Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/03/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Changing the thread topic only because of misunderstanding and what's the point of arguing about something that was misunderstood? No one cares about old DCS back and mythical 128000000000000000 ISO sensor. We were talking about the potential rumored B&W Leica that may be announced on May 10th. If it exists, and we will know if it's a negative in less than 2 months, then likely it will provide higher dynamic range. This is not mythical. It's a well known sensor tech thing. And the #^&$& troll bringing in "ugly digital color." Ugh. There are genuine advantage of a B&W sensor, in terms of higher resolution and higher dynamic range. But I guess why bother to discuss potentially real-tech?! On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Phil Forrest <photo.forrest at earthlink.net>wrote: > We changed the thread topic. It evolved into higher ISO. > Something that affects us now instead of vaporware. Unless you're > talking about a few one-off special order Kodak DCS backs for the F3 > that were made in only black and white during the late 90's. > > Phil Forrest > > > On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 18:23:24 -0700 > Richard Man <richard at richardmanphoto.com> wrote: > > > STOP STOP STOP > > > > Higher dynamic range not equal to high ISO > > > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Robert Meier <robertmeier at usjet.net> > > wrote: > > > > > 24,000 is 5 stops away from 800. It's not hard to imagine a use > > > for that. > > > > > > > > > On Mar 14, 2012, at 8:09 PM, Tina Manley wrote: > > > > > > > In my many years photographing inside dark adobe houses by > > > > firelight, I used mostly Tri-X and TMax 400 pushed to 800. When > > > > TMax 3200 came out, I carried some of that for the very darkest > > > > of the dark: > > > > > > > > http://www.pbase.com/tinamanley/image/121090460 > > > > > > > > http://www.pbase.com/tinamanley/image/121090465 > > > > > > > > I can't imagine needing the super ISOs on some of the newest > > > > digital cameras - like 24,000. What is that for? The black cat > > > > in the coal > > > mine? > > > > But then maybe those other cameras don't have a lens that draws > > > > in the light, like the Noctilux ;-) Who needs 24,000 when you > > > > have 1.0!! > > > > > > > > Tina > > > > > > > > > > > > I've been saying this for a while. The world is not getting > > > > darker, > > > >> right? Didn't most of us learn on "slow" films between 100 and > > > >> 400 ISO? I still see no reason for anything over 3200. I'm not a > > > >> coal miner shooting photos of black cats while at work nor are > > > >> most of us on the LUG. I'm sure one person out there could make > > > >> regular use of it but if digital weren't around we'd still be > > > >> pushing film up to 3200 and 6400 to get our grainy yet great > > > >> photos we love. > > > >> > > > >> To freeze motion at night? Again, why? Life isn't static, so why > > > >> should our photography be? I always hate these tack sharp photos > > > >> that folks show of helicopter blades perfectly frozen and > > > >> straight as if the aircraft is going to fall from the sky. Some > > > >> things just look unnatural when frozen above 1/1000 second. But > > > >> that's my opinion. > > > >> > > > >> I love the fact that I can get a nice clean 800ISO with my M9 as > > > >> long as I do the work to properly expose the frame. walking > > > >> around center city Philly at night shooting a 35 Lux at f/2 and > > > >> 1/30 second is perfect. All i have to do is focus and imagine > > > >> Dr. Ted yelling at me to shoot, not to fiddle with the camera > > > >> and all its trappings. > > > >> > > > >> I think this high ISO craze is BS but again, that's my opinion. > > > >> I also KNOW it is spoiling a lot of photo students out there who > > > >> don't know how to expose a frame without the camera telling them > > > >> every single thing during and after (chimping) the shot. I'm > > > >> waiting for this wave of mediocrity to sweep into the > > > >> professional world and then the employment opportunities to open > > > >> up to folks who learned how to do this on K64 with a spotmatic > > > >> that had a broken light meter. > > > >> > > > >> Ok, mumble, mumble, metaphorical lawn, mumble mumble. I'll get > > > >> off my soapbox. > > > >> > > > >> Phil Forrest > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>> If I could 2/3 more "speed" by using a B&W sensor I could > > > >>>> achieve what ISO 306.000 or so? > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Or a clean IS 18,600 or so > > > >>>> > > > >>>> WHY? > > > >>>> > > > >>>> This scene is illuminated by the moonlight reflected from my > > > >>>> cat's eye? At what point doe it get to be overkill? > > > >> > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > >> Leica Users Group. > > > >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more > > > >> information > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Tina Manley, ASMP > > > > www.tinamanley.com > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Leica Users Group. > > > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more > > > > information > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Leica Users Group. > > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > philforrest.wordpress.com > gallery.leica-users.org/v/philforrest > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > -- // richard <http://www.richardmanphoto.com>