Difference in 100 vs. 200 ISO.

"wiyum" wrote in message
oups.com...
I love my D200, but don't forget Fuji Velvia--it's still a wonderful
tool,
and a used Pentax and a couple top notch prime lenses will set you back
no
more than $300: http://www.mattclara.com/chicago.html(shot with Velvia
and
the cheapo--relatively speaking--Nikon 18-35mm lens).

Okay Matt, you need to stop doing things like that. It isn't right and
it isn't fair...

I already miss Chicago too much as it is.

On a more on-topic note, do you recall how long that exposure was and
at what time of day (relative to the sunset) it was taken?

Beautiful shot.

Will



That's a 30 second exposure at f22, taken about 5-10 minutes after sunset.
And yeah, I get that feeling, too, especially this time of year. When I go
(every summer at least once, if not twice) I take a train out of East
Lansing, MI, and show up in Chicago 3.5 hours later having done nothing but
napped, read, played eucher with my wife and friends, spent too much on a
PB&J, and I arrive at Union Station ready to hit the town. No parking
hassels, no exhaustion from the long drive. The whole train ride has become
part of the over all "experience." And then, every evening from 8-10 is
mine for nothing but photography. I scout out the areas during the day.
Dinner at 7, drinks at 10:30, baby!

You think you're missing Chicago?!?

I've also recently discovered that webpage happens to be the number three
return for a google image search for "downtown chicago." Number two for
yahoo!

--
www.mattclara.com

wrote in message
ps.com...
On Feb 22, 1:23 am, "Matt Clara" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...



On Feb 21, 9:27 pm, wrote:
Hi, all. Thanks for the information. As one of the posters stated, I
am actually looking to do low-light, long-exposure shots, such as
night cityscapes. And I was operating under the assumption that a 100
ISO would produce shots with less grain than would an ISO of 200.

Based on the comments, it sounds like a Canon XT might be better for
such shots -- which is unfortunate, because I really liked the D40's
viewfinder compared to the XT's. I have considered the D80, but it's a
little too pricey for me right now, at least for a starter camera.

Hi. If you're worried about noise in long exposures, it won't be a
problem in either of these cameras. Here's a 5min exposure with a
D200:
http://www.pbase.com/al599/image/71856686

Some very nice shots there.



Thanks. About using Velvia as you mentioned elsewherer, I tried a few
times and ended up with colour shifts (and pretty bad reciprocity
failure). Do you use it for shots over 5-10s without problems? Is
there some trick I am missing?



No, you're right--Velvia isn't good for real long exposures--that shot was
30 seconds, and the longest I went was 90, and that blew out the buildings,
regardless of ambient light. I know a guy who's using Kodak Ultra, or
something--some saturated negative film from Kodak:
http://www.nuez.com/personal/alleys-separate.htm

I purchased this one at the East Lansing Art Fair last year, where I met
him: http://www.nuez.com/personal/alleys/...windowfire.htm
It was kinda funny, I started asking him about his technique, and he got
real defensive and a bit hostile, said he feared I was trying to steal his
shtick (not before he told me what film he used, and a hassy with cz
lenses). I emailed him later that evening to express my puzzlement, and he
explained that the art fair circuit could be very cut throat--apparently
some people do this exclusively for a living and will steal any shtick they
can to make a buck. He liked negative film better because--no surprise--it
has more lattitude for exposure error.

--
www.mattclara.com

On Feb 22, 2:39 am, "Matt Clara" wrote:
wrote in message

ps.com...



On Feb 22, 1:23 am, "Matt Clara" wrote:
wrote in message

groups.com...

On Feb 21, 9:27 pm, wrote:
Hi, all. Thanks for the information. As one of the posters stated, I
am actually looking to do low-light, long-exposure shots, such as
night cityscapes. And I was operating under the assumption that a 100
ISO would produce shots with less grain than would an ISO of 200.

Based on the comments, it sounds like a Canon XT might be better for
such shots -- which is unfortunate, because I really liked the D40's
viewfinder compared to the XT's. I have considered the D80, but it's a
little too pricey for me right now, at least for a starter camera.

Hi. If you're worried about noise in long exposures, it won't be a
problem in either of these cameras. Here's a 5min exposure with a
D200:
http://www.pbase.com/al599/image/71856686

Some very nice shots there.

Thanks. About using Velvia as you mentioned elsewherer, I tried a few
times and ended up with colour shifts (and pretty bad reciprocity
failure). Do you use it for shots over 5-10s without problems? Is
there some trick I am missing?

No, you're right--Velvia isn't good for real long exposures--that shot was
30 seconds, and the longest I went was 90, and that blew out the buildings,
regardless of ambient light. I know a guy who's using Kodak Ultra, or
something--some saturated negative film from Kodak:http://www.nuez.com/personal/alleys-separate.htm


Some of these are stunning! Film has the decided advantage of not
killing your battery after a couple of 30min exposures, but then again
you have to make sure you got the right exposure without reviewing it,
which is not trivial in these conditions. Plus you have to wait for it
to be processed...

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Feb 22, 2:39 am, "Matt Clara" wrote:
wrote in message

ps.com...



On Feb 22, 1:23 am, "Matt Clara" wrote:
wrote in message

groups.com...

On Feb 21, 9:27 pm, wrote:
Hi, all. Thanks for the information. As one of the posters stated,
I
am actually looking to do low-light, long-exposure shots, such as
night cityscapes. And I was operating under the assumption that a
100
ISO would produce shots with less grain than would an ISO of 200.

Based on the comments, it sounds like a Canon XT might be better
for
such shots -- which is unfortunate, because I really liked the
D40's
viewfinder compared to the XT's. I have considered the D80, but
it's a
little too pricey for me right now, at least for a starter camera.

Hi. If you're worried about noise in long exposures, it won't be a
problem in either of these cameras. Here's a 5min exposure with a
D200:
http://www.pbase.com/al599/image/71856686

Some very nice shots there.

Thanks. About using Velvia as you mentioned elsewherer, I tried a few
times and ended up with colour shifts (and pretty bad reciprocity
failure). Do you use it for shots over 5-10s without problems? Is
there some trick I am missing?

No, you're right--Velvia isn't good for real long exposures--that shot
was
30 seconds, and the longest I went was 90, and that blew out the
buildings,
regardless of ambient light. I know a guy who's using Kodak Ultra, or
something--some saturated negative film from
Kodak:http://www.nuez.com/personal/alleys-separate.htm


Some of these are stunning! Film has the decided advantage of not
killing your battery after a couple of 30min exposures, but then again
you have to make sure you got the right exposure without reviewing it,
which is not trivial in these conditions. Plus you have to wait for it
to be processed...


Yes, there are the batteries, and I'm not sure how valuable a review is if
the exposure is several hours long or longer like Xavier's images
are--little chance to do over that night, any way.

--
www.mattclara.com

writes:

Thanks. About using Velvia as you mentioned elsewherer, I tried a few
times and ended up with colour shifts (and pretty bad reciprocity
failure). Do you use it for shots over 5-10s without problems? Is
there some trick I am missing?

I don't do long exposures (I might one day) but would like to note,
that the new Velvia 100 handles long exposures better than
the old Velvia 50.

On Feb 22, 2:12 pm, "Matt Clara" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...



On Feb 22, 2:39 am, "Matt Clara" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

On Feb 22, 1:23 am, "Matt Clara" wrote:
wrote in message

groups.com...

On Feb 21, 9:27 pm, wrote:
Hi, all. Thanks for the information. As one of the posters stated,
I
am actually looking to do low-light, long-exposure shots, such as
night cityscapes. And I was operating under the assumption that a
100
ISO would produce shots with less grain than would an ISO of 200.

Based on the comments, it sounds like a Canon XT might be better
for
such shots -- which is unfortunate, because I really liked the
D40's
viewfinder compared to the XT's. I have considered the D80, but
it's a
little too pricey for me right now, at least for a starter camera.

Hi. If you're worried about noise in long exposures, it won't be a
problem in either of these cameras. Here's a 5min exposure with a
D200:
http://www.pbase.com/al599/image/71856686

Some very nice shots there.

Thanks. About using Velvia as you mentioned elsewherer, I tried a few
times and ended up with colour shifts (and pretty bad reciprocity
failure). Do you use it for shots over 5-10s without problems? Is
there some trick I am missing?

No, you're right--Velvia isn't good for real long exposures--that shot
was
30 seconds, and the longest I went was 90, and that blew out the
buildings,
regardless of ambient light. I know a guy who's using Kodak Ultra, or
something--some saturated negative film from
Kodak:http://www.nuez.com/personal/alleys-separate.htm

Some of these are stunning! Film has the decided advantage of not
killing your battery after a couple of 30min exposures, but then again
you have to make sure you got the right exposure without reviewing it,
which is not trivial in these conditions. Plus you have to wait for it
to be processed...

Yes, there are the batteries, and I'm not sure how valuable a review is if
the exposure is several hours long or longer like Xavier's images
are--little chance to do over that night, any way.


The idea of the review is to set the ISO to 1600,shoot, determine
exposure from the histogram, set ISO to 100 and take the real shot.
Since for eg 30min exposures at ISO 100 we'd need 2 min at ISO 1600,
which is too long, what I do is set the tone compensation (ie the
curve) to a custom curve that is flat (I have downloaded this to my
D200), set various jpeg settings to known values (these settings do
affect the histograms even when shooting raw), and have marked on my
histogram stops from saturation. So I can shoot a 3-stop underexposed
test shot at ISO 1600, see that it is 3 stops below, and expose
properly.

It sounds very complicated, but it is really simple, and saves a lot
of effort and battery power.

On Feb 22, 2:30 pm, Toni Nikkanen wrote:
writes:
Thanks. About using Velvia as you mentioned elsewherer, I tried a few
times and ended up with colour shifts (and pretty bad reciprocity
failure). Do you use it for shots over 5-10s without problems? Is
there some trick I am missing?

I don't do long exposures (I might one day) but would like to note,
that the new Velvia 100 handles long exposures better than
the old Velvia 50.


Cool, I'll see if I can try it, thanks.

Søren Reinke wrote:

Most film chip's are ISO 100 rated from the factory everything else is
pure amplification.

not quite. Each fab method results in a sensitivity that lies somewhere
in the region of 50 - 200, most sensors lie somewhere in the 100 - 200
range. It doesn't "land" on a nice round number.



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

In article ,
Alan Browne wrote:

Søren Reinke wrote:

Most film chip's are ISO 100 rated from the factory everything else is
pure amplification.

not quite. Each fab method results in a sensitivity that lies somewhere
in the region of 50 - 200, most sensors lie somewhere in the 100 - 200
range. It doesn't "land" on a nice round number.

I would look at the noise level, does it equate to an equal value for a
film exposure? If not then perhaps film is the best choice for a given
output size. I find 200 asa rather smooth but problematic in terms of
opening shadow areas -jes lick da film mind ya\asa 400 seems to work
best for me
--
"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely,
the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great
and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire
at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
- H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920.


Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
and never looking back.

www.gregblankphoto.com

In article ,
"Greg \"_\"" wrote:

In article ,
Alan Browne wrote:

Søren Reinke wrote:

Most film chip's are ISO 100 rated from the factory everything else is
pure amplification.

not quite. Each fab method results in a sensitivity that lies somewhere
in the region of 50 - 200, most sensors lie somewhere in the 100 - 200
range. It doesn't "land" on a nice round number.

I would look at the noise level, does it equate to an equal value for a
film exposure? If not then perhaps film is the best choice for a given
output size. I find 200 asa rather smooth but problematic in terms of
opening shadow areas -jes lick da film mind ya\asa 400 seems to work
best for me

That not completely accurate 2oo asa film seems to open the shadows much
better than digital.
--
"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely,
the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great
and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire
at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
- H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920.


Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
and never looking back.

www.gregblankphoto.com