Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/03/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]STOP STOP STOP Higher dynamic range not equal to high ISO On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Robert Meier <robertmeier at usjet.net> wrote: > 24,000 is 5 stops away from 800. It's not hard to imagine a use for that. > > > On Mar 14, 2012, at 8:09 PM, Tina Manley wrote: > > > In my many years photographing inside dark adobe houses by firelight, I > > used mostly Tri-X and TMax 400 pushed to 800. When TMax 3200 came out, I > > carried some of that for the very darkest of the dark: > > > > http://www.pbase.com/tinamanley/image/121090460 > > > > http://www.pbase.com/tinamanley/image/121090465 > > > > I can't imagine needing the super ISOs on some of the newest digital > > cameras - like 24,000. What is that for? The black cat in the coal > mine? > > But then maybe those other cameras don't have a lens that draws in the > > light, like the Noctilux ;-) Who needs 24,000 when you have 1.0!! > > > > Tina > > > > > > I've been saying this for a while. The world is not getting darker, > >> right? Didn't most of us learn on "slow" films between 100 and 400 ISO? > >> I still see no reason for anything over 3200. I'm not a coal miner > >> shooting photos of black cats while at work nor are most of us on the > >> LUG. I'm sure one person out there could make regular use of it but if > >> digital weren't around we'd still be pushing film up to 3200 and 6400 > >> to get our grainy yet great photos we love. > >> > >> To freeze motion at night? Again, why? Life isn't static, so why should > >> our photography be? I always hate these tack sharp photos that folks > >> show of helicopter blades perfectly frozen and straight as if the > >> aircraft is going to fall from the sky. Some things just look unnatural > >> when frozen above 1/1000 second. But that's my opinion. > >> > >> I love the fact that I can get a nice clean 800ISO with my M9 as long > >> as I do the work to properly expose the frame. walking around center > >> city Philly at night shooting a 35 Lux at f/2 and 1/30 second is > >> perfect. All i have to do is focus and imagine Dr. Ted yelling at me to > >> shoot, not to fiddle with the camera and all its trappings. > >> > >> I think this high ISO craze is BS but again, that's my opinion. I also > >> KNOW it is spoiling a lot of photo students out there who don't know > >> how to expose a frame without the camera telling them every single > >> thing during and after (chimping) the shot. I'm waiting for this wave > >> of mediocrity to sweep into the professional world and then the > >> employment opportunities to open up to folks who learned how to do this > >> on K64 with a spotmatic that had a broken light meter. > >> > >> Ok, mumble, mumble, metaphorical lawn, mumble mumble. I'll get off my > >> soapbox. > >> > >> Phil Forrest > >> > >> > >>>> If I could 2/3 more "speed" by using a B&W sensor I could achieve > >>>> what ISO 306.000 or so? > >>>> > >>>> Or a clean IS 18,600 or so > >>>> > >>>> WHY? > >>>> > >>>> This scene is illuminated by the moonlight reflected from my cat's > >>>> eye? At what point doe it get to be overkill? > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Leica Users Group. > >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Tina Manley, ASMP > > www.tinamanley.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Leica Users Group. > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > -- // richard <http://www.richardmanphoto.com>