I'm confused about iso
Nov 26, 2023 14:01:34 #
Bohica
Loc: SE Coast of NC
brentrh wrote:
ISO with film was set for film you loaded in your camera you set it and then never needed to change it. Depending on what you were photographing I learned when photographing photographing Rolex 24 race at night changing iso would give you better results but you had to use the change for full roll and hope you guessed right. With digital you have the freedom to change iso and take test shots to achieve results you desire
But why when I used to take low light pics with 800 asa, the same pics with 3200 iso on my digital are underexposed?
Nov 26, 2023 14:21:58 #
larryepage
Loc: North Texas area
Bohica wrote:
But why when I used to take low light pics with 800 asa, the same pics with 3200 iso on my digital are underexposed?
Because you are probably using faster shutter speeds now...
Nov 26, 2023 16:27:40 #
Bohica
Loc: SE Coast of NC
larryepage wrote:
Because you are probably using faster shutter speeds now...
In Program or aperture priority modes?
Nov 26, 2023 16:40:47 #
larryepage
Loc: North Texas area
Bohica wrote:
In Program or aperture priority modes?
In my experience, yes.
Nov 26, 2023 16:45:01 #
.
500 posts mainly about nothing. Puuure UHH. Acoarst I had never read beyond about 20, but the reliable UHH algoriddem assures me that 20+480=BS.
(Download)
Nov 26, 2023 17:00:53 #
larryepage
Loc: North Texas area
User ID wrote:
.
Do we have to delete from the count the 150 or so posts devoted to the personal battle, or do they count double?
Nov 26, 2023 17:09:16 #
User ID wrote:
.
I hope you finally found your contact lens down there....
Nov 26, 2023 17:20:09 #
larryepage wrote:
Do we have to delete from the count the 150 or so posts devoted to the personal battle, or do they count double?
All things equal to the same are equal. No need fir any such adjustments !
----------------------------------------------
I waited until 500 to post tha comment and really did NOT read past about 20, knowing full well that the rest were all worthless. You can double or halve the value of "worthless" and the result is still zero. The piling on of facts and factoids past the first 20 posts was worthless no more or less so than personal battles. Its all equal, so there is no need for fudge factors or tweaks. 20+480 ALWAYS equals zero at UHH. There being no trials to the contrary this passes muster sciencewise.
Nov 26, 2023 17:36:33 #
larryepage wrote:
Do we have to delete from the count the 150 or so posts devoted to the personal battle, or do they count double?
You counted them?
There have been over 8700 views of more than 500 posts on the thread. That leaves about 350 posts that were not part of any "personal battle" (including at least 14 from you).
You have been interested enough to stick around for about half of the 34 pages.
Unless you enjoy watching a trainwreck you must have felt you were getting some benefit out of the thread.
There has to be a reason you did not click on the Unwatch button.
Nov 26, 2023 17:50:05 #
larryepage
Loc: North Texas area
selmslie wrote:
You counted them? img src="https://static.uglyhed... (show quote)
Best scientific estimate. I don't watch posts unless I am participating in the discussion, so it was no real problem. I was just trying to be sure I understood the parameters that UserID was using. He intrigues me quite a bit, and I'd actually like to know a little more about him.
Nov 28, 2023 16:10:20 #
A brief scan of this thread is a perfect example of "sniping" ad nauseum which sooner or later happens with most topics and we are all familiar with the members that usually initiate them.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.