Ken Rockwell and his "Pro" friends...

[Sandman]

So I read his RX1 review since I am considering getting one.

<http://kenrockwell.com/sony/rx1.htm>

"Shot in Professional ("P" mode) and Auto ISO, as I and my pro
friends always shoot and..."

Uhm, say what? I know Ken Rockwell doesn't get much cred amongst serious
photographers, and I even think it's quite ok for him to set his camera
to an automatic mode (P is for Program, not Professional), but to claim
that his "pro" friends also does this? Isn't that just a bit too
presumptuous?

I like his site, he has some wild ideas but his lens reviews offer a
pretty good base to go from, but why would you write something like this?

Hilarious.

--
Sandman[.net]

[PeterN]

You! His reviews are only a starting oint for evaluation.

--
PeterN

[Savageduck]

On 2013-08-08 07:00:18 -0700, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> said:

> So I read his RX1 review since I am considering getting one.
>
> <http://kenrockwell.com/sony/rx1.htm>
>
> "Shot in Professional ("P" mode) and Auto ISO, as I and my pro
> friends always shoot and..."
>
> Uhm, say what? I know Ken Rockwell doesn't get much cred amongst serious
> photographers, and I even think it's quite ok for him to set his camera
> to an automatic mode (P is for Program, not Professional), but to claim
> that his "pro" friends also does this? Isn't that just a bit too
> presumptuous?

Judging from the opinion he expressed in the review, I have a feeling
that his use of "Professional ("P" mode)" was sarcastically ironic.

> I like his site, he has some wild ideas but his lens reviews offer a
> pretty good base to go from, but why would you write something like this?
>
> Hilarious.

I think he wrote that review the way he did, because he is not in
anyway impressed with that particular over-priced Sony with
questionable performance, and lack of shooter controllability where it
should exist.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Bowser]

Rockewll is, and has been clueless for a long time. His site is best
ignored. Remember, this is the same guy who has published
"review/tests" of gear he's never even held. The same guy who says
tripods are no longer necessary. The same guy who says shooting raw is
a waste of time because you're just going to convert to JPG anyway.

Read his "about" section. In it he freely admits that the site is a
joke. As is he.

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 8 Aug 2013 10:02:40 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>On 2013-08-08 07:00:18 -0700, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> said:
>
>> So I read his RX1 review since I am considering getting one.
>>
>> <http://kenrockwell.com/sony/rx1.htm>
>>
>> "Shot in Professional ("P" mode) and Auto ISO, as I and my pro
>> friends always shoot and..."
>>
>> Uhm, say what? I know Ken Rockwell doesn't get much cred amongst serious
>> photographers, and I even think it's quite ok for him to set his camera
>> to an automatic mode (P is for Program, not Professional), but to claim
>> that his "pro" friends also does this? Isn't that just a bit too
>> presumptuous?
>
>Judging from the opinion he expressed in the review, I have a feeling
>that his use of "Professional ("P" mode)" was sarcastically ironic.
>

That's what I picked up. The nuances of the language are not always
picked up by some. "Sarcastic" in AmE usage, "Ironic" in EuE usage.

>> I like his site, he has some wild ideas but his lens reviews offer a
>> pretty good base to go from, but why would you write something like this?
>>
>> Hilarious.
>
>I think he wrote that review the way he did, because he is not in
>anyway impressed with that particular over-priced Sony with
>questionable performance, and lack of shooter controllability where it
>should exist.

Again, that's what I read into the review. "Less than impressed".
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL

[Usenet Account]

He probably thinks the P on his car's tranny is for Passing, and R is
for Racing!

--
This space intentionally left blank.

[Usenet Account]

On 08/08/2013 10:00 AM, Sandman wrote:

> So I read his RX1 review since I am considering getting one.
>
> <http://kenrockwell.com/sony/rx1.htm>
>
> "Shot in Professional ("P" mode) and Auto ISO, as I and my pro
> friends always shoot and..."
>

Good grief! Auto ISO... is the worst thing to do.

[nospam]

In article <mr-C29A9F.16...@News.Individual.NET>, Sandman

read his about page. he considers his site to be a joke, much like the
onion, and intentionally says stupid stuff. he thinks it's funny.
nobody else does.

[nospam]

In article <ku0hr...@news1.newsguy.com>, PeterN

<peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:

> You! His reviews are only a starting oint for evaluation.

no they aren't. his reviews are just his juvenile pranking.

[nospam]

In article <s4k709h7c3u6g7auq...@4ax.com>, Bowser

<id...@think.so> wrote:

> Rockewll is, and has been clueless for a long time. His site is best
> ignored. Remember, this is the same guy who has published
> "review/tests" of gear he's never even held. The same guy who says
> tripods are no longer necessary. The same guy who says shooting raw is
> a waste of time because you're just going to convert to JPG anyway.
>
> Read his "about" section. In it he freely admits that the site is a
> joke. As is he.

he's not that clueless, since his site is ranked high in google so he
gets the web traffic and therefore a lot of ad revenue. that takes some
smarts.

however, he admits his site is a joke and not to be taken seriously,
and that's the best advice he's ever given.

[Robert Peirce]

In article <mr-C29A9F.16...@News.Individual.NET>,
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:

It is a joke. There was/is a video blog that is meant as a joke and the
woman says she uses P for professional.

I read the review and my impression is Rockwell didn't really care for
what the rx1 does in P. Other cameras work better.

Actually, I really upset my friends when I say I use P because they
think you should only use M. For some reason they never learned that
you can start with P, and at least on a Nikon, twiddle the knobs and
press some buttons to get anything you want. I learned that from
Rockwell.

Auto ISO is also a neat trick, at least on Nikons, if you don't have the
time to fiddle and don't set it to a ridiculous range.

If the most important thing is to get the shot, and you don't have time
to customize everything going in, P and Auto ISO will almost always give
you something you can work with in Photoshop.

[PeterN]

On 8/8/2013 4:37 PM, Robert Peirce wrote:



<snip>

>
> Auto ISO is also a neat trick, at least on Nikons, if you don't have the
> time to fiddle and don't set it to a ridiculous range.
>
> If the most important thing is to get the shot, and you don't have time
> to customize everything going in, P and Auto ISO will almost always give
> you something you can work with in Photoshop.
>

It's also a help when the shot calls for a controlled shutter speed, and
aperture.


--
PeterN

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Robert Peirce <b...@peirce-family.com> wrote:
>Auto ISO is also a neat trick, at least on Nikons, if you don't have the
>time to fiddle and don't set it to a ridiculous range.
>
>If the most important thing is to get the shot, and you don't have time
>to customize everything going in, P and Auto ISO will almost always give
>you something you can work with in Photoshop.

I can't imagine when Program mode is actually useful to
anyone that knows the camera well.

But AutoISO, at least on Nikon models with that high
dynamic range that every model since the D3 has had, is
a fantastic way to have auto exposure while using Manual
Mode to control the artistic effects of shutter and
aperture.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com

[Robert Coe]

On Thu, 08 Aug 2013 17:30:08 -0400, PeterN <peter.n...@verizon.net>
wrote:

The operative phrase in this discussion is "on Nikons". If Canon is looking
for new features to justify a 7D Mk II, how about including a more usable auto
ISO?

Bob

[Savageduck]

Strange, I thought this discussion was about Rockwell and his
sarcastic/ironic "Professional ("P" mode)" remark in his less than
favorable review of the Sony RX1.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[PeterN]

Had you posted this a few months ago I would have brought that up with
the marketing manager for Canon cameras. (By pure chance I found myself
sitting next to him in a local sushi bar.)


--
PeterN

[nospam]

In article <oha8099l61dimgspv...@4ax.com>, Robert Coe

<b...@1776.COM> wrote:

> The operative phrase in this discussion is "on Nikons". If Canon is looking
> for new features to justify a 7D Mk II, how about including a more usable auto
> ISO?

how isn't it usable?

it's a little different than how nikon works, but that's about it.

[David Taylor]

On 08/08/2013 18:10, Bowser wrote:
[]

> Rockewll is, and has been clueless for a long time. His site is best
> ignored. Remember, this is the same guy who has published
> "review/tests" of gear he's never even held. The same guy who says
> tripods are no longer necessary. The same guy who says shooting raw is
> a waste of time because you're just going to convert to JPG anyway.
>
> Read his "about" section. In it he freely admits that the site is a
> joke. As is he.

I am inclined to agree with him about tripods and raw, at least for my
style of photography! Won't apply to everyone, though.
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

[Alfred Molon]

In article <s4k709h7c3u6g7auq...@4ax.com>, id...@think.so
says...

> The same guy who says
> tripods are no longer necessary.

With high ISO and IS tripods are less necessary nowadays.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

[Sandman]

In article <2013080810024075249-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> > So I read his RX1 review since I am considering getting one.
> >
> > <http://kenrockwell.com/sony/rx1.htm>
> >
> > "Shot in Professional ("P" mode) and Auto ISO, as I and my pro
> > friends always shoot and..."
> >
> > Uhm, say what? I know Ken Rockwell doesn't get much cred amongst serious
> > photographers, and I even think it's quite ok for him to set his camera
> > to an automatic mode (P is for Program, not Professional), but to claim
> > that his "pro" friends also does this? Isn't that just a bit too
> > presumptuous?
>
> Judging from the opinion he expressed in the review, I have a feeling
> that his use of "Professional ("P" mode)" was sarcastically ironic.

Really? Why do you think that? I didn't interprete it as that at all...

> > I like his site, he has some wild ideas but his lens reviews offer a
> > pretty good base to go from, but why would you write something like this?
> >
> > Hilarious.
>
> I think he wrote that review the way he did, because he is not in
> anyway impressed with that particular over-priced Sony with
> questionable performance, and lack of shooter controllability where it
> should exist.

Well, the rest of the world is raving about the RX1. It's not up
everyones alley of course, but I still found the passage quite hilarious.


--
Sandman[.net]

[Sandman]

In article <ku0hr...@news1.newsguy.com>,
PeterN <peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:

That's what I said.


--
Sandman[.net]

[Sandman]

In article <bob-080B99.1...@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>,

Robert Peirce <b...@peirce-family.com> wrote:

> > So I read his RX1 review since I am considering getting one.
> >
> > <http://kenrockwell.com/sony/rx1.htm>
> >
> > "Shot in Professional ("P" mode) and Auto ISO, as I and my pro
> > friends always shoot and..."
> >
> > Uhm, say what? I know Ken Rockwell doesn't get much cred amongst serious
> > photographers, and I even think it's quite ok for him to set his camera
> > to an automatic mode (P is for Program, not Professional), but to claim
> > that his "pro" friends also does this? Isn't that just a bit too
> > presumptuous?
> >
> > I like his site, he has some wild ideas but his lens reviews offer a
> > pretty good base to go from, but why would you write something like this?
> >
> > Hilarious.
>
> It is a joke. There was/is a video blog that is meant as a joke and the
> woman says she uses P for professional.

Ok, I hadn't seen that one, but that's just one of the hilarious
comments in that passage. :)



--
Sandman[.net]

[Sandman]

In article <8761vfx...@apaflo.com>,

fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

> >Auto ISO is also a neat trick, at least on Nikons, if you don't have the
> >time to fiddle and don't set it to a ridiculous range.
> >
> >If the most important thing is to get the shot, and you don't have time
> >to customize everything going in, P and Auto ISO will almost always give
> >you something you can work with in Photoshop.
>
> I can't imagine when Program mode is actually useful to
> anyone that knows the camera well.

Well, I have my camera set up with different profiles. In the profile I
named "Casual" the camera is set in Program mode and auto ISO and it
saves JPG files. I might as well call it Rockwell mode :)

It's for the times when you don't have time to care about the minutia
and you're just shooting to save some memories, not to create "art" :)

> But AutoISO, at least on Nikon models with that high
> dynamic range that every model since the D3 has had, is
> a fantastic way to have auto exposure while using Manual
> Mode to control the artistic effects of shutter and
> aperture.





--

Sandman[.net]

[Sandman]

In article <080820131407526443%nos...@nospam.invalid>,

Well, to be fair, he is in a great position. He make a living shooting
and has the time to mess about on a popular camera gear site. I kind of
like that there is a staff of writers and a publisher. It's a bit more
personal and I may miss some of his "jokes" because I hadn't seen a
video where the "P for Professional" was founded.

But yeah, he's a bit over the top and his views are more relevant to the
casual camera buyer than for people like us.


--
Sandman[.net]

[nospam]

In article <mr-93D4DD.09...@News.Individual.NET>, Sandman

<m...@sandman.net> wrote:

> But yeah, he's a bit over the top and his views are more relevant to the
> casual camera buyer than for people like us.

definitely not.

the casual camera buyer is misled by what he writes. they can't tell
when he's making up stuff and when it's true. they don't realize most
of what he posts is pure bullshit.

[Ghost-Rider]

Le 09/08/2013 00:21, Floyd L. Davidson a ï¿œcrit :

> I can't imagine when Program mode is actually useful to
> anyone that knows the camera well.

Point and shoot the photo of one in a lifetime, then think, rather than
the opposite and the photo is gone.

>
> But AutoISO, at least on Nikon models with that high
> dynamic range that every model since the D3 has had, is
> a fantastic way to have auto exposure while using Manual
> Mode to control the artistic effects of shutter and
> aperture.
>

I use fixed aperture (f16 for maximum depth of field combined with
minimum diffraction) and fixed speed (1/250 to avoid movements blurring)
and flash for my photos of insects with a D7000.
Automatic iso : 200 with a limit to 400 or 800 is a very nice way to
automatically balance flash light with available light.

[PeterN]

Sorry! I lost my head. didn't realize I was allowed to agree with you.

--
PeterN

[Whisky-dave]

On Friday, 9 August 2013 08:52:37 UTC+1, Sandman wrote:


> Well, I have my camera set up with different profiles. In the profile I
> named "Casual" the camera is set in Program mode and auto ISO and it
> saves JPG files. I might as well call it Rockwell mode :)
>
>
>
> It's for the times when you don't have time to care about the minutia
> and you're just shooting to save some memories, not to create "art" :)

Phew I was beginnign to think I was teh only one that left it in P mode.
I do that in case I need to use teh camera quiclky I did last week, three cats all staring into next doors kitchen and bedroom, no idea what they were looking at.
It's easy to change the setting to get arty stuff should you need to.

[Sandman]

In article <ku2vd...@news1.newsguy.com>,

PeterN <peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:

> >>> So I read his RX1 review since I am considering getting one.
> >>>
> >>> <http://kenrockwell.com/sony/rx1.htm>
> >>>
> >>> "Shot in Professional ("P" mode) and Auto ISO, as I and my pro
> >>> friends always shoot and..."
> >>>
> >>> Uhm, say what? I know Ken Rockwell doesn't get much cred amongst serious
> >>> photographers, and I even think it's quite ok for him to set his camera
> >>> to an automatic mode (P is for Program, not Professional), but to claim
> >>> that his "pro" friends also does this? Isn't that just a bit too
> >>> presumptuous?
> >>>
> >>> I like his site, he has some wild ideas but his lens reviews offer a
> >>> pretty good base to go from, but why would you write something like this?
> >>>
> >>> Hilarious.
> >>
> >> You! His reviews are only a starting oint for evaluation.
> >
> > That's what I said.
>
> Sorry! I lost my head. didn't realize I was allowed to agree with you.

No worries, I thought you had misread. You sounded so confrontational
with the "You!" like in "You there!" :)


--
Sandman[.net]

[Robert Peirce]

In article <8761vfx...@apaflo.com>,
fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

> I can't imagine when Program mode is actually useful to
> anyone that knows the camera well.

I think it is more than knowing the camera. You would also have to be
able to judge the light without a meter and instantly set your camera
accordingly. If it takes more than a fraction of a second you may have
lost the shot.

Years ago I used to use a 4x5 camera and a spot meter. You could easily
spend 15 or 20 minutes setting up. I like program mode (P, S & A) for
the times when I don't have that option. The only time I ever use
manual is when I am after a particularly unusual shot. Otherwise, one
of the program modes and the ability to diddle my Nikon is enough.

[Sandman]

In article <bob-F4D986.1...@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>,

Funny, because Nikon and Canon both have built in light metering and
have displays in the viewfinder that shows whether your scene is over or
underexposed according to it, so in manual mode finding the correct
aperture/shutter is done in seconds (well, going from 6 seconds to
1/4000 seconds does take a while on the knob) and you can easily
determine on the fly if you want it slightly over- or underexposed.

I always have my camera in manual mode (if I'm not in casual mode, as I
outlined earlier) because it gives me the greatest control.

I can think of a few scenarions where A and S mode is appropriate, but I
rarely find myself in them though.

--
Sandman[.net]

[PeterN]

On 8/9/2013 10:59 AM, android wrote:
> In article <ku2vd...@news1.newsguy.com>,

> You're wasting bandwidth!
And double posting isn't?

>
> Whatever... I think that Promodes® are among them things that make the
> new technology era a soothing something that all dufuses of man kind
> can share. Sortof...
>


--
PeterN

[PeterN]

On 8/9/2013 11:07 AM, android wrote:
> In article <ku2vd...@news1.newsguy.com>,

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Robert Peirce <b...@peirce-family.com> wrote:
>In article <8761vfx...@apaflo.com>,
> fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>
>> I can't imagine when Program mode is actually useful to
>> anyone that knows the camera well.
>
>I think it is more than knowing the camera. You would also have to be
>able to judge the light without a meter and instantly set your camera
>accordingly. If it takes more than a fraction of a second you may have
>lost the shot.

What are you talking about????

In addition to P mode, A, S, and/or M modes all provide
*auto exposure* if Auto ISO is enabled, and of course A
and S do without Auto ISO.

>Years ago I used to use a 4x5 camera and a spot meter. You could easily
>spend 15 or 20 minutes setting up. I like program mode (P, S & A) for

You are saying you like auto exposure, not just Program
Mode. And Auto ISO provides auto exposure even with
Manual Mode for exposure (with Nikon cameras).

>the times when I don't have that option. The only time I ever use
>manual is when I am after a particularly unusual shot. Otherwise, one
>of the program modes and the ability to diddle my Nikon is enough.

And for "anyone that knows the camera well" there are
more options than you have limited yourself to.

[Floyd L. Davidson]

But he is in fact talking about what you are calling
"casual mode". And your ability to adjust in "seconds"
will cause missed shots in many many circumstances
compared to what any auto exposure mode can do.

The whole point was that Manual Exposure Mode allows the
camera operator to set aperture and shutter speed for
effects other than exposure if and only if Auto ISO is
enabled to provide auto exposure.

[Sandman]

In article <87wqnuv...@apaflo.com>,

fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

> >Funny, because Nikon and Canon both have built in light metering and
> >have displays in the viewfinder that shows whether your scene is over or
> >underexposed according to it, so in manual mode finding the correct
> >aperture/shutter is done in seconds (well, going from 6 seconds to
> >1/4000 seconds does take a while on the knob) and you can easily
> >determine on the fly if you want it slightly over- or underexposed.
> >
> >I always have my camera in manual mode (if I'm not in casual mode, as I
> >outlined earlier) because it gives me the greatest control.
> >
> >I can think of a few scenarions where A and S mode is appropriate, but I
> >rarely find myself in them though.
>
> But he is in fact talking about what you are calling
> "casual mode".

No, sorry, my "casual mode" is a program mode I've set up in my camera
(which I explained in another post). It just sets the camera to program
mode, sets the ISO to auto and saves the images to JPG. This mode is for
the casual "save the moment as a memory" rather than "take a really good
picture". Casual mode could be called "iPhone mode" :)

> And your ability to adjust in "seconds"
> will cause missed shots in many many circumstances
> compared to what any auto exposure mode can do.

It could, but rarely does. I suppose it's somewhat connected to how
familiar and comfortable you are with your cameras manual controls.

I do sometime think that ISO modes should be as easily adjustable as
shutter and aperture on my camera, that would give me even more control
at a moments notice.



--
Sandman[.net]

[John McWilliams]

On 8/9/13 PDT 11:10 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>
> The whole point was that Manual Exposure Mode allows the
> camera operator to set aperture and shutter speed for
> effects other than exposure if and only if Auto ISO is
> enabled to provide auto exposure.

Aperture and shutter speed define exposure. Full stop.

[Floyd L. Davidson]

You've totally missed the point... again.

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Technically that is true, but the vernacular is that
"exposure" means the brightness of the raw data.

We aren't writing academic papers here, we're trying to
explain how to operate the camera, and those reading it
won't have a clue what you are talking about. And they
don't need to either!

[Sandman]

In article <87siyiv...@apaflo.com>,

Great talking to you, don't let the door hit you on the way out.


--
Sandman[.net]

[nospam]

In article <ku3c51$j3m$1...@dont-email.me>, John McWilliams

<jp...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Aperture and shutter speed define exposure. Full stop.

not quite. aperture, shutter speed *and* iso define exposure.

changing any of the three will change the results.

[Sandman]

In article <090820131522508230%nos...@nospam.invalid>,

Hmmm, I think I agree with John here. "Exposure" is the time and amount
light is exposed to the sensor. Changing ISO only changes the sensors
sensitivity, not how much it is exposed to light.

There are lots of other changes that affect the result (EV Bias comes to
mind) but they don't change how much or how long the sensor is exposed
to the light.

<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exposure?s=t>

"the total amount of light received by a photosensitive surface or
an area of such a surface, expressed as the product of the degree
of illumination and the period of illumination."

--
Sandman[.net]

[Floyd L. Davidson]

1) My camera allows manual adjustment of ISO just as quickly and
easily as adjusting aperture or shutter speed.

2) Better yet, it has an Auto ISO mode that works when the
aperture and shutter speed are set manually. And that
works way better than Program Mode for your concept of
"casual mode".

3) Your "at a moments notice" is too late!

4) Try 1 to 10 shots per second, any of which might need a
change in settings... You can't even change fast enough
to get a shot every 2 or 3 seconds!

I doubt that will help that lump you got walking smack into
the door.

[nospam]

In article <mr-D8C059.21...@News.Individual.NET>, Sandman

<m...@sandman.net> wrote:

> > > Aperture and shutter speed define exposure. Full stop.
> >
> > not quite. aperture, shutter speed *and* iso define exposure.
> >
> > changing any of the three will change the results.
>
> Hmmm, I think I agree with John here. "Exposure" is the time and amount
> light is exposed to the sensor. Changing ISO only changes the sensors
> sensitivity, not how much it is exposed to light.

it is a third parameter.

auto-iso can be thought of aperture/shutter priority, where you choose
the aperture *and* shutter speed and the camera chooses the proper iso.

fully manual would be the photographer choosing all three.

auto-iso is often used in aperture priority with a limit for the
shutter speed to avoid camera shake or subject motion. in this case,
the camera is varying two of the three.

with film this was not possible. you had one iso for the entire roll.
you could choose a different iso than what was on the box, but whatever
you picked was fixed for the entire roll. if you decided to change the
iso midstream and push (or pull) process the roll, you'd screw up the
rest of the roll, so it really wasn't an option.

[Sandman]

In article <87k3juv...@apaflo.com>,

fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

> >> >It could, but rarely does. I suppose it's somewhat connected to how
> >> >familiar and comfortable you are with your cameras manual controls.
> >> >
> >> >I do sometime think that ISO modes should be as easily adjustable as
> >> >shutter and aperture on my camera, that would give me even more control
> >> >at a moments notice.
> >>
> >> You've totally missed the point... again.
> >
> >Great talking to you, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
>
> 1) My camera allows manual adjustment of ISO just as quickly and
> easily as adjusting aperture or shutter speed.

Cool! What camera is that? And how does that make me "missing the point"?

> 2) Better yet, it has an Auto ISO mode that works when the
> aperture and shutter speed are set manually. And that
> works way better than Program Mode for your concept of
> "casual mode".

As I said, my camera also has auto ISO, which I employ in my casual
mode. How does this make me "miss the point"?

> 3) Your "at a moments notice" is too late!

When was it too late? Am I not allowed to be the judge of that? How does
this make me "miss the point"?

> 4) Try 1 to 10 shots per second, any of which might need a
> change in settings... You can't even change fast enough
> to get a shot every 2 or 3 seconds!

Quite the contrary, I've actually made consecutive shots in manual mode
where I've made shutter adjustments on the fly depending on lighting
conditions.

How does this make me "miss the point"?

And again, Auto ISO has its place, but I doubt you get much milage from
it for burst shots, but I can't say I've tried. S/A mode

> I doubt that will help that lump you got walking smack into
> the door.

Say what? Are you this obnoxious by nature or is it a special treat just
for me? What has happened to you in your life?

And again, what was the supposed point I missed? I think you forgot to
add it in your follow up.


--
Sandman[.net]

[Sandman]

In article <090820131552476039%nos...@nospam.invalid>,

Yes, I am well aware of how ISO and Auto-ISO work, I'm just not agreeing
that the ISO parameters is part of the term Exposure, as my reference
outlined.


--
Sandman[.net]

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>In article <090820131522508230%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article <ku3c51$j3m$1...@dont-email.me>, John McWilliams
>> <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Aperture and shutter speed define exposure. Full stop.
>>
>> not quite. aperture, shutter speed *and* iso define exposure.
>>
>> changing any of the three will change the results.
>
>Hmmm, I think I agree with John here. "Exposure" is the time and amount
>light is exposed to the sensor. Changing ISO only changes the sensors
>sensitivity, not how much it is exposed to light.

Almost, but not right.

Exposure technically is how many photons are captured.
That is determined by the light intensity (aperture) and
the time (shutter speed) alone.

Sensor sensitivity is constant and does not change. ISO
is changed either by analog amplification of sensor
output or by digital amplification during or after the
process of digitizing the signal.

ISO does not change the exposure in the strictest
technical sense, but it does change the brightness of
the image data recorded. In common language
"brightness" is taken as "exposure". We have a number
of image editors, for example, that label a brightness
adjustment as "exposure".

>There are lots of other changes that affect the result (EV Bias comes to
>mind) but they don't change how much or how long the sensor is exposed
>to the light.

That is an offset applied to the light meter reading.
It has an indirect effect *only* because the light meter
is used to set exposure.

><http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exposure?s=t>
>
> "the total amount of light received by a photosensitive surface or
> an area of such a surface, expressed as the product of the degree
> of illumination and the period of illumination."

Again though, we should not forget that this newsgroup
not an academic forum, being pendantic about the
definition of exposure is inappropriate here, and in the
vernacular the meaning everyone will understand is that
anything which affects the brightness of the image data
is considered "exposure".

[nospam]

In article <mr-47AA60.22...@News.Individual.NET>, Sandman

<m...@sandman.net> wrote:

> Yes, I am well aware of how ISO and Auto-ISO work, I'm just not agreeing
> that the ISO parameters is part of the term Exposure, as my reference
> outlined.

what your reference neglected to consider is that exposure is also a
function of iso.

if you change iso, the exposure changes. an aperture/shutter speed
combo appropriate for iso 100 will not be correct for iso 400. all
*three* must be considered.

read these links instead:
<http://www.exposureguide.com/exposure.htm>
When these three elements are combined, they represent a given
exposure value (EV) for a given setting. Any change in any one of the
three elements will have a measurable and specific impact on how the
remaining two elements react to expose the film frame or image sensor
and how the image ultimately looks.

<http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-exposure.htm>
In photography, the exposure settings of aperture, shutter speed and
ISO speed are analogous to the width, time and quantity discussed
above. Furthermore, just as the rate of rainfall was beyond your
control above, so too is natural light for a photographer.

<http://improvephotography.com/photography-basics/aperture-shutter-speed-
and-iso/>
Now, it�s time to dig into your camera and learn the three most
basic tools available to you in controlling the exposure.

Those tools are shutter speed, aperture, and ISO. �After I explain
what each one does, I�ll explain why we need three separate tools to
control the brightness or darkness of the photo.

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>How does this make me "miss the point"?
>
>And again, Auto ISO has its place, but I doubt you get much milage from
>it for burst shots, but I can't say I've tried. S/A mode

Maybe if you had ever tried it, and had at least some
understanding of how it works, you wouldn't miss the
point.

You can claim, responding to comments about high speed
frame rates, that you have made consecutive shots while
making adjustments... but the point was that at multiple
shots per second you cannot do that.

Sports and small children, not to mention many other
very common subjects, are vastly easir using Auto ISO.

>> I doubt that will help that lump you got walking smack into
>> the door.
>
>Say what? Are you this obnoxious by nature or is it a special treat just
>for me? What has happened to you in your life?

You are the obnoxious by nature person who brought up
being smacked by a door. I just hope the door that hit
you wasn't damaged too much.

>And again, what was the supposed point I missed? I think you forgot to
>add it in your follow up.

You missed it again...

[Sandman]

In article <87bo56v...@apaflo.com>,

fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

> >How does this make me "miss the point"?
> >
> >And again, Auto ISO has its place, but I doubt you get much milage from
> >it for burst shots, but I can't say I've tried. S/A mode
>
> Maybe if you had ever tried it, and had at least some
> understanding of how it works, you wouldn't miss the
> point.

You're quite the asshole, aren't you?

Well, good luck with that! Cheers.


--
Sandman[.net]

[Tony Cooper]

I've never used "P", but only because I generally set the camera to
"M" and the combination of speed and aperture I expect to use. I
learned long ago to set the camera to what I expect to use rather than
waiting to see what I need. It's not difficult to bump it up or down
from the expected setting.

I miss a shot sometimes. Last week, when I was leaving an industrial
park, I saw a fox in the bushes. That's a rare sight in this part of
Florida, and only my second sighting in over 30 years.

I grabbed the camera and fired off a shot. I was significantly
under-exposed, but RAW brought out the bushes quite nicely. Not the
fox, though. I wasn't that quick.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 21:53:59 +0200, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:

>In article <87k3juv...@apaflo.com>,
> fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>
>> >> >It could, but rarely does. I suppose it's somewhat connected to how
>> >> >familiar and comfortable you are with your cameras manual controls.
>> >> >
>> >> >I do sometime think that ISO modes should be as easily adjustable as
>> >> >shutter and aperture on my camera, that would give me even more control
>> >> >at a moments notice.
>> >>
>> >> You've totally missed the point... again.
>> >
>> >Great talking to you, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Haven't you met Floyd before?

He's been around here much, much longer than I remember you being
around, and is not likely to accede to your suggestion to leave.

I'm a pussy-cat compared to Floyd if you get on the wrong side of him.
He knows his shit, photographically, but he has some odd ideas of
photographic genres.

Check his website before you start chest-bumping about photography.

>>
>> 1) My camera allows manual adjustment of ISO just as quickly and
>> easily as adjusting aperture or shutter speed.
>
>Cool! What camera is that? And how does that make me "missing the point"?
>
>> 2) Better yet, it has an Auto ISO mode that works when the
>> aperture and shutter speed are set manually. And that
>> works way better than Program Mode for your concept of
>> "casual mode".
>
>As I said, my camera also has auto ISO, which I employ in my casual
>mode. How does this make me "miss the point"?
>
>> 3) Your "at a moments notice" is too late!
>
>When was it too late? Am I not allowed to be the judge of that? How does
>this make me "miss the point"?

It's kinda like a person not being able to be his own judge of what
workflow is best for him.

>> 4) Try 1 to 10 shots per second, any of which might need a
>> change in settings... You can't even change fast enough
>> to get a shot every 2 or 3 seconds!
>
>Quite the contrary, I've actually made consecutive shots in manual mode
>where I've made shutter adjustments on the fly depending on lighting
>conditions.
>
>How does this make me "miss the point"?
>
>And again, Auto ISO has its place, but I doubt you get much milage from
>it for burst shots, but I can't say I've tried. S/A mode
>
>> I doubt that will help that lump you got walking smack into
>> the door.
>
>Say what? Are you this obnoxious by nature or is it a special treat just
>for me? What has happened to you in your life?

Ironic, considering that the same might be asked of you. But, Floyd
is an equal opportunity asshole. He treats everyone the same.

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Projection won't help you here...

[Sandman]

In article <5foa09924h1r37n9m...@4ax.com>,

Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> >> You've totally missed the point... again.
> >> >
> >> >Great talking to you, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
>
> Haven't you met Floyd before?

Maybe, I don't really keep track :)

> He's been around here much, much longer than I remember you being
> around, and is not likely to accede to your suggestion to leave.

It's an expression.

> I'm a pussy-cat compared to Floyd if you get on the wrong side of him.

Haha! What does that supposed to mean? I mean, you're totally harmless
so what, he's worse than totally harmless? Or do you mean that contrary
to you, he has *some* knowledge about something?

> He knows his shit, photographically

Well, then maybe he just has hard time expressing himself?

> Check his website before you start chest-bumping about photography.

Why? He wasn't even able to answer any of my questions. And what's that
about "chest bumping"? Is that what you do on usenet? That may explain a
thing or two... Me, I don't do "chest bumping", and especially not about
photography. I am here to get advice about camera gear and techniques
when I feel I have the need for it. That's my only purpose here. I don't
have a need to "chest bump" with anyone.

> >> 3) Your "at a moments notice" is too late!
> >
> >When was it too late? Am I not allowed to be the judge of that? How does
> >this make me "miss the point"?
>
> It's kinda like a person not being able to be his own judge of what
> workflow is best for him.

Whatever that ludicrous idea have to do with this thread is anyone's
guess.

> >> I doubt that will help that lump you got walking smack into
> >> the door.
> >
> >Say what? Are you this obnoxious by nature or is it a special treat just
> >for me? What has happened to you in your life?
>
> Ironic, considering that the same might be asked of you.

How so? Please explain. I'm nether obnoxious nor am I treating anyone
"specially".



--
Sandman[.net]

[nospam]

In article <mr-47AE5C.00...@News.Individual.NET>, Sandman

<m...@sandman.net> wrote:

> > I'm a pussy-cat compared to Floyd if you get on the wrong side of him.
>
> Haha! What does that supposed to mean? I mean, you're totally harmless
> so what, he's worse than totally harmless? Or do you mean that contrary
> to you, he has *some* knowledge about something?

floyd is never, ever wrong, regardless of any facts that say otherwise.

floyd makes tony's twists and lies to be child's play.

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>[..] what's that

>about "chest bumping"? Is that what you do on usenet? That may explain a
>thing or two... Me, I don't do "chest bumping", and especially not about
>photography. I am here to get advice about camera gear and techniques
>when I feel I have the need for it. That's my only purpose here. I don't
>have a need to "chest bump" with anyone.

...

>[...] I'm nether obnoxious nor am I treating anyone "specially".

If you aren't obnoxious and are here only to get advice, you need
to look into who the obnoxious chest thumping fool is that has posted
80 messages here in the past 24 hours under your name, none of them
apparently from you if, of course, you are what you claim...

Hmmm...

[Savageduck]

I have a feeling the Floyd vortex is getting powered up and is about to
suck a victim or two into its inescapable depths once more. Those hours
of the midnight Sun must be getting oppressive.

There are a few things to understand with Floyd. He is very
knowledgable, particularly when it comes to engineering and
telecommunications, and he has a broad knowledge of quite a few other
subjects. However, he doesn't seem to have too much intellectual
competition up in Barrow, Alaska and takes the position that he is
never wrong, not even slightly wrong on any subject under discussion.
Surprisingly enough he is right more than he is wrong, but even if he
agrees with you, he will let you know that you haven't got it quite
right and he thinks you are an intellectual weakling who only gets
things right by accident regardless of your credentials.

So, with that caveat, why don't you enter into a little debate with
Floyd on a photographic subject, perhaps you might let him know why you
think GIMP will never be the equal of Photoshop.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Robert Peirce]

In article <871u62w...@apaflo.com>,

fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

> In addition to P mode, A, S, and/or M modes all provide
> *auto exposure* if Auto ISO is enabled, and of course A
> and S do without Auto ISO.

You are correct. As I said, I don't use M very often but when I do I am
setting everything so Auto ISO doesn't really enter in. I never noticed
it but thanks. I'll try to make sure it is off.

> You are saying you like auto exposure, not just Program
> Mode. And Auto ISO provides auto exposure even with
> Manual Mode for exposure (with Nikon cameras).

I consider shutter and aperture priority to be program modes with one
variable fixed. I am pretty sure, but not positive, that Auto ISO isn't
a factor when I am shooting manual because the shutter and aperture
settings should eliminate the need for that.

> And for "anyone that knows the camera well" there are
> more options than you have limited yourself to.

I don't claim to use everything. Shutter speed, aperture and EV have
always been enough. ISO is on automatic so it might notch up in dim
light. I sometimes use a variable density or a polaroid filter if it
seems to be appropriate. I also use neutral density filters if I need
longer exposure than the natural light will permit. I guess my approach
has always been the minimum that will get the job done.

[Robert Coe]

On Thu, 08 Aug 2013 22:09:44 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
: In article <oha8099l61dimgspv...@4ax.com>, Robert Coe
: <b...@1776.COM> wrote:
:
: > The operative phrase in this discussion is "on Nikons". If Canon is looking
: > for new features to justify a 7D Mk II, how about including a more usable auto
: > ISO?
:
: how isn't it usable?
:
: it's a little different than how nikon works, but that's about it.

It doesn't raise the ISO setting until it has set the shutter speed low enough
to blur everything. Nikon lets you set a minimum shutter speed; when it's
reached, the change in ISO speed kicks in. Cznon has no equivalent setting. It
makes one wonder why they even bother. So they can say they have the feature,
I suppose.

Bob

[Paul J Gans]

I don't belong in this argument (if that is what it is)
but back a few years ago when I was tooling up for a trip
to the high actic, Floyd gave me plenty of free advice, all
of which I found to be good.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Savageduck]

Don't get me wrong. Floyd can, and does provide valid and useful
information. He is a well of knowledge especially when it comes to
dealing with photography in extreme climates such as he experiences up
in Barrow. However, once he gets locked into an argument be prepared
for a heavy spin cycle.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[BobA]

In article <ku422a$j1b$8...@reader1.panix.com>,
Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> [ ... ]

>I don't belong in this argument (if that is what it is)
>but back a few years ago when I was tooling up for a trip
>to the high actic, Floyd gave me plenty of free advice, all
>of which I found to be good.
>--
> --- Paul J. Gans

I'll stand up for Floyd too. He's very bright, and
very kind and helpful to people that aren't looking
for a fight -- which Floyd'll also oblige them with
if they insist.

Personally I have a great deal of respect for Floyd.

BobA

[nospam]

In article <jt1b09d8o1hf2sbtv...@4ax.com>, Robert Coe

<b...@1776.COM> wrote:

> : > The operative phrase in this discussion is "on Nikons". If Canon is looking
> : > for new features to justify a 7D Mk II, how about including a more usable
> : > auto ISO?
> :
> : how isn't it usable?
> :
> : it's a little different than how nikon works, but that's about it.
>
> It doesn't raise the ISO setting until it has set the shutter speed low enough
> to blur everything.

canon uses 1/focallength which is the 'rule of thumb' for the slowest
shutter speed to be used.

> Nikon lets you set a minimum shutter speed; when it's
> reached, the change in ISO speed kicks in.

that works well for fixed focal length lenses.

however, if you have a zoom lens, especially one with a longer range
(e.g., 18-200mm), one shutter speed does not work well at all. even
with a 2x zoom (e.g., 200-400mm), you could be wasting a stop.

since canon's system will automatically vary the threshold speed based
on focal length, you'd get 1/300 when you zoom in and 1/30th when you
zoom out. there's no reason to keep it at 1/300th if you're at a wide
angle focal length.

on the other hand, if you are trying to stop subject motion, nikon's
system would be better, since you need a certain shutter speed to
freeze motion regardless of focal length.

> Cznon has no equivalent setting. It
> makes one wonder why they even bother. So they can say they have the feature,
> I suppose.

they work differently. there are advantages and disadvantages to each.

neither is better.

[PeterN]

On 8/9/2013 5:33 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Aug 2013 08:50:04 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
> <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, 9 August 2013 08:52:37 UTC+1, Sandman wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Well, I have my camera set up with different profiles. In the profile I
>>> named "Casual" the camera is set in Program mode and auto ISO and it
>>> saves JPG files. I might as well call it Rockwell mode :)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's for the times when you don't have time to care about the minutia
>>> and you're just shooting to save some memories, not to create "art" :)
>>
>> Phew I was beginnign to think I was teh only one that left it in P mode.
>> I do that in case I need to use teh camera quiclky I did last week, three
>> cats all staring into next doors kitchen and bedroom, no idea what they were looking at.
>> It's easy to change the setting to get arty stuff should you need to.
>
> I've never used "P", but only because I generally set the camera to
> "M" and the combination of speed and aperture I expect to use. I
> learned long ago to set the camera to what I expect to use rather than
> waiting to see what I need. It's not difficult to bump it up or down
> from the expected setting.
>
> I miss a shot sometimes. Last week, when I was leaving an industrial
> park, I saw a fox in the bushes. That's a rare sight in this part of
> Florida, and only my second sighting in over 30 years.
>

I saw quite a few foxes in South Beach.
Oh!
You mean the four legged kind.


--
PeterN

[PeterN]

choke!
Yes, Floyd has his ways, but he does take and show images. He is also
truly helpful, enough times to be respected.

If you spent half the time taking pictures, as you do bullshitting, you
might be taken seriously.

--
PeterN

[Tony Cooper]

On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 00:17:04 +0200, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:

>> >Say what? Are you this obnoxious by nature or is it a special treat just
>> >for me? What has happened to you in your life?
>>
>> Ironic, considering that the same might be asked of you.
>
>How so? Please explain. I'm nether obnoxious nor am I treating anyone
>"specially".

I love inadvertent errors that have a meaning not intended. "Nether",
meaning "lower in position", does fit.

As for obnoxious, I wouldn't suggest that you do a poll on that here.

[Tony Cooper]

This has possibilities. Sandman and nospam in a tag match with Floyd
to see who is the most never wrong, most obnoxious, and the most
disparaging of anyone who doesn't do things his way.

[Tony Cooper]

Floyd is generally respected, even if not liked, by people who read
his posts. I don't think the same is true for the new tag team.

[nospam]

In article <ku47b...@news1.newsguy.com>, PeterN

<peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:

> If you spent half the time taking pictures, as you do bullshitting, you
> might be taken seriously.

i spend plenty of time taking pictures. i just don't share them with
you.

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 22:56:38 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

Oh, do. We'll be kind.

[Eric Stevens]

Ditto
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[AS]

"PeterN" <peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ku39r...@news7.newsguy.com...
>
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> You're wasting bandwidth!
> And double posting isn't?


And what about repeating the long former written texts?

[Sandman]

In article <nl9b099154c3dgbim...@4ax.com>,

I see you failed to answer the question. No surprise there.


--
Sandman[.net]

[Sandman]

In article <87wqnut...@apaflo.com>,

fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

> >[...] I'm nether obnoxious nor am I treating anyone "specially".
>
> If you aren't obnoxious and are here only to get advice, you need
> to look into who the obnoxious chest thumping fool is that has posted
> 80 messages here in the past 24 hours under your name, none of them
> apparently from you if, of course, you are what you claim...

Maybe you should point me to his posts? I haven't seen them.


--
Sandman[.net]

[Sandman]

In article <2013080917445097157-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> > I don't belong in this argument (if that is what it is)
> > but back a few years ago when I was tooling up for a trip
> > to the high actic, Floyd gave me plenty of free advice, all
> > of which I found to be good.
>
> Don't get me wrong. Floyd can, and does provide valid and useful
> information. He is a well of knowledge especially when it comes to
> dealing with photography in extreme climates such as he experiences up
> in Barrow. However, once he gets locked into an argument be prepared
> for a heavy spin cycle.

Sounds like the Tony and Eric troll team, apart from the supposed
knowledge, that is :)


--
Sandman[.net]

[Sandman]

In article <vt9b09ll6k4ipiq5b...@4ax.com>,

Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >So, with that caveat, why don't you enter into a little debate with
> >Floyd on a photographic subject, perhaps you might let him know why you
> >think GIMP will never be the equal of Photoshop.
>
> This has possibilities. Sandman and nospam in a tag match with Floyd
> to see who is the most never wrong, most obnoxious, and the most
> disparaging of anyone who doesn't do things his way.

Keep lying, Tony. It's all you've got left


--
Sandman[.net]

[PeterN]

Do yo also make them? This may come as a surprise to you, but the
purpose for most of us being here is to improve our photography.
therefore, one who does not share his work, or even discuss photography,
cannot be taken seriously.

--
PeterN

[Tony Cooper]

There's no point in explaining why the same might be asked of you. You
would not understand and the rest of the readers of the group would
need no explanation.

[Sandman]

In article <3efc09hotm8npsska...@4ax.com>,

Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 10:57:33 +0200, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <nl9b099154c3dgbim...@4ax.com>,
> > Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 00:17:04 +0200, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >Say what? Are you this obnoxious by nature or is it a special treat
> >> >> >just
> >> >> >for me? What has happened to you in your life?
> >> >>
> >> >> Ironic, considering that the same might be asked of you.
> >> >
> >> >How so? Please explain. I'm nether obnoxious nor am I treating anyone
> >> >"specially".
> >>
> >> I love inadvertent errors that have a meaning not intended. "Nether",
> >> meaning "lower in position", does fit.
> >>
> >> As for obnoxious, I wouldn't suggest that you do a poll on that here.
> >
> >I see you failed to answer the question. No surprise there.
>
> There's no point in explaining why the same might be asked of you. You
> would not understand and the rest of the readers of the group would
> need no explanation.

Failed a second time. That's your default mode, is it not? Failure.


--
Sandman[.net]

[Sandman]

In article <ku5h0...@news4.newsguy.com>,

How so? How does sharing or talking about photography make me take you
seriously?

I think Tony Cooper has shared some photos, and at some point probably
talked about photography. Why would anyone take him seriously? He's a
lying troll that argues for the sake of argument and loves the reactions
he gets when he lies about other peoples claims.

If you're taking him seriously, then there's something really wrong with
you.


--
Sandman[.net]

[PeterN]

Very simple. tony Cooper has a POV about photography. I do not agree
with his POV, but accept it as his. Similarly, my POV is not the same as
his, and I don't try to impose my POV on him. He doesn't try to impose
his POV on anyone. He also makes some meaningful commentaries on images.
While I don't always agree with his comments, but I do consider them, as
I give consideration to all constructive comments. I strongly suspect
that you are reading many of his comments literally. No, I have seen no
evidence of tony Cooper being a liar. He also has no reason to be one.
He is an amateur linguist, who is quite knowledgeable. I have a
sufficient background in linguistics, and BTW computer science, to
appreciate each of your POVs in this discussion, which has unfortunately
degenerated into what Bob Coe has termed a "cat fight." (Please note
that I rarely resort to pejorative terms, except in the case of nospam.)
I would appreciate it if you refrained from that practice. It
contributes nothing to the discussion.
You appear to be an intelligent person. As to the subject of files, and
workflow, just end it and agree to disagree.
I will not further participate in that kind of unproductive nonsense. I
also admit that if it makes anyone happy, I have the smallest penis in
the group. Now let's all move on.


--
PeterN

[Sandman]

In article <ku5om...@news1.newsguy.com>,

PeterN <peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:

> > How so? How does sharing or talking about photography make me take you
> > seriously?
> >
> > I think Tony Cooper has shared some photos, and at some point probably
> > talked about photography. Why would anyone take him seriously? He's a
> > lying troll that argues for the sake of argument and loves the reactions
> > he gets when he lies about other peoples claims.
> >
> > If you're taking him seriously, then there's something really wrong with
> > you.
>
> Very simple. tony Cooper has a POV about photography. I do not agree
> with his POV, but accept it as his.

Merely having a point of view about something does not mean you have to
be taken seriously.

> He also makes some meaningful commentaries on images

I must have missed those. And some meaningful comments wouldn't weigh up
the huge amount of outright lying he does anyway.





--
Sandman[.net]

[sid]

Surely you just stick it on manual if you need a min shutter speed and a
fixed aperature. Used in conjunction with either TV or AV either fixed
shutter speed or fixed aperature can be used. What's not to like? Auto ISO
is a great feature and works really well on my 7D

--
sid

[sid]

nospam wrote:
>
> on the other hand, if you are trying to stop subject motion, nikon's
> system would be better, since you need a certain shutter speed to
> freeze motion regardless of focal length.

I've never used a Nikon so don't know how they do it but with the Canon you
set the camera to TV and auto ISO and the shutter speed you want and away
you go.

> they work differently. there are advantages and disadvantages to each.
>
> neither is better.

I expect that is the case.

--
sid

[Eric Stevens]

You mean it doesn't have possibilities?

Time will tell.

It's a pity he warned you.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[nospam]

In article <4016592.z...@thecrap.blueyonder.co.uk>, sid

<sid...@sidshouse.net> wrote:

> > on the other hand, if you are trying to stop subject motion, nikon's
> > system would be better, since you need a certain shutter speed to
> > freeze motion regardless of focal length.
>
> I've never used a Nikon so don't know how they do it but with the Canon you
> set the camera to TV and auto ISO and the shutter speed you want and away
> you go.

try it in av mode.

[nospam]

In article <ku5h0...@news4.newsguy.com>, PeterN

<peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:

> >> If you spent half the time taking pictures, as you do bullshitting, you
> >> might be taken seriously.
> >
> > i spend plenty of time taking pictures. i just don't share them with
> > you.
>
> Do yo also make them? This may come as a surprise to you, but the
> purpose for most of us being here is to improve our photography.
> therefore, one who does not share his work, or even discuss photography,
> cannot be taken seriously.

if that's the purpose, why do you butt into every discussion that is
not about photography?

furthermore, sharing my work does not change whether what i say is
correct or not.

if it's wrong, prove it wrong with credible references. if it's not
wrong, stfu.

posting a photo won't make an incorrect statement suddenly correct.

since all you do is attack rather than provide evidence, we can only
conclude you are full of shit and what i've said is valid.

also, nitpicking over inconsequential minutiae, which is the best
you've managed to do, does not count as proving me wrong.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 19:31:36 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>
>since all you do is attack rather than provide evidence, we can only
>conclude you are full of shit and what i've said is valid.

Who's "we"?

[PeterN]

On 8/10/2013 7:31 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <ku5h0...@news4.newsguy.com>, PeterN
> <peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>>> If you spent half the time taking pictures, as you do bullshitting, you
>>>> might be taken seriously.
>>>
>>> i spend plenty of time taking pictures. i just don't share them with
>>> you.
>>
>> Do yo also make them? This may come as a surprise to you, but the
>> purpose for most of us being here is to improve our photography.
>> therefore, one who does not share his work, or even discuss photography,
>> cannot be taken seriously.
>
> if that's the purpose, why do you butt into every discussion that is
> not about photography?
>

To try to stop your bullshit.

> furthermore, sharing my work does not change whether what i say is
> correct or not.
>
> if it's wrong, prove it wrong with credible references. if it's not
> wrong, stfu.

Wow! another kindergarten argument. Does your mama know you use such
language?

>
> posting a photo won't make an incorrect statement suddenly correct.

That is the most accurate statement you have made in a while. there is
nothing that can make your statements correct.

>
> since all you do is attack rather than provide evidence, we can only
> conclude you are full of shit and what i've said is valid.
>
> also, nitpicking over inconsequential minutiae, which is the best
> you've managed to do, does not count as proving me wrong.
>

When you make a statement, you are required to support it with FACTS.
You have satisfied a lot of us that you know nothing about business,
little, if anything about computer science, cengaging in a logical
discussion without resorting to kindergarten comments.
You put out more bluster and bullshit than anyone else here.

--
PeterN

[nospam]

In article <ku6ov...@news6.newsguy.com>, PeterN

<peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:

> >>>> If you spent half the time taking pictures, as you do bullshitting, you
> >>>> might be taken seriously.
> >>>
> >>> i spend plenty of time taking pictures. i just don't share them with
> >>> you.
> >>
> >> Do yo also make them? This may come as a surprise to you, but the
> >> purpose for most of us being here is to improve our photography.
> >> therefore, one who does not share his work, or even discuss photography,
> >> cannot be taken seriously.
> >
> > if that's the purpose, why do you butt into every discussion that is
> > not about photography?
>
> To try to stop your bullshit.

unlike you, i don't produce bullshit.

> > furthermore, sharing my work does not change whether what i say is
> > correct or not.
> >
> > if it's wrong, prove it wrong with credible references. if it's not
> > wrong, stfu.
>
> Wow! another kindergarten argument. Does your mama know you use such
> language?

nothing about that is kindergarten.

if you think something i said is wrong, provide credible evidence and
everyone can learn something new.

otherwise, you're just blowing hot air.

> > posting a photo won't make an incorrect statement suddenly correct.
>
> That is the most accurate statement you have made in a while. there is
> nothing that can make your statements correct.

if they're not correct, then it should be trivial for you to provide
credible evidence they're wrong.

since you have not, then it's clear that it's not wrong.

so far, you've provided absolutely nothing substantive. just a lot of
content-free bullshit.

> > since all you do is attack rather than provide evidence, we can only
> > conclude you are full of shit and what i've said is valid.
> >
> > also, nitpicking over inconsequential minutiae, which is the best
> > you've managed to do, does not count as proving me wrong.
>
> When you make a statement, you are required to support it with FACTS.

i do when asked for them.

> You have satisfied a lot of us that you know nothing about business,
> little, if anything about computer science, cengaging in a logical
> discussion without resorting to kindergarten comments.
> You put out more bluster and bullshit than anyone else here.

bullshit.

as i said, prove me wrong. if you think i know nothing, it should be
incredibly easy to show with credible evidence. i'm sure you'd love to
prove me wrong. so far, you haven't.

and at least try to read it first before posting, unlike eric here, who
posted a link that proved himself wrong. you don't want to make
yourself look any more stupid than you already are.

and let's not forget, it's always you and others that start with the
insults and attacks, which makes *you* the kindergarten commenter. when
attacked, i'll respond similarly, so if you want fewer such comments,
don't make any yourself.

[nospam]

In article <1pld09dfv091fsvlc...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >since all you do is attack rather than provide evidence, we can only
> >conclude you are full of shit and what i've said is valid.
>
> Who's "we"?

everyone.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 21:44:49 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

Well, there's the quickest shut-down of a claim ever recorded. Since
I personally know two that don't, the claim is automatically binned.

[Eric Stevens]

On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 21:44:49 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

I wasn't on that flight.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[sid]

Why would you use aperature priority if you want to control shutter speed?

--
sid

[Robert Coe]

Because it's an all or nothing proposition. If you set Av, the camera will
lower the speed to 1/15 or so before it raises the ISO. If you set Tv, every
shot will be at maximum aperture. What Nikon lets you do, but Canon doesn't,
is use Av but tell the auto-ISO algorithm not to let the speed fall below a
stated value. It's a feature I wish Canon had. (Nikon may have a patent on it,
for all I know. The U.S. patent office, at least, is absurdly generous
nowadays about what it will allow to be patented.)

Bob

[PeterN]

On 8/10/2013 9:44 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <ku6ov...@news6.newsguy.com>, PeterN
> <peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>> If you spent half the time taking pictures, as you do bullshitting, you
>>>>>> might be taken seriously.
>>>>>
>>>>> i spend plenty of time taking pictures. i just don't share them with
>>>>> you.
>>>>
>>>> Do yo also make them? This may come as a surprise to you, but the
>>>> purpose for most of us being here is to improve our photography.
>>>> therefore, one who does not share his work, or even discuss photography,
>>>> cannot be taken seriously.
>>>
>>> if that's the purpose, why do you butt into every discussion that is
>>> not about photography?
>>
>> To try to stop your bullshit.
>
> unlike you, i don't produce bullshit.

oh!

Proof of my statement from your own keyboard.

>
> as i said, prove me wrong. if you think i know nothing, it should be
> incredibly easy to show with credible evidence. i'm sure you'd love to
> prove me wrong. so far, you haven't.
>

You have never proven anything except a lack of knowledge.

> and at least try to read it first before posting, unlike eric here, who
> posted a link that proved himself wrong. you don't want to make
> yourself look any more stupid than you already are.
>
> and let's not forget, it's always you and others that start with the
> insults and attacks, which makes *you* the kindergarten commenter. when
> attacked, i'll respond similarly, so if you want fewer such comments,
> don't make any yourself.
>

Simple proposition. It is up to the person making the claim, to provide
support, when questioned.

--
PeterN

[sid]

Robert Coe wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 11:19:42 +0100, sid <sid...@sidshouse.net> wrote:
> : nospam wrote:
> :
> : > In article <4016592.z...@thecrap.blueyonder.co.uk>, sid
> : > <sid...@sidshouse.net> wrote:
> : >
> : >> > on the other hand, if you are trying to stop subject motion,
> : >> > nikon's system would be better, since you need a certain shutter
> : >> > speed to freeze motion regardless of focal length.
> : >>
> : >> I've never used a Nikon so don't know how they do it but with the
> : >> Canon you set the camera to TV and auto ISO and the shutter speed you
> : >> want and away you go.
> : >
> : > try it in av mode.
> :
> : Why would you use aperature priority if you want to control shutter
> : speed?
>
> Because it's an all or nothing proposition. If you set Av, the camera will
> lower the speed to 1/15 or so before it raises the ISO.

Like nospam said the camera uses 1/focal lenght to determine min shutter
speed so it'll only go as low as 1/15 if you have a 15mm lens or your zoom
set to 15 mm. In fact having just tried that with a 15-85 zoom the min
shutter speed ranged fom 1/20 - 1/125 depending on the zoom setting.

> If you set Tv,
> every shot will be at maximum aperture. What Nikon lets you do, but Canon
> doesn't, is use Av but tell the auto-ISO algorithm not to let the speed
> fall below a stated value. It's a feature I wish Canon had. (Nikon may
> have a patent on it, for all I know. The U.S. patent office, at least, is
> absurdly generous nowadays about what it will allow to be patented.)

So what you're saying is you want the aperature to remain constant but not
at max aperature and you don't want the shutter to fall below a fixed
shutter speed. Surely setting your camera to M with auto ISO is what you
want?

--
sid