Help with camera exposure

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
| Darren G wrote:
|
| > < $%^&ing huge snip>
| >
| > And you wonder why you have no time to spare!
| >
| > I think the group has collectively used up the entire year's
| > productivity of a small country reading that last one 🙂
|
| Yes, and it has to stop.

But you're finding it difficult! ;-) Perhaps you can get a u.r.w patch and
stick it to your arm? :-)

| Paul

Ste

ste© said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, and it has to stop.

But you're finding it difficult! ;-)

Just tying up loose ends...

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
| ste© wrote:
|
| > Here here, come on Paul, are you a man or a mouse! :-)
|
| I'm time management challenged...

That's what they all say! ;-)

| > Or maybe it's just too much to ask two digital experts to to confront
| > each other, as one of them is going to look stupid I guess! :-) My
| > money is on you to win Paul! ;-)
|
| Thanks for the vote of confidence. The problem with arguing with other
| "experts" is that when both passionately believe their own point of view
| the argument tends to go on for ever with no resolution (for example my
| ongoing argument with David Laight about panoramic camera projection).

Oh well, if you lay your case to clearly and with undisputable evidence, you
should be okay.

| I don't have enough time as it is and I have far more important things
| to do with it than get involved in endless arguments (one good reason
| for quitting this newsgroup!).

It is time consuming, can I escape with you? ;-) In fact, if you leave,
I'll have nobody else to talk to anyway! :-) Then I'll have to go back and
talk in my very own newsgroup, news:alt.discuss.mckiller.knockouts ;-)
(seriously!)

| I just don't have the time to start wasting more time. I plan to do
| this (what I said in my other post) but it's not a priority right now.
| It is on the list though.

Will look forward to it. Out of interest, after referring to a 'list' a few
times, how many items are on it? Or are you just saying you'll get around
to it one day, maybe... :-)

| Paul

Ste

"Gordon" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
| ste© <[email hidden]> wrote
| >
| >I like walking. I don't do very much hill walking, but plenty of
walking.
| >No need for a hill or mountain to walk eh! ;-)
| >
| Today's walk: 7.382m, 4hrs 27m, Ave 1.6561mph, Min Elevation 127m, Max
| Elevation 167m.
|
| Is this a record, elevation wise?
| --
| Gordon

For me, yes! :-)

Ste

ste© said:

Oh well, if you lay your case to clearly and with undisputable
evidence, you should be okay.

That's the idea. If all the necessary info and proof is in the web page
I won't have to argue as such.

Quoted message said:

It is time consuming, can I escape with you? ;-)

No, I vant to be *alone*! :-)

Quoted message said:

In fact, if you
leave, I'll have nobody else to talk to anyway! :-)

You could start talking about walking... ;-)

Quoted message said:

Will look forward to it. Out of interest, after referring to a
'list' a few times, how many items are on it? Or are you just saying
you'll get around to it one day, maybe... :-)

No, it's on a list. It's not so much a question of how many items are
on the list, it's more a question of how many lists I've got! The
answer is loads! Half the problem is sorting out all the lists and
collating all the data, compiling it all into an organiser, which is
what I'm currently doing.

I've got multiple organiser files for different categories of stuff.
That one will be listed under Photography - Tests, and also under
Projects - Website.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749

ste© <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

"Gordon" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
| ste© <[email hidden]> wrote
| >
| >I like walking. I don't do very much hill walking, but plenty of
walking.
| >No need for a hill or mountain to walk eh! ;-)
| >
| Today's walk: 7.382m, 4hrs 27m, Ave 1.6561mph, Min Elevation 127m, Max
| Elevation 167m.
|
| Is this a record, elevation wise?

For me, yes! :-)

LOL! My friend Jean was leading the group of 18, and I did some
chatting to as many as possible of them, as a 'feeler' for joining them
as a standby group to walk with, and acted as 'tail end Charlie' for
much of the time.

I got on with them ok, but found that group walking can be exhausting,
especially as I went from front to rear and back several times. Every
stile or gate spreads out the line, and catching up repeatedly can sap
your strength. It is easier to lead, IMHO!

This is a good reason for not walking with a group, at least not with
more than about 6 people.

I had been dancing the previous evening, and the 75° temperature, plus
an even warmer day after, gave me a very bad night on Thursday.

I woke up at 4am with hot & cold sweats, and wondered about mild heart
attack symptoms, but had a drink of water, put on the personal radio and
headphones (R4) and relaxed out of it.

Dehydration perhaps? I heard next day that many people had the same
problem.
--
Gordon

ste© said:

However, and this isn't a criticism - I do enjoy reading
most of your posts, I'm thinking about the long and detailed ones,
but I believe they are wasted in a group like this. I think that you
would be better served in saving all the long stuff for your new
website, and it could almost be like your blog column. Perhaps an
alternative or similar site to The Luminous Landscape, if you added
tutorials, articles and reviews etc. What do you think?

I agree. Far better to archive them on my website. Save me repeating
myself too.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No, I hardly use filters anymore because I get better results through
post processing.

I don't really agree with this. Didn't we 'agree' via email recently
that the more post processing you do, the more noisy the image
becomes?

Yes, but it's not the processing that creates the noise, it simply
enhances any noise already contained in the image. Same with film
scans, processing "can" enhance the grain.

I say "can" because it depends exactly on what kind of processing you
do. Sharpening will enhance noise, but conversely blurring will reduce
it (Focus Magicking and Neat Imaging do effectively the same thing).
Likewise boosting contrast will enhance noise (as well as boost colour
saturation) whilst reducting contrast will reduce noise (and colour).

Quoted message said:

So if you do x amount of work in Photoshop to achieve a
similar effect as from a ND grad filter - if you compare the grad
image to the photoshopped image, the grad one would be less noisy, in
general, better quality?

No, because simulating a grad does not increase or decrease noise.
Using a grad simply darkens part of an image. If you darken part of an
image in Photoshop that's all that happens, the noise is neither
increased nor decreased. It's the contrast enhancing that boosts the
noise and that's quite different to using a grad.

Quoted message said:

If you look at photographers like David Noton (whose work appears in
Practical Photography magazine a lot), he seems to use ND grad
filters with just about every shot, even with mountainous peaks.
Works well for him and a lot of others.

I have no problem with other photographers using grads if they choose.
I used to, but now I find I can get far better results than grads by
using digital processing techniques instead. On the other hand I can't
get polariser effects in Photoshop so I still use a polarising filter
for that purpose.

What you tend to find with traditionalists is that having got used to
doing things a certain way over the years, they tend to like to continue
doing things in the same way, using tried and tested methods that work
for them and which they feel comfortable with. A lot of people don't
want the hassle of learning new techniques when they're happy with the
ones they already use.

I, on the other hand, am one of those curious types who always wants to
try out new things, to play with new technology, experiment with new
techniques and so forth. I get bored using the same old techniques.
Simulating grads was much more hassle at first when I didn't know how to
do it properly, but through trial and error and lots of experimentation
I've not only mastered the new techniques but can get better results
than doing it the old way. I love new challenges like this. It keeps
things fresh.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Nonsense. I (jokingly) said Bill was un-serious. You immediately
replied, "Who says Bill's not a serious photographer? You should
see some of the framed prints that he's entered into camera club
competitions. Many of them are really good."

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So I will repeat, at the first mention of the term 'un-serious,' you
immediately replied that he wasn't 'un-serious' because many of his
photos are 'really good.'

No, I didn't say that at all. You've just combined two separate
statements and assumed a causal relationship between the two.

No casual relationship about it, it's a pretty safe assumption to
make,

Read the spelling more carefully, I said you assumed a *causal*
relationship, not a *casual* relationship. You assumed that one
statement I made was *caused* by the other, but I made no such link.

Quoted message said:

unless you're trying to squirm your way out of it that is! :-P

I'm not trying to squirm out of anything, just trying to explain your
misunderstanding. What I wrote is there for all to see, I never said
that Bill was serious *because* his photos are good. You made that
assumption.

Quoted message said:

If you really want to cling onto this Paul, then please tell me this
- if you're questioning why Bill is not an unserious photographer,
then why in the next sentence did you not state a reason for this
question? My response is that you did! And the reason is that Bill
is a serious photographer *because* many of his prints are really
good!!!

No, your logic is all wrong. You initiated this by saying that "even
unserious photographers use a tripod", thus implying that Bill was not
serious. I countered by saying that he is a serious photographer. I
didn't need to give a reason why - you gave the reason - the use of the
tripod!

So lets' clarify. By saying that unserious photographers use a tripod,
in reference to Bill, you implied that Bill was not a serious
photographer. I simply replied that he is. In other words I was saying
that Bill, who uses a tripod, is serious, therefore using a tripod is a
mark of being serious. Thus challenging your assertion that using a
tripod can be an unserious thing. Using a tripod is a serious way of
taking a photograph. Casual (that's casual, not causal) photographers
don't use tripods!

That was my whole argument.

I then added that Bill's photos are really good. Which I felt was
necessary because simply using a tripod does not automatically produce
good photographs. Any idiot can put a camera on a tripod, but if he
doesn't know how to take a good photo without a tripod he's not suddenly
going to acquire a special skill by using one. [censored] photographers will
take [censored] photos with or without tripods.

So I never said that using a tripod makes one a good photographer,
merely that it makes one a serious photographer. The comment that Bill
is a good photographer was an additional comment. There was no *causal*
relationship between the two statements.

Quoted message said:

It's the same as me saying "Who said Canon don't produce the best
D-SLR's? You should see the quality of the images, many of them are
really good!" :-P

Those two statements don't necessarily relate to one another, although
it may seem at first glance that they do. I read a review on all the
current 8MP compact digitals and I believe that the Canon was reckoned
to be the best camera overall, but that the Nikon had the best lens and
produced the best image quality. It all depends how you define best.
You may be referring to the image quality, but you may be referring to
camera features, ease of use etc. There's not necessarily any
correlation between your two statements, even if you assume there to be.
You did not specify a causal relationship.

Out of interest, it appears that the Nikon D70 is probably a better
camera than the 300D, in terms of features offered, but the Canon sensor
produces better quality images.

Quoted message said:

You have already admitted the serious
photographers generally produce the best photos.

Exactly. Do you know the meaning of the word "generally"? It means
"not always"! :-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That's why I also
added the statement that Bill's photos were good! Because being
serious does not guarantee good photos.

That's got to be the least likely meaning of that paragraph that you
can possibly scrape out of it! :-)

That's funny, because it's exactly what I meant. Maybe you just don't
understand the way I phrase things.

Quoted message said:

Nahh, a pretty logical relationship to assume.

Actually it isn't. What you're suffering from is common sense, not
logic. Coincidentally I saw a fascinating programme on scientific
understanding and common sense last night. Apparently only 70% of
people truly believe that the earth moves around the sun (where they got
that figure from I have no idea). It was explained that common sense is
the assumptions people make about how the world works based on personal
observation alone. But, it was further explained that the world doesn't
work according to common sense, it works according to rules that are
often contradictory to what people expect, so it's difficult for many
people to understand them and truly believe them.

Anyway, the programme went into a lot more interesting detail, which is
getting away from the point, but the point is that common sense and
logic are not the same thing. Logic operates according to a specific
set of rules, and when most people say "that's logical" they don't
really mean that at all, they aren't applying the rules of logic
correctly, because most people have never studied logic and don't
actually know what the rules are.

That's why I said there was no *causal* relationship between my two
statements. Now there may have been a *correlation* between my two
statements, but according to the rules of logic, a correlation does not
indicate a causal relationship. There *may* be a causal relationship,
but correlation alone does not prove that. Just because most serious
photographers take good photos (a correlation) does not mean that being
serious about photography causes one to take good photos. It may be a
factor, but it's not a cause. The main cause of good photography is
*having a good eye*, the ability to recognise a good photo opportunity
and compose it in an aesthetically pleasing way.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think you're suffering from paranoid delusions Ste!

How would you know? Have you ever studied any psychological
disorders Paul?

Well since you asked, as a matter of fact I have. And coincidentally my
sister happens to have a degree in the subject.

Quoted message said:

What qualification do you have in logic Paul? A degree or masters in
it or something?

What qualification do I have in photography? None. Oh, I guess that
means I don't know how to take photos then. Qualifications are only
necessary as proof of knowledge if you actually need to find a job that
requires them. A lack of qualification is no proof of lack of knowledge
in a subject.

Quoted message said:

Do tell.

I've read a number of books about logic, as well as lateral thinking.
I've always been fascinated by the workings of the human mind,
particularly problem solving. I'm currently reading some books on
neuro-linguistic-programming. I'm trying to change my mind (quite
literally).

Quoted message said:

I could have said 'It seems quite a sensible conclusion.'

That would have been much better.

Quoted message said:

It doesn't mean I have to study sensibility! :-P

No you don't. Common sense is available to everyone. Unfortunately, as
conveniently explained on TV last night, the world doesn't work
according to common sense.

Quoted message said:

I'm not quite taking it seriously, it's about 50% banter, and 50%
carried over from previous debates about seriousness and auto modes
etc. :-)

And I enjoy a good logical argument. :-)

Quoted message said:

That's it Paul, if there aren't any smiles I don't know how you're
writing it.

Doesn't matter anyway. I won't be writing any more on this subject.

Quoted message said:

At least by putting smilies in, you can whatever you
wrote as a get out of jail card later! ;-)

No need to get out of jail, I meant what I said. You just misunderstood
it that's all.

Quoted message said:

I do, which is why I post back! :-)

You can save your typing fingers this time. I'm not going to continue
this.

I did enjoy the argument though... :-)

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
| ste© wrote:
|
| > Oh well, if you lay your case to clearly and with undisputable
| > evidence, you should be okay.
|
| That's the idea. If all the necessary info and proof is in the web page
| I won't have to argue as such.

Perhaps I'll even understand what you're on about then! ;-)

| > It is time consuming, can I escape with you? ;-)
|
| No, I vant to be *alone*! :-)

Yeah right! :-)

| > In fact, if you
| > leave, I'll have nobody else to talk to anyway! :-)
|
| You could start talking about walking... ;-)

<yawns...> ;-)

| > Will look forward to it. Out of interest, after referring to a
| > 'list' a few times, how many items are on it? Or are you just saying
| > you'll get around to it one day, maybe... :-)
|
| No, it's on a list. It's not so much a question of how many items are
| on the list, it's more a question of how many lists I've got! The
| answer is loads! Half the problem is sorting out all the lists and
| collating all the data, compiling it all into an organiser, which is
| what I'm currently doing.

Put them into Excel or Microsoft Project to help you sort them out.

| I've got multiple organiser files for different categories of stuff.
| That one will be listed under Photography - Tests, and also under
| Projects - Website.

They said that without start dates and end dates, and a target, you won't
get any projects done. Seriously, read up on project management and you'll
get loads of ideas and will think 'oh yeah, that's why I never get around to
it!' :-)

| Paul

Ste