>> enough
    >>> to have a high-school, you'll be out that $10,000.
    >>>
    >>> You should be more careful about making offers like that, there are
    >>> thousands of previous high-school yearbook photographers in existence
    >>> who

    >> <snip the ya-ya-ya-da>
    >>
    >> Shut up and put up. Walk the walk. Show the goods.

    >
    > Like Navas, we'll never see anything. 1/8th at f4? Good results?
    > Right......


    I have one good photo that I took at about 1/8th & F2.8 or so (with a
    digicam). It was an incredibly lucky shot, & I'll be surprised if I ever
    manage to do it again.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Bob Larter, Oct 27, 2009
    #13
  14. Robert Coe

    Bob Larter Guest

    Bowser wrote:
    >
    >
    > "George Kerby" <> wrote in message
    > news:C70B2762.37292%...
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> On 10/25/09 5:33 PM, in article
    >> ,
    >> "Move along folks - nothing but talentless snapshooters here - nothing to
    >> see ..." <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 18:05:25 -0400, "Bowser" <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> Huh ... wrote:
    >>>>>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 12:30:21 -0400, "Bowser" <> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Nice try, troll. I'll pay yout $10,000 if you can shoot a night HS
    >>>>>>> football game with ISO 100 file as well as I do with my digital
    >>>>>>> at ISO
    >>>>>>> 6400.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> The next time I'm ever traveling through a location that's inhabited
    >>>>>> enough
    >>>>>> to have a high-school, you'll be out that $10,000.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> You should be more careful about making offers like that, there are
    >>>>>> thousands of previous high-school yearbook photographers in
    >>>>>> existence who
    >>>>> <snip the ya-ya-ya-da>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Shut up and put up. Walk the walk. Show the goods.
    >>>>
    >>>> Like Navas, we'll never see anything. 1/8th at f4? Good results?
    >>>> Right......
    >>>
    >>> Or ... 1/32s at f/2.8, or 1/64s at f/1.4.

    >>
    >> <snip>
    >>
    >> Nuff said. You have just proven yourself a buffoon in regard to
    >> photography.
    >>
    >> No go bother some other children and leave the adults alone...

    >
    > Do you think that the troll is a Navas sock puppet? Seriously, 1/32nd?


    I've been wondering the same thing. The fact that the P&S troll changes
    his handle & NSP so often is a dead giveaway that he's scared of being
    tracked down.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Bob Larter, Oct 27, 2009
    #14
  15. Robert Coe

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:54:35 -0500, Catch Up <>
    wrote:

    >On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:50:09 -0400, Alan Browne
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>Bowser wrote:
    >>
    >>> Do you think that the troll is a Navas sock puppet? Seriously, 1/32nd?

    >>
    >>Some leaf shutters, marked 1/15, 1/30, 1/60 etc. are actually 1/16,
    >>1/32, 1/64 ... in timing. (I'd bet many FP shutters from yore are as
    >>well and I wouldn't be shocked if modern DSLR's are so).

    >
    >Anyone with any modern camera can easily test this for themselves. Set it
    >for 15 seconds. It times out at 16 seconds. If unsure with the 15 second
    >test, then set it for 30 seconds, watch the shutter close at a 32 duration.
    >Easier for the photographer to double or half the numbers if they are
    >rounded.
    >
    >1s, 2s, 4s, 8s, 15s, 30s. 60s.
    >
    >Rather than the true speeds which are
    >
    >1s, 2s. 4s. 8s. 16s. 32s. 64s
    >
    >The rounded numbers were only added for convenience. The CHDK team, for
    >lack of a better term, has defined these rounded values the "marketed
    >values". This numbering scheme, rounding f/stop, exposure, and even ISO
    >values to the nearest round had been in existence since the beginning of
    >photography.
    >
    >In the other direction, their "marketed value" might be named
    >
    >1/8, 1/15, 1/30, 1/60, 1/125, 1/250, 1/500
    >
    >But in reality they will always time to
    >
    >1/8, 1/16, 1/32, 1/64, 1/128, 1/248, 1/496
    >
    >This is quite confusing to newcomers to the CHDK team. They've never been
    >aware of this. (Old-time photographers are, but none of the newer
    >photographers know this.) When people new to CHDK get into the APEX
    >numbering scheme for setting Av and Tv values, they have to rely on the
    >true values, not the "marketed values".


    This old-time photographer quickly learned that the rated speed was
    only a convenient reference point for setting the shutter speed. The
    expected tolerance on (say) 1/125 would include 1/128 without any
    trouble. And vice versa.

    What's more, the extent of the expected under/over exposure would vary
    from one part of the speed range to another. All this is to be
    expected when you look at the means they used for setting/controlling
    speed.



    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Oct 27, 2009
    #15
  16. Robert Coe

    Catch Up Guest

    On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:07:34 +1300, Eric Stevens <>
    wrote:

    >On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:54:35 -0500, Catch Up <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:50:09 -0400, Alan Browne
    >><> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Bowser wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Do you think that the troll is a Navas sock puppet? Seriously, 1/32nd?
    >>>
    >>>Some leaf shutters, marked 1/15, 1/30, 1/60 etc. are actually 1/16,
    >>>1/32, 1/64 ... in timing. (I'd bet many FP shutters from yore are as
    >>>well and I wouldn't be shocked if modern DSLR's are so).

    >>
    >>Anyone with any modern camera can easily test this for themselves. Set it
    >>for 15 seconds. It times out at 16 seconds. If unsure with the 15 second
    >>test, then set it for 30 seconds, watch the shutter close at a 32 duration.
    >>Easier for the photographer to double or half the numbers if they are
    >>rounded.
    >>
    >>1s, 2s, 4s, 8s, 15s, 30s. 60s.
    >>
    >>Rather than the true speeds which are
    >>
    >>1s, 2s. 4s. 8s. 16s. 32s. 64s
    >>
    >>The rounded numbers were only added for convenience. The CHDK team, for
    >>lack of a better term, has defined these rounded values the "marketed
    >>values". This numbering scheme, rounding f/stop, exposure, and even ISO
    >>values to the nearest round had been in existence since the beginning of
    >>photography.
    >>
    >>In the other direction, their "marketed value" might be named
    >>
    >>1/8, 1/15, 1/30, 1/60, 1/125, 1/250, 1/500
    >>
    >>But in reality they will always time to
    >>
    >>1/8, 1/16, 1/32, 1/64, 1/128, 1/248, 1/496
    >>
    >>This is quite confusing to newcomers to the CHDK team. They've never been
    >>aware of this. (Old-time photographers are, but none of the newer
    >>photographers know this.) When people new to CHDK get into the APEX
    >>numbering scheme for setting Av and Tv values, they have to rely on the
    >>true values, not the "marketed values".

    >
    >This old-time photographer quickly learned that the rated speed was
    >only a convenient reference point for setting the shutter speed. The
    >expected tolerance on (say) 1/125 would include 1/128 without any
    >trouble. And vice versa.
    >
    >What's more, the extent of the expected under/over exposure would vary
    >from one part of the speed range to another. All this is to be
    >expected when you look at the means they used for setting/controlling
    >speed.
    >
    >
    >
    >Eric Stevens


    This could very well be the reason they decided to just round to the
    nearest in the past. Which now became convention for simplicity sake, even
    though shutters of some of today's cameras have been found to be as
    accurate as 1/80,000 of a second timing tolerance (CHDK P&S cameras for
    example), reproducible every time. Long ago I had tested shutter speeds on
    some old bellows field-cameras. Whether due to age or design they were
    decidedly very far off the mark. Often being random in nature. At times
    faster, others slower for the very same speed setting. And as you say,
    varying greatly at either end of their ranges. These were precision
    leaf-shutters too mind you. The focal-plane shutters of SLR cameras with
    their heavy-cloth curtains were always all over the board. Springs,
    rubberized cloth, and mechanical trip mechanisms don't tolerate
    fluctuations in humidity and temperature well. Nor whatever lubricant or
    lack of lubricant is in use on the transport mechanism. Another reason I'd
    rather use a P&S camera that does not rely on mechanical contrivances and
    springs, other than for door-latches and lens covers.

    The average snapshooter would probably have a difficult time trying to
    think, "What's 4 stops faster than 1/64 second?" when faced with cameras
    designed with 1/3EV steps in mind. 60 x 4 being near to 250 is easy, 200
    don't cut it, and neither does 320. One less digit to mentally play with.
    They already have a difficult enough time with their cameras on full-auto
    modes.

    Often my photography projects are of scientific analysis in nature. When I
    choose 1/227.3 seconds (44/10,000th) shutter speed it damn well better be
    that speed. Easily available in CHDK P&S cameras with their two (three) Tv
    override methods. One being standard 1/3EV increments as a menu option for
    the average photographer. If using the APEX shutter-speed selection using
    calculations in scripts to set Tv values, then even more steps are
    available. 96 distinct shutter-speeds per EV step. The other method (also
    on a CHDK menu) as decimal fractions.1/227.3 = 44/10,000 = 44 x a factor
    of 1/10k. This decimal method available in factors of 100, 10, 1, 1/10,
    1/100, 1/1k, 1/10k, and 1/100k, using multipliers of 0 to 100. Selectable
    shutter-speeds from 2.77 hours to 1/40,000 second with a 1/80,000th second
    accuracy. This is a nice century for photography.
     
    Catch Up, Oct 27, 2009
    #16
  17. Robert Coe

    Catch Up Guest

    Silly EV numeric mistake corrected and clarified.

    On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:07:34 +1300, Eric Stevens <>
    wrote:

    >On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:54:35 -0500, Catch Up <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:50:09 -0400, Alan Browne
    >><> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Bowser wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Do you think that the troll is a Navas sock puppet? Seriously, 1/32nd?
    >>>
    >>>Some leaf shutters, marked 1/15, 1/30, 1/60 etc. are actually 1/16,
    >>>1/32, 1/64 ... in timing. (I'd bet many FP shutters from yore are as
    >>>well and I wouldn't be shocked if modern DSLR's are so).

    >>
    >>Anyone with any modern camera can easily test this for themselves. Set it
    >>for 15 seconds. It times out at 16 seconds. If unsure with the 15 second
    >>test, then set it for 30 seconds, watch the shutter close at a 32 duration.
    >>Easier for the photographer to double or half the numbers if they are
    >>rounded.
    >>
    >>1s, 2s, 4s, 8s, 15s, 30s. 60s.
    >>
    >>Rather than the true speeds which are
    >>
    >>1s, 2s. 4s. 8s. 16s. 32s. 64s
    >>
    >>The rounded numbers were only added for convenience. The CHDK team, for
    >>lack of a better term, has defined these rounded values the "marketed
    >>values". This numbering scheme, rounding f/stop, exposure, and even ISO
    >>values to the nearest round had been in existence since the beginning of
    >>photography.
    >>
    >>In the other direction, their "marketed value" might be named
    >>
    >>1/8, 1/15, 1/30, 1/60, 1/125, 1/250, 1/500
    >>
    >>But in reality they will always time to
    >>
    >>1/8, 1/16, 1/32, 1/64, 1/128, 1/248, 1/496
    >>
    >>This is quite confusing to newcomers to the CHDK team. They've never been
    >>aware of this. (Old-time photographers are, but none of the newer
    >>photographers know this.) When people new to CHDK get into the APEX
    >>numbering scheme for setting Av and Tv values, they have to rely on the
    >>true values, not the "marketed values".

    >
    >This old-time photographer quickly learned that the rated speed was
    >only a convenient reference point for setting the shutter speed. The
    >expected tolerance on (say) 1/125 would include 1/128 without any
    >trouble. And vice versa.
    >
    >What's more, the extent of the expected under/over exposure would vary
    >from one part of the speed range to another. All this is to be
    >expected when you look at the means they used for setting/controlling
    >speed.
    >
    >
    >
    >Eric Stevens


    This could very well be the reason they decided to just round to the
    nearest in the past. Which now became convention for simplicity sake, even
    though shutters of some of today's cameras have been found to be as
    accurate as 1/80,000 of a second timing tolerance (CHDK P&S cameras for
    example), reproducible every time. Long ago I had tested shutter speeds on
    some old bellows field-cameras. Whether due to age or design they were
    decidedly very far off the mark. Often being random in nature. At times
    faster, others slower for the very same speed setting. And as you say,
    varying greatly at either end of their ranges. These were precision
    leaf-shutters too mind you. The focal-plane shutters of SLR cameras with
    their heavy-cloth curtains were always all over the board. Springs,
    rubberized cloth, and mechanical trip mechanisms don't tolerate
    fluctuations in humidity and temperature well. Nor whatever lubricant or
    lack of lubricant is in use on the transport mechanism. Another reason I'd
    rather use a P&S camera that does not rely on mechanical contrivances and
    springs, other than for door-latches and lens covers.

    The average snapshooter would probably have a difficult time trying to
    think, "What's -2EV stops (4x's) faster than 1/64 second?" when faced with
    cameras designed with 1/3EV steps in mind. 60 x 4 being near to 250 is
    easy, 200 don't cut it, and neither does 320. One less digit to mentally
    play with. They already have a difficult enough time with their cameras on
    full-auto modes.

    Often my photography projects are of scientific analysis in nature. When I
    choose 1/227.3 seconds (44/10,000th) shutter speed it damn well better be
    that speed. Easily available in CHDK P&S cameras with their two (three) Tv
    override methods. One being standard 1/3EV increments as a menu option for
    the average photographer. If using the APEX shutter-speed selection using
    calculations in scripts to set Tv values, then even more steps are
    available. 96 distinct shutter-speeds per EV step. The other method (also
    on a CHDK menu) as decimal fractions.1/227.3 = 44/10,000 = 44 x a factor
    of 1/10k. This decimal method available in factors of 100, 10, 1, 1/10,
    1/100, 1/1k, 1/10k, and 1/100k, using multipliers of 0 to 100. Selectable
    shutter-speeds from 2.77 hours to 1/40,000 second with a 1/80,000th second
    accuracy. This is a nice century for photography.
     
    Catch Up, Oct 27, 2009
    #17
    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. Tim Conway

    Re: [SI] Don't forget to send your favorites!

    Tim Conway, Oct 22, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    333
    Robert Coe
    Oct 25, 2009
  2. tony cooper

    Re: [SI] Don't forget to send your favorites!

    tony cooper, Oct 22, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    314
    Robert Coe
    Oct 25, 2009
  3. Annika1980

    Re: Don't forget to send your favorites!

    Annika1980, Oct 25, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    41
    Views:
    987
    tony cooper
    Nov 6, 2009
  4. Bowser
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    334
    Robert Coe
    Jan 18, 2010
  5. Peter

    Re: [SI] Don't forget to send in your wallpaper!

    Peter, Jun 12, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    68
    Views:
    1,161
Loading...

Share This Page