Difficult technical question on ISO & light

Maybe your semantics work for you but nobody else will notice.

See our dust? You are left behind in it...LOL

"me" wrote in message
...
"Colin D" wrote in message
...


me wrote:

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...

Only a completely _uniformed_ idiot wouldn't know the highly
advanced technical state of silve halide engineering.

Digital can't even come close...

Tom,
I have listed you in my NG names list as one of the *HEROES OF
PHOTOGRAPHY*.
The only problem I can see with your post is that the digital dullards
reading it don't know what silver halide is! OOPS!
Fighting against ignorance in support of film,
me

I take considerable objection to your 'digital dullard' and 'ignorance'
comments. I, and others on this thread, have many years experience at
professional level with 'advanced silver halide enginering' products.
Remember
this: Silver halide engineering has been going on now for nearly 200
years.
Digital has been viable for less than a tenth of that time. Already it
can
perform better than film for the same unit area. Face it, silver halide
technology just happened to be the first on the scene. If digital
techniques
had been available in Fox Talbot's day, silver halide would still be in
bottles
in a chem lab.

There have always been reactionaries throughout history. From the
church
threatening Galileo, innumerable mistakes in early medical days, the
Tolpuddle
Martyrs, the Luddites, the clowns who marched in front of early motor
vehicles
with a red flag, the pundits who, when George Stephenson built his first
locomotive declared that travelling at such speed would cause the blood
to
run
from the ears of the passengers (despite the fact that horses could
gallop
at
twice the speed with no ill effects), and many more examples, these
types
all
had two things in common. They were scared by, and resisted, any change
to
their secure little world - and they were all wrong.. You
film-embracing,
anti-digital heroes belong to the same class, and you also have two
things
in
common. One, you are all wrong, and two, you mostly prove it by
resorting
to ad
hominem attacks in lieu of reasoned argument.

I'm out of here (this thread). The thing about banging your head
against
a
brick wall - it makes no difference whatever to the bricks.

Colin.

My support of film can be summed up in one word. *VERACITY*. Film has it,
digital imaging doesn't, never did, never will. Look here for more on
veracity:

http://web.archive.org/web/200402140...nodigital.html
Look here for what National Geographic has to say about digital imaging:

http://web.archive.org/web/200402260...nodigital.html
Fighting ignorance in support of film!
me

You really are an antique dealer then...LOL

"Frank Pittel" wrote in message
...
In rec.photo.darkroom Gymmy Bob wrote:
: Take the PCB out of your camera and see what it does then.

My cameras work find without any PCBs. No electronics of any kind.


: "Frank Pittel" wrote in message
: ...
: In rec.photo.darkroom Gregory W Blank wrote:
: : In article ,
: : "Gymmy Bob" wrote:
: :
: : My pictures have no grain and I don't have to pollute the
environment
: with
: : chemicals to print them.
:
: : Beep wrong answer!!! Digital photography is way way more costly
: : to the environment than film will ever be. Most chemicals for film
: : processing are biologically sound or can readily be made so with
proper
: : care. Producers of Printed circuit boards are some of
: : the worst enviromental offenders in existance & coupled with the lbs
of
: lead in that
: : key board your sharing your "knowledge" with :-) , you haven't a leg
to
: stand on.
:
: The chemicals involved in making the semiconductors make the ferric
: chloride used for
: the PC boards look enviro friendly.
: --
:
:
:
:
: Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
: -------------------
:



--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

My Pentax miniature does it right in the camera...MORON!

Hard to admit the defeat.....antique boy...isn't it?

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...


wrote:

In message ,
Tom Phillips wrote:

Gymmy Bob wrote:

Most digital cameras have a multiple exposure capability. I am sure
it is
accomplished in various ways.

That would be a neat trick...

Mount camera on tripod.

Take one picture.

Take another.

Take all pictures.

Load them all into software.

Make an image of all of them averaged together.

Stupid moron. That is not a multiple exposure, and not
an ability to _accumulate_ light IN A SINGLE EXPOSURE.

Don't you THINK I know this? Don't you think I have
used the BEST digital equipment and software available?
I HAVE. Try Sinar, a $50,000 digital system and software.
Not your little prosumer P&S.

Digital CANNOT do multiple exposures. It MIMICKS what
film can do with software, but cannot do what film
actually does.

Idiot.


Make an image that has the darkest pixel for an offset.

Make an image that has the brightest pixel for an offset.

Make an image that is the luminance from one image and the hue from
another.

Multiply the images together.

Lower the contrast of one image, average the rest, and raise that to the
power of the decontrasted image divided by the mid-grey value.


This is not a multiple exposure. It a software ***COMPOSITE***

You don't have a clue...

ROFLMFAO...what an idiot. I hope it makes a difference to you because it
doesn't to anybody else.

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...


wrote:

In message ,
"Gymmy Bob" wrote:

Most digital cameras have a multiple exposure capability. I am sure it
is
accomplished in various ways.

Digital is the most friendly medium to multiple exposure. Not only can
you get an additive light effect, but you can apply any math you can
think of to multiple images; impossible to do with a single frame of
film exposed in multiple shutter-openings (or leaf-openings).


The _biggest_ bunch of B.S. I ever heard.

you simply cannot do a multiple exposure with digital.
Not physically possible. IS there any wonder I use
terms like "STUPID"?

Go ahead. make an exposure, recock the shutter, and make
another "cummulative" digital exposure.

A neat trick, since with digital no exposure is actually
extant on any silicon sensor. it does not and *CANNOT*
retain an exposure. The electrons are dumped as a voltage
as soon as the photodetector wells are filled.

You argue as a troll argues, in oppsition to the facts
(or in this case physics.)

Do I really have to "recock the shutter" on my digital?

I don't have to wind my camera up for the last 10 years.

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...


wrote:

In message ,
"Gymmy Bob" wrote:

Most digital cameras have a multiple exposure capability. I am sure it
is
accomplished in various ways.

Digital is the most friendly medium to multiple exposure. Not only can
you get an additive light effect, but you can apply any math you can
think of to multiple images; impossible to do with a single frame of
film exposed in multiple shutter-openings (or leaf-openings).


The _biggest_ bunch of B.S. I ever heard.

you simply cannot do a multiple exposure with digital.
Not physically possible. IS there any wonder I use
terms like "STUPID"?

Go ahead. make an exposure, recock the shutter, and make
another "cummulative" digital exposure.

A neat trick, since with digital no exposure is actually
extant on any silicon sensor. it does not and *CANNOT*
retain an exposure. The electrons are dumped as a voltage
as soon as the photodetector wells are filled.

You argue as a troll argues, in oppsition to the facts
(or in this case physics.)

"Gymmy Bob" wrote in message
...
"me" wrote in message
...
My support of film can be summed up in one word. *VERACITY*. Film has
it,
digital imaging doesn't, never did, never will. Look here for more on
veracity:


http://web.archive.org/web/200402140...nodigital.html
Look here for what National Geographic has to say about digital imaging:


http://web.archive.org/web/200402260...nodigital.html
Fighting ignorance in support of film!
me

Maybe your semantics work for you but nobody else will notice.

Semantics, that's a big word for someone named Gymmy Bob. If anyone is
interested, take a look at the crap this troll has been generating in NG's:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...&btn G=Search

See our dust? You are left behind in it...LOL
Gymmy Bob

Fighting ignoramuses (that's you Gymmy Bob) in support of film!
me

"Gymmy Bob" wrote in message
...
"me" wrote in message
...
My support of film can be summed up in one word. *VERACITY*. Film has
it,
digital imaging doesn't, never did, never will. Look here for more on
veracity:


http://web.archive.org/web/200402140...nodigital.html
Look here for what National Geographic has to say about digital imaging:


http://web.archive.org/web/200402260...nodigital.html
Fighting ignorance in support of film!
me

Maybe your semantics work for you but nobody else will notice.

Semantics, that's a big word for someone named Gymmy Bob. If anyone is
interested, take a look at the crap this troll has been generating in NG's:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...&btn G=Search

See our dust? You are left behind in it...LOL
Gymmy Bob

Fighting ignoramuses (that's you Gymmy Bob) in support of film!
me