My D80 & D90 gallery has moved
eNo
George
Who gives a fuck?
Jay Kneese
"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.
"eNo" <grande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:42ea1b56-42ac-4498...@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com...
Bob Williams
> New URL is http://esfotoclix.com. Come check it out.
Hey Man!
You do good work.
I enjoyed viewing your pix. You have a good eye for composition.
Bob Williams
David Ruether
"eNo" <grande...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:42ea1b56-42ac-4498...@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com...
> New URL is http://esfotoclix.com. Come check it out.
VERY nice!
--DR
John McWilliams
Yes, oh yes. What lens did you use for the interior of Ste. Chappelle?
--
john mcwilliams
ray
> New URL is http://esfotoclix.com. Come check it out.
FWIW - it does not come close to meeting standards. See the HTML
Validator at www.w3c.org.
John McWilliams
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
eNo
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
> David Ruether wrote:
> > "eNo" <grandepat...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:42ea1b56-42ac-4498...@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> New URL ishttp://esfotoclix.com. Come check it out.
>
> > VERY nice!
>
> Yes, oh yes. What lens did you use for the interior of Ste. Chappelle?
>
> --
> john mcwilliams
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
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.
tony cooper
Works fine on Firefox.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
eNo
> On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 21:08:22 -0700, John McWilliams
>
> <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >ray wrote:
> >> On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 09:56:39 -0700, eNo wrote:
>
>
> >> FWIW - it does not come close to meeting standards. See the HTML
> >> Validator atwww.w3c.org.
>
> >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?
>
> Works fine on Firefox.
>
> --
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
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.
John McWilliams
> On Mar 22, 8:29 pm, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> David Ruether wrote:
>>> "eNo" <grandepat...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:42ea1b56-42ac-4498...@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com...
>>>> New URL ishttp://esfotoclix.com. Come check it out.
>>> VERY nice!
>> Yes, oh yes. What lens did you use for the interior of Ste. Chappelle?
> 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.
You did a lovely job with it. How big can you print it- or how many
pixels (dimensions) is it.
--
John McWilliams
ray
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.
John McWilliams
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?
--
lsmft
tony cooper
He just let loose.
ray
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.
eNo
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
> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:25:54 -0700, John McWilliams wrote:
> > ray wrote:
> >> On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 21:08:22 -0700, John McWilliams wrote:
>
> >>> ray wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 09:56:39 -0700, eNo wrote:
>
> >>>> FWIW - it does not come close to meeting standards. See the HTML
> >>>> Validator atwww.w3c.org.
> >>> 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?
>
> >> 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.
>
> > 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?
>
> Well shit, I don't know. Maybe because anything worth doing is worth
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hey, ray, man. Easy. I'll fix it, okay?
ray
No beef with you - simply replying to "John McWilliams". He asked; I
replied.
tony cooper
wrote:
Validators will pick up deprecated tags, but deprecated tags still
work.
eNo might prefer to follow the rule of "If it ain't broke, don't fix
it" and spend the time taking more photographs.
What I can't understand is why someone is so dweebish that they run
validators on pages they have no personal interest in. It's like
re-adding some stranger's grocery check-out tape just because they
know where to find a calculator.
John McWilliams
You do know how to create great analogies, tony. Well done! I dunno if
it was dweebish or not, but it sure was gratuitous........
--
john mcwilliams
Pat
> New URL ishttp://esfotoclix.com. Come check it out.
I'm sorry, but what relevance does D80 or D90 have to anything. No
one (except maybe Rich) gives a darn what camera you use. It's all
about the images not the process.
Don't believe me? Then just answer this one question: What brand
paint did Rembrandt use?
Pat
Ray, do you have any interest in photos at all or are you just
interested in the web sites? I've never seen anyone ignore the
content just to comment on the technique. Seems kind of weird.
Savageduck
Dutchboy :-)
--
Regards,
Savageduck
eNo
LOL. Thanks for the support, guys. Before I went a-fixin' my page, I
went around and entered a few of my favorite Websites (Flickr,
DPReview) into the validator... I'm feeling pretty good about my site
now.
eNo
Did you go to my Website. If you go there you'll see that it is not so
much an altar to these two cameras as it is a venue for my images.
BTW, the jump in logic from camera used to saying is not about the
process leads you to, well, a pretty bad conclusion. Even Rembrandt
would tell you it is very much about the artistic process, and I'm
very sure he didn't use crappy paint in that process, either.
J. Clarke
He made his own. Commercial artists' colors didn't become available until
about two centuries after Rembrandt died.
John McWilliams
> On Mar 23, 8:30 pm, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> tony cooper wrote:
>>> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:34:29 -0700 (PDT), eNo <grandepat...@gmail.com>
>>> eNo might prefer to follow the rule of "If it ain't broke, don't fix
>>> it" and spend the time taking more photographs.
>>> What I can't understand is why someone is so dweebish that they run
>>> validators on pages they have no personal interest in. It's like
>>> re-adding some stranger's grocery check-out tape just because they
>>> know where to find a calculator.
>> You do know how to create great analogies, tony. Well done! I dunno if
>> it was dweebish or not, but it sure was gratuitous........
> LOL. Thanks for the support, guys. Before I went a-fixin' my page, I
> went around and entered a few of my favorite Websites (Flickr,
> DPReview) into the validator... I'm feeling pretty good about my site
> now.
Well, now, there's that time you drove 7 miles over the speed limit
downtown, and then........