D3 ISO range

[jsmisc]

Thanks Kathie; thanks Gilbert.

I'm going to buy a digital SLR in the new year plus a new digital compact for my forthcoming birthday. I expect I will continue to use film too.

Kevin,

I think that's right - use all the tools available and whatever suits at any particular time.

Larry,

No wonder my skills in Photoshop are so meagre.

Best,

John

 

[lens_kat]

Kevin, you missed my point um, like entirely. In fact, you missed most of what I wrote. I was very clear that this is not a digital vs. film discussion. I use and love BOTH technologies and was quite clear that one reason I am virtually forced to use film is because the digital manufacturers have dropped the ball with regard to the street genre of photography. There is no camera outside the Leica M8 that will do the job and that camera is worth way too much for me to risk on the crime-ridden streets of Central America where I live. My complaint lies with Mr. Matzner's comment that darkroom and film exposure methods are dead which is a patently untrue statement. So put your pixels back in your holster and re-read what i wrote.

 

[jsmisc]

kathleen Fonseca (Lens_kat) wrote on December 01:

' 2007 - 4:44 pm, put your pixels back in your holster'

Excellent

 

[eamceamc]

> Hi everybody, I am the Edwin M. whose remark about film being dead started this lengthy discussion. I really did not mean the remark in a partisan way - I was referring to the commercial $$$$ differences between the film and the digital businesses, the difficulty of selling darkroom and film equipment today, the commercial difficulties of Eastman Kodak, etc. The main point is that everything in digital is a crafty copy of film, every function in Photoshop is meant to duplicate what we did in the darkroom, and Photoshop was developed by skilled FILM people to begin with. Nobody commented on my remark about how easy it is to use the Ansel Adams zone system in Photoshop - but that is the point.

I agree with the repeated mention of silver and silicon. Chemically, what happens in digital, the effect of energy on changing the exposed silicon atom, is exactly the same as energy changing a silver halide to exposed silver halide. There is no call for partisanship one way or the other. Film has had 150 years to improve from Niepce's first photo (remember the original klutzy color films) , and digital will also be a lot better 150 years from now. We photographers are lucky to have so much to choose from.

Edwin M.

 

[keviodal]

> Kathleen, a great quote, can I use it ? I have re read your > article....many times and yes you are right....however you missed a few of > my points too.. lets bury the hatchet...I came across a good review of the > new "Ricoh GR Digital 111" that may...I repeat may go a small way...to not > replacing that beautiful Leica but at least enabling you to take some > street pics relatively unobtrusively

Best regards

Kevin O'Daly Tasmania Australia.

PS I am a Commercial Photographer with 40 years experience and absolutely love the darkroom now being made available in

 

[lens_kat]

Hi Kevin..no hatchet to bury! really! I just didn't want the discussion to erode into a film vs. digital one unnecessarily. The points you made were based on incredible knowledge and experience. The day you posted I checked out your website and was suitably intimidated..er, impressed! I guess i get tired of film being trashed 50 ways from Sunday every time i turn around, same as i would digital if the strap was on the other shoulder.

I have been following the Ricohs for a few years and they are bravely going where others fear to tread. So far they haven't come close enough to being street-worthy because of slow raw write time and poor low light performance. I haven't checked out the 111 but will do so. Till now i am using the Voigtlander system (cheap, functional and worthy) and special ordering fast film in the US which i have to hand carry back to Costa Rica, getting it hand-checked by TSA every step of the way. While i do love film, i also love the idea of shooting the street digitally in the low light that plagues the city streets here much of the year. It may happen one day but so far, it's a genre that digital time seems to have forgotten. But i'll check the new Ricoh and see what's what. Take care, by the way, your post got chopped at the end

Edwin M..you said it! We ARE lucky to have so much to choose from..it's really like some sort of technological miracle. All we needs is lots of money and a slew of time to enjoy it all. boo-hoo.

kathie

 

[lens_kat]

Kevin--did you mean the Ricoh GRD II? It was announced October, '07..i don't see a III (?)

kat

 

[phillipgeorge]

Am I missing something? Wouldn't it be easier to use Program (or Aperture Priority) and set the ISO Sensitivity to a Minimum Shutter Speed? That way you can control the Aperture (in Aperture Priority) with a Minimum Shutter Speed and let the ISO float as necessary. Or you can just use Program Mode, set the ISO Sensitivity to a Minimum Shutter Speed and let the camera choose the Aperture and Shutter Speed, with a minimum Shutter Speed and floating ISO. This works fine, but the minimum shutter speed will drop if you set the Maximum ISO at a setting that is too low. For example if you set the Maximum ISO at 400, then the Shutter Speed may drop BELOW the minimum that you set (in the ISO Sensitivity field), but this is a good safeguard as it ensures you get the shot.

By the subject matter and shooting conditions. This would be most useful when covering any field sports in day time where angle and lighting conditions vary greatly over the view of the field you will be covering. Realize that lighting conditions may change considerably over the course of the game as the sun produces an ever-changing shadow, so you may have to change shooting position from time to time to compensate. It is a good idea in most cases to avoid backlighting. If the game begins at 4:00pm, avoid shooting from the east side of the field.

Assuming the lens is at its sharpest at f-8.0, with the camera set to ISO200, try a shot pointed at the brightest subject you will be shooting - on aperture priority - and note the shutter speed. Do another couple of test shots to make sure you are not over-exposing or that the shutter speed is too slow.

Covering most field sports, a shutter speed between 1/500th and 1/1000 is adequate, but more is fine too. If you can not get 1/500th then open the aperture until you achieve it.

Go to full manual, and set this combination of settings, along with auto ISO. Do a few more test shots to check results around the stadium to confirm and preview. What is most important is the quality you get in shadowed or backlit areas. With a range of ISO200-6400, there should be no problem staying within that range on even the most most high contrast day. However check what ISO is set by the camera in the deepest shadow area into which you will be shooting, and make adjustments to shutter speed or aperture accordingly.

Adjust your shooting position if needed, test again and when satisfied, reformat your cards ready to go. After covering a few games, you will learn approximate settings, so little testing will be needed, and just using the read-out in the viewfinder may be adequate.