|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
September 19th 04, 01:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Why not slower ISOs?
A short time ago, I was photographing a waterfall, fiddling with
neutral density filters (screw them on, screw them off, be careful not to drop them, make sure they're clean, etc.) and I thought that life would be a lot easier if a digital camera had arbitrarily low ISO equivalent settings, e.g. ISO 50, 25, 12.5, 6.25, etc. We would all save the expense and trouble of buying and using ND filters. I know that high ISO equivalents introduce problems with noise, but is there any technological reason digital cameras don't have low ISO settings, or is it just that no one has thought of it yet? Thanks, Bob Alexander 
|
|
#2
September 19th 04, 01:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Because if they did, it would be pretend...
Bob Alexander wrote: A short time ago, I was photographing a waterfall, fiddling with neutral density filters (screw them on, screw them off, be careful not to drop them, make sure they're clean, etc.) and I thought that life would be a lot easier if a digital camera had arbitrarily low ISO equivalent settings, e.g. ISO 50, 25, 12.5, 6.25, etc. We would all save the expense and trouble of buying and using ND filters. I know that high ISO equivalents introduce problems with noise, but is there any technological reason digital cameras don't have low ISO settings, or is it just that no one has thought of it yet? Thanks, Bob Alexander
|
|
#3
September 19th 04, 01:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Because if they did, it would be pretend...
Bob Alexander wrote: A short time ago, I was photographing a waterfall, fiddling with neutral density filters (screw them on, screw them off, be careful not to drop them, make sure they're clean, etc.) and I thought that life would be a lot easier if a digital camera had arbitrarily low ISO equivalent settings, e.g. ISO 50, 25, 12.5, 6.25, etc. We would all save the expense and trouble of buying and using ND filters. I know that high ISO equivalents introduce problems with noise, but is there any technological reason digital cameras don't have low ISO settings, or is it just that no one has thought of it yet? Thanks, Bob Alexander
|
|
#4
September 19th 04, 01:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Because if they did, it would be pretend...
Bob Alexander wrote: A short time ago, I was photographing a waterfall, fiddling with neutral density filters (screw them on, screw them off, be careful not to drop them, make sure they're clean, etc.) and I thought that life would be a lot easier if a digital camera had arbitrarily low ISO equivalent settings, e.g. ISO 50, 25, 12.5, 6.25, etc. We would all save the expense and trouble of buying and using ND filters. I know that high ISO equivalents introduce problems with noise, but is there any technological reason digital cameras don't have low ISO settings, or is it just that no one has thought of it yet? Thanks, Bob Alexander
|
|
#5
September 19th 04, 01:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
macro responds:
Because if they did, it would be pretend... Bob Alexander wrote: A short time ago, I was photographing a waterfall, fiddling with neutral density filters (screw them on, screw them off, be careful not to drop them, make sure they're clean, etc.) and I thought that life would be a lot easier if a digital camera had arbitrarily low ISO equivalent settings, e.g. ISO 50, 25, 12.5, 6.25, etc. We would all save the expense and trouble of buying and using ND filters. I know that high ISO equivalents introduce problems with noise, but is there any technological reason digital cameras don't have low ISO settings, or is it just that no one has thought of it yet? More so than filters stacked on filters? What nonsense. Charlie Self "Half of the American people have never read a newspaper. Half never voted for President. One hopes it is the same half." Gore Vidal
|
|
#6
September 19th 04, 01:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
macro responds:
Because if they did, it would be pretend... Bob Alexander wrote: A short time ago, I was photographing a waterfall, fiddling with neutral density filters (screw them on, screw them off, be careful not to drop them, make sure they're clean, etc.) and I thought that life would be a lot easier if a digital camera had arbitrarily low ISO equivalent settings, e.g. ISO 50, 25, 12.5, 6.25, etc. We would all save the expense and trouble of buying and using ND filters. I know that high ISO equivalents introduce problems with noise, but is there any technological reason digital cameras don't have low ISO settings, or is it just that no one has thought of it yet? More so than filters stacked on filters? What nonsense. Charlie Self "Half of the American people have never read a newspaper. Half never voted for President. One hopes it is the same half." Gore Vidal
|
|
#7
September 19th 04, 01:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
macro responds:
Because if they did, it would be pretend... Bob Alexander wrote: A short time ago, I was photographing a waterfall, fiddling with neutral density filters (screw them on, screw them off, be careful not to drop them, make sure they're clean, etc.) and I thought that life would be a lot easier if a digital camera had arbitrarily low ISO equivalent settings, e.g. ISO 50, 25, 12.5, 6.25, etc. We would all save the expense and trouble of buying and using ND filters. I know that high ISO equivalents introduce problems with noise, but is there any technological reason digital cameras don't have low ISO settings, or is it just that no one has thought of it yet? More so than filters stacked on filters? What nonsense. Charlie Self "Half of the American people have never read a newspaper. Half never voted for President. One hopes it is the same half." Gore Vidal
|
|
#8
September 19th 04, 02:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
So...I assume you want to blur the water....you are using a tripod or its
pointless ....so shoot RAW and set the exposure compensation down a couple of stops as desired....that's the same as lowering the ISO. Then bracket so that one shot is even lower. Now go to a site called the luminous landscape and it will tell you how to put those shots all together to make a great photo. "Bob Alexander" wrote in message om... A short time ago, I was photographing a waterfall, fiddling with neutral density filters (screw them on, screw them off, be careful not to drop them, make sure they're clean, etc.) and I thought that life would be a lot easier if a digital camera had arbitrarily low ISO equivalent settings, e.g. ISO 50, 25, 12.5, 6.25, etc. We would all save the expense and trouble of buying and using ND filters. I know that high ISO equivalents introduce problems with noise, but is there any technological reason digital cameras don't have low ISO settings, or is it just that no one has thought of it yet? Thanks, Bob Alexander
|
|
#9
September 19th 04, 02:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
So...I assume you want to blur the water....you are using a tripod or its
pointless ....so shoot RAW and set the exposure compensation down a couple of stops as desired....that's the same as lowering the ISO. Then bracket so that one shot is even lower. Now go to a site called the luminous landscape and it will tell you how to put those shots all together to make a great photo. "Bob Alexander" wrote in message om... A short time ago, I was photographing a waterfall, fiddling with neutral density filters (screw them on, screw them off, be careful not to drop them, make sure they're clean, etc.) and I thought that life would be a lot easier if a digital camera had arbitrarily low ISO equivalent settings, e.g. ISO 50, 25, 12.5, 6.25, etc. We would all save the expense and trouble of buying and using ND filters. I know that high ISO equivalents introduce problems with noise, but is there any technological reason digital cameras don't have low ISO settings, or is it just that no one has thought of it yet? Thanks, Bob Alexander
|
|
#10
September 19th 04, 02:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Bob Alexander" wrote in message om... A short time ago, I was photographing a waterfall, fiddling with neutral density filters (screw them on, screw them off, be careful not to drop them, make sure they're clean, etc.) and I thought that life would be a lot easier if a digital camera had arbitrarily low ISO equivalent settings, e.g. ISO 50, 25, 12.5, 6.25, etc. We would all save the expense and trouble of buying and using ND filters. The Canon Powershot Pro1 does, effectively, have that feature with a built-in ND filter. Mark
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
