Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/09/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Guten Tag Ted, That IS an interesting discovery, I tried something similar with my EOS300D/Digital Rebel at the weekend, I suppose it must work in the same way. I was shooting in a very dim chapel of remembrance in Berlin and was getting shutter speeds too slow for hand holding and didn't have a tripod with me. Shooting in RAW mode at 400 ASA I deliberately underexposed in manual metering mode and then corrected the image in Canons File viewer Facility (which allows the pre-processing of RAW images) to get back to the shutter speed I would have had to use according to the automatic mode. The shot turned out IMO better than I expected (within limits) see http://gallery.leica-users.org/New-Old-Pictures/Ged_chtnis_1 I also read in a German photo publication that the ASA/ISO setting of 100 is not necessarily better than at 200, though I didn't quite understand why, they even suggest avoiding the lowest value. In addition, shooting with higher ASA values, at least with the Canon, seems to make the files larger - any ideas/explanations on this count? greetings from sunny Northern Germany. Douglas Ted Grant schrieb: >Howdy gang, > >Here's a Leica Digilux 2 ASA "film ?" rating discovery. oh well OK, >sensitivity surprise! :-) > >As many of you know on the Digilux 2 it's highest ASA is shown as 400. Well >that's true. However, if you set it at 400 and set the EV button to 2 stops >under exposed producing theoretically 1600, the camera along with PS after >down loading the memory card to computer produces some quite acceptable >images. > >I was quite impressed after shooting at an indoor CFL football game in the >Vancouver Sky Dome stadium. Yep the image on the camera screen certainly >appears under-exposed. But when you put it up on the computer screen and >using PhotoShop with a few tweaks of levels and curves and by golly it comes >back just like it looked in the stadium and prints out quite well. > >The whites are white and the face colours are quite acceptable. Noise? Well >I didn't hear any from the camera. Oh you want to no about the "grain >effect?" Forget it, it's basically non-existant certainly on 8.5 X 11 size >prints. I suppose if one wanted to get niggilly and wanted to make a big >fuss over it, you might see some "grain" in the turf areas and it was hard >for me to accept it was there when my son pointed out... "Yeah it kind of >looks like some "noise" effect on the turf." > >Well I wish 1600 film came out with the little amount of "grain" look as >appeared from this manipulation of the Digilux 2's film sensitivity. > >So maybe there's hope for the Digilux 2 yet as an available light kind of >camera after all, of course with a little help from PhotoShop! ;-) > >Now I'm intrigued to see where I can go with this in B&W! Will let you know >after the weekend. > >ted > > > >_______________________________________________ >Leica Users Group. >See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > -- Ihre bevorzugten Shops, hilfreiche Einkaufs-Hilfen und gro?artige Geschenk Ideen. Erleben Sie das Vergn?gen online einzukaufen mit Shop@Netscape! http://shopping.netscape.de/shopping/