snubbr.com

A little ISO rant and roll...
Odd (basic) question maybe, but back in the day, I had a 35mm Olympus; like everybody else I knew we either shot with Plus X or Tri X film (125 and 400 ASA). Granted we were amateurs brought up in the box Brownie days, but all you did was focus (manually), jimmied the speed and apature a little until the needle was in the middle of the range whether indoors or out, and took a picture. Mostly they came out well at say f5.6 /125..

So why now all the concern on this site, and others, over the ISO range? What's the big concern about non-dSLR digital cameras going over ISO 400 or so? Why would you want to go higher? What am I not getting?.

Is digital imaging so much more complex, so much more sensative, that basic photography ins't possible...you're either strapped with an auto-everything P&S for a couple of hundred dollars, or spending +/- $1000 for a basic dSLR with decent lenses that still can't get close to the 35mm images out of a mid-1970s Olympus or Nikon or Pentax.Brian..

Comments (32)

Digital "ISO" is only meant to be an approximation of the old ISO film speeds, and is therefore quite arbitrary, and can even differ from manufacturer to manufacturer. It's meant just as a "guide" if you like, in the same way we talk about (digital) lens focal lengths as 35mm film equivalents..

That is, ISO 80 on one manufacturer's sensor may give a different image output when compared with that from a different manufacturer, due to the various parameters involved..

Bear in mind too that digital sensors work in a vastly different manner to film emulsions, so the whole ISO thing is all a bit subjective anyway. The "ISO" of a digital sensor is changed by increasing or decreasing it's 'gain' or amplification (electrically), whereas with a film, it's a variation in the chemical attributes of the emulsions laid down on the stock..

Incidentally, you certainly CAN get a fully manual point and shoot for $200 or so without going to the expense of a dSLR with all it's bits and pieces. The fully auto everything cameras are for the pub and nightclub set who don't know how to fiddle with camera settings in situ, or simply can't be bothered to anyway..

I hope I've got this right, but the other guys may have a better understanding than me and can explain the technicalities more clearly..

Cheers ..

Comment #1

One thing has changed since the days of FP4 and HP4 (ISO 125 / 400). At that time the expectation was for a camera to have a nice f/2 or f/1.8 lens..

Nowadays the expectation is for a camera to have a f/4 - f/5.6 zoom. Those two or three stops need to be made up somewhere.Regards,Peter..

Comment #2

BLawson wrote:.

So why now all the concern on this site, and others, over the ISOrange? What's the big concern about non-dSLR digital cameras goingover ISO 400 or so? Why would you want to go higher? What am Inot getting?.

I often shoot in museums where tripods and flashes are typically prohibited and the light is quite low. Even with an IS lens, I often have to use ISO 1600-3200 to get a good exposure. One one occasion, I was shooting in the Hurst Castle in California, USA which is also quite dark and I needed all the ISO I could get to get adequate exposures..

Other folks who shoot actions shots in lower light also use high ISOs to get fast shutter speeds to freeze action..

Put another way, I am now getting shots with digital and high ISO that I could not do in the days of film with anywhere near the image quality (or get at all).Leonhttp://homepage.mac.com/leonwittwer/landscapes.htm..

Comment #3

It's all a mix of laziness and unrealistic expectations and ignorance and hope, coupled with a bit of miracle-making via digital chips..

Becasue digital seems so easy, the lazy are flocking to digital cameras, without the motivation to even try to figure out lighting, add light when necessary, use tripods, etc..

Back in the olden days, as defined by you, high speed color film was ISO 100,and any 400 you could find had terrible color and poor grain..

Less-old old days at least had decent ISO 800 color film, such as Portra 800 and the Fuji wedding / portrait film that almost matched..

Anyway, as for digital magic when we used to shoot with Tri-X in poor available light, we often had conrast problems, and those of us who were any good adjusted the lighting however possible, or printed on number 3 or 4 paper..

But today, a few adjustments in post processing, and a combination of more adjustable contrast added to color images, which show at least color differences to seperate a low-contrast face from a brown shirt color (botrh of which would have been an almost-matching grey in a B&W print) mean that low light color shots are better than low light black and white shots..

By the time I stopped shooting film, I was using a lot of ISO 1600 high speed black and white film..

Last Thursday I bought Shutterbug magazine. Here in Toronto, the current issue comes in a plastic bag with a folded prompo piece for the Nikon D3 inside..

When I got home I opened the bag andunfolded the promot. It's a big, big poster of a motor cycle, shot at twilight at 1/5000 of a second at ISO 6400, and it's a wonderful shot that we never could have got with ISO 400 and film ten years ago..

By son confiscated the poster and it's up on his wall..

BAK..

Comment #4

BLawson wrote:.

So why now all the concern on this site, and others, over the ISOrange? What's the big concern about non-dSLR digital cameras goingover ISO 400 or so? Why would you want to go higher? What am Inot getting?.

In simple terms, a crappier camera will not perform as well at high ISO. The image will become grainy..

You can shoot ISO 3200 on a better camera with a larger sensor and get away with it (may need postprocessing). But if I tried using even ISO 400 on my P&S there is very noticeable graininess...

Comment #5

BAK has it exactly correct..

In the "old days" we were grateful for the technical advanced that every couple of years added to our ability to work into different scenes. Today, people EXPECT unrealistic advances in the technologies or expect them at unreasonably easy costs..

Craft is a non word.Commitment is the exception..

John.

BAK wrote:.

It's all a mix of laziness and unrealistic expectations and ignoranceand hope, coupled with a bit of miracle-making via digital chips..

Becasue digital seems so easy, the lazy are flocking to digitalcameras, without the motivation to even try to figure out lighting,add light when necessary, use tripods, etc..

BAK.

Van..

Comment #6

BLawson wrote:.

Spending +/- $1000 for a basic dSLR with decent lenses that stillcan't get close to the 35mm images out of a mid-1970s Olympus orNikon or Pentax..

How about $500 for a camera that produces images clearly superior to a mid-1970s Olympus, Nikon or Pentax?.

The Nikon D40..

Don't get me wrong, the cameras from back them were great, but the D40's sensor is superior to film at any given ISO. And, figuring in inflation, the D40 is maybe 1/4 the price...

Comment #7

BlackDraken wrote:.

Digital "ISO" is only meant to be an approximation of the old ISOfilm speeds, and is therefore quite arbitrary, and can even differfrom manufacturer to manufacturer. It's meant just as a "guide" ifyou like.

NOT TRUE ... Not True at all .....

ISO stands for "International STANDARDS Organization", (and the original ASA stood for "American STANDARDS Association")..

Notice the word "standard" in both of them. The light value can be traced back to a standard..

All cameras come preset to the standard, and can be "checked" by the Sunny 16 rule for conformity. And if not correct can be adjusted internally..

Within manufacturing tolerances, all should be very close..

Thanks for reading .... JoePhoto.

( Do You Ever STOP to THINK and FORGET to START Again ??? )..

Comment #8

JoePhoto wrote:.

BlackDraken wrote:.

Digital "ISO" is only meant to be an approximation of the old ISOfilm speeds, and is therefore quite arbitrary, and can even differfrom manufacturer to manufacturer. It's meant just as a "guide" ifyou like.

NOT TRUE ... Not True at all .....

ISO stands for "International STANDARDS Organization", (and theoriginal ASA stood for "American STANDARDS Association")..

Notice the word "standard" in both of them. The light value can betraced back to a standard..

While I would like to think so, in practice they ARE different...Canon the main case in point....some of the mid range cameras...30D/20D I think, have a "different" interpretation of iso to others...some of the Canon users will no doubt chime in on this..

Neil.

All cameras come preset to the standard, and can be "checked" by theSunny 16 rule for conformity. And if not correct can be adjustedinternally..

Within manufacturing tolerances, all should be very close..

Thanks for reading .... JoePhoto.

( Do You Ever STOP to THINK and FORGET to START Again ??? )..

Comment #9

Neil holmes wrote:.

JoePhoto wrote:.

BlackDraken wrote:.

Digital "ISO" is only meant to be an approximation of the old ISOfilm speeds, and is therefore quite arbitrary, and can even differfrom manufacturer to manufacturer. It's meant just as a "guide" ifyou like.

NOT TRUE ... Not True at all .....

ISO stands for "International STANDARDS Organization", (and theoriginal ASA stood for "American STANDARDS Association")..

Notice the word "standard" in both of them. The light value can betraced back to a standard..

While I would like to think so, in practice they AREdifferent...Canon the main case in point....some of the mid rangecameras...30D/20D I think, have a "different" interpretation of isoto others...some of the Canon users will no doubt chime in on this..

Then they should return them as "defective" !!!.

Why would you want a camera that did not conform to the accepted "world" standard. (I repeat ... they are "adjustable" internally, and that is probably one of the final QC checks.).

Neil.

All cameras come preset to the standard, and can be "checked" by theSunny 16 rule for conformity. And if not correct can be adjustedinternally..

Within manufacturing tolerances, all should be very close..

Thanks for reading .... JoePhoto.

( Do You Ever STOP to THINK and FORGET to START Again ??? ).

Thanks for reading .... JoePhoto.

( Do You Ever STOP to THINK and FORGET to START Again ??? )..

Comment #10

JoePhoto wrote:.

NOT TRUE ... Not True at all .....

 Point taken Joe, but you're really splitting hairs here! You and I both know about ASA and ISO etc, but I was trying to simplify it all for a newbie who was seeking a simple clarification of ISOs. I intentionally didn't want to mention ASA in connection with ISOs as it only muddies the water for a newbie (who, after all, doesn't even need to know of the term in this digital age)..

ISO stands for "International STANDARDS Organization", (and theoriginal ASA stood for "American STANDARDS Association")..

 This probably has nothing to do with the OP's original query as such, and is really over-elaborating a really inconsequential technical point. (I think?).

Notice the word "standard" in both of them. The light value can betraced back to a standard..

 I'm sorry to have to disagree on this point you've made about a so-called "standard". The fact is that their is NO standard when it comes to digital ISOs. As I said, ISO 80 or ISO 1600 etc are purely arbitrary figures that CAN'T be quantified with any meaningful results. Which explains *why* there's no ISO consistency (or standard) between different camera/sensor manufacturers..

I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say that "all cameras come preset to the standard...". I wasn't aware of this, and would appreciate your clarification. Thanks..

Cheers ..

Comment #11

BlackDraken wrote:.

JoePhoto wrote:.

NOT TRUE ... Not True at all .....

 Point taken Joe, but you're really splitting hairs here! You andI both know about ASA and ISO etc, but I was trying to simplify itall for a newbie who was seeking a simple clarification of ISOs. Iintentionally didn't want to mention ASA in connection with ISOs asit only muddies the water for a newbie (who, after all, doesn't evenneed to know of the term in this digital age)..

ISO stands for "International STANDARDS Organization", (and theoriginal ASA stood for "American STANDARDS Association")..

 This probably has nothing to do with the OP's original query assuch, and is really over-elaborating a really inconsequentialtechnical point. (I think?).

Notice the word "standard" in both of them. The light value can betraced back to a standard..

 I'm sorry to have to disagree on this point you've made about aso-called "standard". The fact is that their is NO standard when itcomes to digital ISOs. As I said, ISO 80 or ISO 1600 etc are purelyarbitrary figures that CAN'T be quantified with any meaningfulresults. Which explains *why* there's no ISO consistency (orstandard) between different camera/sensor manufacturers..

I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say that "all cameras comepreset to the standard...". I wasn't aware of this, and wouldappreciate your clarification. Thanks..

With all due respect .... a statement that they are all "arbitrary" is absurd..

And there is no "inconsistency" beyond normal manufacturing tolerances..

And if so ... Sekonic, Gossen, etc. are gonna be VERY UPSET cause everyone has to throw-away all those expensive meters. (DAMN ... and I just bought one; into the TRASH it goes if cameras are "arbitrary".).

Thanks for reading .... JoePhoto.

( Do You Ever STOP to THINK and FORGET to START Again ??? )..

Comment #12

JoePhoto wrote:.

And if so ... Sekonic, Gossen, etc. are gonna be VERY UPSET causeeveryone has to throw-away all those expensive meters. (DAMN ...and I just bought one; into the TRASH it goes if cameras are"arbitrary".).

If you use a light-meter with film, the first thing to do is to set the meter ISO setting according to the manufacturer's recommendation on the box of film But after getting back the results you may decide to ignore the stated setting and use a modified ISO value. In any case, a film would respond with a different sensitivity under a different light source (e.g. tungsten vs. daylight). And it is always dependent on the processing of the film..

It's fairly likely that digital sensor ISO will vary depending on the light source, and the preferred setting may depend on post-processing too.Regards,Peter..

Comment #13

JoePhoto wrote:.

[snip]With all due respect .... a statement that they are all "arbitrary"is absurd..

And there is no "inconsistency" beyond normal manufacturing tolerances..

And if so ... Sekonic, Gossen, etc. are gonna be VERY UPSET causeeveryone has to throw-away all those expensive meters. (DAMN ...and I just bought one; into the TRASH it goes if cameras are"arbitrary".).

Phil has often commented in his reviews that quoted ISO figures are not standard across manufacturers. In particular Canon ISO 100 has sometimes appeared to be equivalent to Nikon ISO 200..

I looked at the Wiki ISO section.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/..._speed#Digital_camera_ISO_speed_and_exposure_index ) and came up with a possible explanation: there is not one standard for digital sensors but several:.

"Despite these detailed standard definitions, cameras typically do not clearly indicate whether the user "ISO" setting refers to the noise-based speed, saturation-based speed, or the specified output sensitivity, or even some made-up number for marketing purposes."Chris R..

Comment #14

Chris R-UK wrote:.

JoePhoto wrote:.

[snip]With all due respect .... a statement that they are all "arbitrary"is absurd..

And there is no "inconsistency" beyond normal manufacturing tolerances..

They should all be the same based on ISO, but they are not. Nor is film. Both commonly vary by 1/3 stop..

And, it's consistent for a given model and ISO, so it's design variance, not manufacturing...

Comment #15

John p vansteenberg wrote:.

BAK has it exactly correct.In the "old days" we were grateful for the technical advanced thatevery couple of years added to our ability to work into differentscenes. Today, people EXPECT unrealistic advances in the technologiesor expect them at unreasonably easy costs..

Craft is a non word.Commitment is the exception..

John.

Counterpoint...there ARE many of us not old enough to know the old days.  I expect REALISTIC advances in technology, and I expect to pay for them..

Craft is not a word my 4yo knows yet (when I'm chasing her around the house or taking photos of her sitting in our poorly light dining room). .

Commitment is shooting 10 shots to get one that happens to not be blurry when shooting 1/20 at ISO1600..

So yes, we are spoiled, but there's no reason not to take advantage of technology. As mentioned above, even 400 film was advanced years ago, and I suppose a few photographers sneer at those who use anything other than 100..

Frankly, I think the ISO expectations are ignored at the expense of MP. I feel more of these ignorant P&S masses would be better served by 4mp ISO1600 cameras than 12mp ISO400 cameras (ignore the poor math ..

They'd get much better 4x6 snapshots rather than noisy and blurry posters..

Not that I don't appreciate what you pros can do. I'm sure race car drivers beliittled synchromesh transmissions and (gasp) automatics when they first came out, too. How hard is it to find a stickshift these days in the US? .

Greg..

Comment #16

Thank you for being a reasonable, realistic person.I wish the stance was more pervasive..

JohnVan..

Comment #17

I started reading this thread but my eyes glazed over as the discussion turned to how many angels can dance on the head of a needle..

The name of the game is light; and it can be affected three ways: 1) The light controls you, 2) you control the light or 3) there is an unequal partnership. In the old days, actually probably around the time you were shooting with your brownie, ISO's in colour were slow. Most serious amateurs and pro's didn't shoot over 100 ISO. So certain situtations became difficult in low light conditions; the light controlled you; not enough and you had problems..

Now check this link out, the photo of the flame swallower:.

Http://forums.dpreview.com/...forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=26634026.

Here is the specs from the picture - 5D, 135mm, 1/200th, f2.5, ISO3200. Notice the ISO; this is really high for a camera setting and a break through - no to very little noise. Notice the hand held (I'm sure) speed of 1/200th. Now if that shot were taken at 400 ISO, the hand hold speed would be 1/25th; to low to hand hold a lens with blurring or too much softness, and much darker areas. He wouldn't have gotten this shot, unless his camera had a three stop IS (VR in Nikon talk). At lower ISO's, even lower shutter speeds..

So there is a revolution happening in ISO speeds which for those who've been around for awhile in photography really appreciate. Missed wildlife shots will be attainable due to lower light conditions - again a hand held shutter speed problemIn doors shots of people will be more attainable without using the ever present in camera, red eye producing flash...

Comment #18

Rsn48 wrote:.

So there is a revolution happening in ISO speeds which for thosewho've been around for awhile in photography really appreciate.Missed wildlife shots will be attainable due to lower lightconditions - again a hand held shutter speed problemIn doorsshots of people will be more attainable without using the everpresent in camera, red eye producing flash..

I endorse your comment. I started shooting theatre in 2002. Until I bought my Nikon D80 November 2006 I was shooting with a powerful flash (Olympus E20 + FL40). Now I can shoot with available light but I need real quality lenses f/2.8 or better. The Nikon D3 if I could afford it would be a real boon to me..

I look forward to being able to shoot at f/4 1/200th. That will require ISO 6400 or better at most of my venues..

Chris Elliott.

*Nikon* D Eighty + Fifty - Other equipment in Profile.

Http://PlacidoD.Zenfolio.com/..

Comment #19

Chris R-UK wrote:.

"Despite these detailed standard definitions, cameras typically donot clearly indicate whether the user "ISO" setting refers to thenoise-based speed, saturation-based speed, or the specified outputsensitivity, or even some made-up number for marketing purposes.".

Thanks for that info..

I guess that's exactly what I was trying to say earlier (although admittedly not as clearly) when JoePhoto disagreed with my assertion about there being no ISO "standard" across manufacturers..

Cheers ..

Comment #20

BLawson wrote:.

So why now all the concern on this site, and others, over the ISOrange? What's the big concern about non-dSLR digital cameras goingover ISO 400 or so? Why would you want to go higher? What am Inot getting?.

Back in the early film SLR days, the standard kit was a body and a fast lens (i.e., 50mm f/1.4 or 50mm f/1.8 lens)..

Later, vendors started pushing zoom lenses instead. So now, the standard kit might be a body and a f/3.5-5.6 lens. That's a rather significant loss of speed, and just to "tread water" you'd need several stops improvement in film speed..

DSLR kits have stuck with the slow zoom lenses, so there's the same equation; only with DSLRs we can crank the ISO a stop or two more before running into objectionable noise..

Aside from that, there are situations (indoors available-light photography) where the light available is so dim that it is nice to have any advantage that an improved film or an improved sensor technology can provide...

Comment #21

Tom_N wrote:.

BLawson wrote:.

So why now all the concern on this site, and others, over the ISOrange? What's the big concern about non-dSLR digital cameras goingover ISO 400 or so? Why would you want to go higher? What am Inot getting?.

Back in the early film SLR days, the standard kit was a body and afast lens (i.e., 50mm f/1.4 or 50mm f/1.8 lens)..

Later, vendors started pushing zoom lenses instead. So now, thestandard kit might be a body and a f/3.5-5.6 lens. That's a rathersignificant loss of speed, and just to "tread water" you'd needseveral stops improvement in film speed..

DSLR kits have stuck with the slow zoom lenses, so there's the sameequation; only with DSLRs we can crank the ISO a stop or two morebefore running into objectionable noise..

Aside from that, there are situations (indoors available-lightphotography) where the light available is so dim that it is nice tohave any advantage that an improved film or an improved sensortechnology can provide..

All true, but the primary purpose of fast lenses on manual-focus cameras was to facilitate focusing by making the view brighter and the wide-open DOF shallower. Autofocus negates that benefit...

Comment #22

Greg Nut wrote:.

All true, but the primary purpose of fast lenses on manual-focuscameras was to facilitate focusing by making the view brighter andthe wide-open DOF shallower. Autofocus negates that benefit..

The primary purpose? Well, the primary purpose may have been marketing, just as megapixels or ultra-zooms are today..

But it certainly enabled good low-light shots as well as shots with shallow DOF to isolate the subject.Regards,Peter..

Comment #23

I said time to go back to film, but maybe to use film to enhance my digital images. I was very surprised by the Kodak 800 portrait film, and the Black and White 3200 ISO film..

Time to dig out the old Canon 10s and have some fun with it; heck I'll even get back my wide angle lens...

Comment #24

Chris R-UK wrote:.

JoePhoto wrote:.

[snip]With all due respect .... a statement that they are all "arbitrary"is absurd..

And there is no "inconsistency" beyond normal manufacturing tolerances..

And if so ... Sekonic, Gossen, etc. are gonna be VERY UPSET causeeveryone has to throw-away all those expensive meters. (DAMN ...and I just bought one; into the TRASH it goes if cameras are"arbitrary".).

Phil has often commented in his reviews that quoted ISO figures arenot standard across manufacturers. In particular Canon ISO 100 hassometimes appeared to be equivalent to Nikon ISO 200..

I looked at the Wiki ISO section.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/..._speed#Digital_camera_ISO_speed_and_exposure_index ) and came up with a possible explanation: there is not one standard for digital sensors but several:.

"Despite these detailed standard definitions, cameras typically donot clearly indicate whether the user "ISO" setting refers to thenoise-based speed, saturation-based speed, or the specified outputsensitivity, or even some made-up number for marketing purposes."Chris R.

Chris, I will not dispute that wikipeida says that however, you do realize that wikipeida entries are created by the readers and subject to minimal verification. The fact that ISO standard 12232:2006 is designed to standardize all the ISO settings for digital cameras clearly backs up JoePhoto's point that there is a standard. I recall an article a number of months ago, perhaps a year where all the camera manufacturers were starting to conform to this standard...but I can't find it right now...but I will keep looking...

Comment #25

Maybe it's not about the iso this has something to do more with film inherent wider dynamic range (film latitude). here's a link: http://www.reel-stream.com/DynamicRangeAndLatitude.pdf..

Comment #26

You're probably better off sticking with film. hehehe. If you want the best of both worlds, stick with film and then have the images scanned onto a CD for post processing at home in Photoshop.DK One man's art is another man's toilet paper.http://www.dkwhite.info..

Comment #27

ShawnCo wrote:.

Chris, I will not dispute that wikipeida says that however, you dorealize that wikipeida entries are created by the readers and subjectto minimal verification. The fact that ISO standard 12232:2006 isdesigned to standardize all the ISO settings for digital camerasclearly backs up JoePhoto's point that there is a standard. I recallan article a number of months ago, perhaps a year where all thecamera manufacturers were starting to conform to this standard...butI can't find it right now...but I will keep looking..

Perhaps somebody will be willing to pay SFR90 to download the standard and confirm what it says..

Http://www.iso.org/...alogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=37777Chris R..

Comment #28

Gregory King wrote:.

So yes, we are spoiled, but there's no reason not to take advantageof technology. As mentioned above, even 400 film was advanced yearsago, and I suppose a few photographers sneer at those who useanything other than 100..

Even with my 5D, which has a silky-smooth noise curve, I usually shoot at 100. Mainly because I'm comfortable with that "speed", since I usually shot 80-100 in the film days. But it's nice to know that I can increase the gain (digital ISO) with no (or very small) ill effect. Something that, unfortunately, is impossible on a P&S..

Frankly, I think the ISO expectations are ignored at the expense ofMP. I feel more of these ignorant P&S masses would be better servedby 4mp ISO1600 cameras than 12mp ISO400 cameras (ignore the poor math..

Absolutely. It's due to the manufacturers desire to build tiny, cheap P&S cameras (requiring tiny sensors), coupled with the MP arms-race they all are waging. They're giving the masses what they want. "WE WANT MORE MEGAPIXELS. And we don't care of our pictures suck because of it.".

This, and the lack of an OVF on most digicams, is why I don't own one..

I am, however, excited to see the new Sigma DP1. It has an optional "high performance" OVF that slides into the hot-shoe..

They'd get much better 4x6 snapshots rather than noisy and blurryposters..

They'd get better posters, too..

Http://www.pbase.com/digirob..

Comment #29

Perhaps somebody will be willing to pay SFR90 to download thestandard and confirm what it says..

Http://www.iso.org/...alogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=37777Chris R.

Not me!..

Comment #30

Though I'm not exactly sure what you meant by the term "basic photography," the expression brought to mind the concept of being willing to work within a camera's limitations. My grandmother's photo albums dating from the 1920's and earlier are filled with fine images taken with a simple folding camera (single focal length, F/11 lens, shutter speeds from 1/25 to 1/100 second, no flash provision, eight pictures to a roll of film) and slow emulsions of the day. Obviously there were conditions and types of pictures for which her equipment was unsuited. I well remember her comment, "We just never thought about taking pictures on a cloudy day," yet she captured images showing a wide variety of events and people and places she'd knownimages that continued to bring back fond memories for her 60 years after they were taken..

BAK mentioned "unrealistic expectations and ignorance and hope," and how many times do we see posts by people looking for compact cameras that will let them "be able to capture my active kids indoors." In contrast to Grandma's "cloudy day" comment, now we're disappointed if a low-cost camera can't let us stop the motion of children running about indoors under one or two 60-watt bulbs. There's a lifetime of photographic opportunities available even with basic equipment, but who's willing to settle for that?..

Comment #31

BLawson wrote:.

Odd (basic) question maybe, but back in the day, I had a 35mmOlympus; like everybody else I knew we either shot with Plus X or TriX film (125 and 400 ASA). Granted we were amateurs brought up in thebox Brownie days, but all you did was focus (manually), jimmied thespeed and apature a little until the needle was in the middle of therange whether indoors or out, and took a picture. Mostly they cameout well at say f5.6 /125..

So why now all the concern on this site, and others, over the ISOrange?.

Because it's nice to be able to shoot when the sun goes down..

Without flash..

Is digital imaging so much more complex, so much more sensative,that basic photography ins't possible....

Basic photography (according to your Brownie example) isn't the issue. It's 2008. Thanks to Thomas Edison, we have light bulbs that let us go out after the sun goes down. We want to take pictures then. Without a tripod. Without a flash..

- DennisGallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com..

Comment #32

Click Here to View All...

Sponsored Amazon Deals:

1. Get big savings on Amazon warehouse deals.
2. Save up to 70% on Amazon Products.


This question was taken from a support group/message board and re-posted here so others can learn from it.

 

Categories: Home | Diet & Weight Management | Vitamins & Supplements | Herbs & Cleansing |

Sexual Health | Medifast Support | Nutrisystem Support | Medifast Questions |

Web Hosting | Web Hosts | Website Hosting | Hosting |

Web Hosting | GoDaddy | Digital Cameras | Best WebHosts |

Web Hosting FAQ | Web Hosts FAQ | Hosting FAQ | Hosting Group |

Hosting Questions | Camera Tips | Best Cameras To Buy | Best Cameras This Year |

Camera Q-A | Digital Cameras Q-A | Camera Forum | Nov 2010 - Cameras |

Oct 2010 - Cameras | Oct 2010 - DSLRs | Oct 2010 - Camera Tips | Sep 2010 - Cameras |

Sep 2010 - DSLRS | Sep 2010 - Camera Tips | Aug 2010 - Cameras | Aug 2010 - DSLR Tips |

Aug 2010 - Camera Tips | July 2010 - Cameras | July 2010 - Nikon Cameras | July 2010 - Canon Cameras |

July 2010 - Pentax Cameras | Medifast Recipes | Medifast Recipes Tips | Medifast Recipes Strategies |

Medifast Recipes Experiences | Medifast Recipes Group | Medifast Recipes Forum | Medifast Support Strategies |

Medifast Support Experiences |

 

(C) Copyright 2010 All rights reserved.