My D80 & D90 gallery has moved

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by eNo, Mar 22, 2009.

  1. eNo

    eNo Guest

    eNo, Mar 22, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. eNo

    Jay Kneese Guest

    Just finished checking out your site and it was a real treat. Also read the
    "experiments" on metering and noise properties of the D80 and D90 with
    interest. I'd like to pass along a few thoughts you might be interested in.

    I got my first adjustable camera, an old folding Kodak, in the late 1940s. I
    had never heard of an exposure meter, but each roll of film contained a data
    sheet with a chart of exposures for various lighting conditions. I followed
    the charts and got good pictures. When I got my first job in 1950 (minimum
    wage at 65 cents an hour) I bought a used Argus 35mm camera and my first
    roll of Kodachrome (ASA 10). Somewhere along the line Kodak had put out a
    cardboard dial-type exposure guide which became my "Bible". Using this
    guide, which was literally the "sunny 16" rule, I shot hundreds of slides
    with very few bad expoosures. Several years later after I had acquired a
    real exposure meter it was obvious that it was still basicly indicating the
    sunny 16 exposure rule.

    Now jump ahead to today and your findings concerning the sunny 16 rule as it
    applies to the D80 and D90. My current camera is a D90 - my fifth digital
    camera. In all these cameras I've noticed essentially what you showed in
    your experiments - that it's closer to the "sunny 11" rule. I think the
    answer is what several instruction manuals and other writings have said,
    that the ISO sensitivity of the digital camera is "approximately" the same
    as ISO (or ASA) film speed.

    One other thing I find interesting. It seems to require a certain amount of
    skill and interpretation to get a correctly metered exposure with the DSLR
    cameras. My last camera before the D90 was a CoolPix 8800 and before that a
    CP 5700. I used matrix metering exclusively on both these cameras and got
    what I'd call correct exposures better than 90% of the time. One would think
    the metering on the Ds would be better, not worse, than a P & S!

    For what it's worth, in looking at your noise comparison page I noticed the
    D90 exposures appear to be consistently about 1/3 EV lighter than the D80.
    If I'm seeing correctly that might have a bearing on the metering comparison
    tests. Just wondering.

    At any rate, keep up the good work. After reading your results I feel the
    need to go out and play with my D90 some more. I'm not totally happy with
    what I'm getting.
     
    Jay Kneese, Mar 22, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. eNo

    Bob Williams Guest

    Hey Man!
    You do good work.
    I enjoyed viewing your pix. You have a good eye for composition.
    Bob Williams
     
    Bob Williams, Mar 22, 2009
    #3
  4. David Ruether, Mar 22, 2009
    #4

  5. Yes, oh yes. What lens did you use for the interior of Ste. Chappelle?
     
    John McWilliams, Mar 23, 2009
    #5
  6. eNo

    ray Guest

    FWIW - it does not come close to meeting standards. See the HTML
    Validator at www.w3c.org.
     
    ray, Mar 23, 2009
    #6
  7. Since it works fine in Safari, there's not any worth to the standards to
    this viewer.

    Is it seriously broken in any browser or platform?
     
    John McWilliams, Mar 23, 2009
    #7
  8. eNo

    eNo Guest

    Some good thoughts here. I don't know how much this will help you,
    since it sounds like you have quite a bit of exposure experience, but
    I've learned to spot-meter with some pretty consistent results,
    especially out in daylight. The trick lies in picking that middle-tone
    (gray), as I mention in passing in at least one of my experiments. The
    other thing I've found useful is to divorce myself from the camera
    meter altogether through the use of AI-S lenses, which neither meter
    nor auto-focus on my D80 & D90. This is part of the reason why I want
    to know how close to the "rule" (more of a guideline, really) the
    camera exposes at a given ISO. This has taught me to pre-judge
    exposure and develop, if you will, an inner meter. I often simply go
    with my experience over the meter, especially in situations where the
    range from bright to dark calls for compromise (i.e., either the
    highlights are gonna blow, or the shadows are going to be under-
    exposed -- you pick). The bottom line is that there is no substitute
    for knowing what the exposure should be rather than letting some in-
    camera brains decide for us. I think most of our unhappiness with
    camera performance comes when the device fails to read our minds. I'm
    not saying that's what you're doing, but I know there are many folks
    out there who set themselves up for failure by letting a microchip
    control their exposure.

    At any rate, thanks for checking out my site, and keep at it. I'm sure
    the D90 will give you some satisfaction in the end.
     
    eNo, Mar 23, 2009
    #8
  9. eNo

    eNo Guest

    That was the Sigma 10-20. The really wide composition (with black
    voids in the corner) was a 3-panel stitch taken while seated on a very
    cold stone floor.
     
    eNo, Mar 23, 2009
    #9
  10. eNo

    eNo Guest

    Thanks. I'll check out the validator . I hand-typed the HTML as best
    as I could remember from memory. The site is pretty bare-bones, with
    the possible exception of some Javascript for the next/prev/slide show
    options.
     
    eNo, Mar 23, 2009
    #10
  11. eNo

    tony cooper Guest

    Works fine on Firefox.
     
    tony cooper, Mar 23, 2009
    #11
  12. eNo

    eNo Guest

    Seems to work fine on IE 7 also. I think ray has found that my HTML
    experience pre-dates all the fancy tags (doc type?) in the original
    HTML format. Of course, the validator identifies a lot of lesser
    issues, too, like incomplete tags which I know most if not all parsers
    handle seamlessly. When I have time, I'll go back and do some clean-
    up. For now, I rather take photos and post them.
     
    eNo, Mar 23, 2009
    #12
  13. You did a lovely job with it. How big can you print it- or how many
    pixels (dimensions) is it.
     
    John McWilliams, Mar 23, 2009
    #13
  14. eNo

    ray Guest

    There certainly is a "worth to the standards". It will most likely work
    on most full computer systems. It will most likely not render properly on
    the newer generation palm devices. Up to you how much audience you want
    to loose.
     
    ray, Mar 23, 2009
    #14
  15. In theory, yes. In this specific case, really, how broken is the site?
    If it works for most people and "does not come close to meeting
    standards", then the standards are a bit arbitrary, no? Why did you feel
    the need to point that out?
     
    John McWilliams, Mar 23, 2009
    #15
  16. eNo

    tony cooper Guest

    He just let loose.
     
    tony cooper, Mar 23, 2009
    #16
  17. eNo

    ray Guest

    Well shit, I don't know. Maybe because anything worth doing is worth
    doing right? Believe it or not, standards are there for a reason.
     
    ray, Mar 23, 2009
    #17
  18. eNo

    eNo Guest

    I don't have the exact pixel count, but I think with cropping and
    overlap of frames (I did almost 40% of overlap) this is roughly a 24MP
    photo. I haven't tried to print it, but I would think at that pixel
    count, I could go very large, though it would have to be a non-
    standard size.
     
    eNo, Mar 23, 2009
    #18
  19. eNo

    eNo Guest

    Hey, ray, man. Easy. I'll fix it, okay?
     
    eNo, Mar 23, 2009
    #19
  20. eNo

    ray Guest

    No beef with you - simply replying to "John McWilliams". He asked; I
    replied.
     
    ray, Mar 24, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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.