Automatic ISO versus Manual Setting

jean added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

[snip]
> I did a lot of slides too and many of my race pictures looked
> good (well, I remember they looked good projected on the
> screen), but when I scan them, they are nowhere as sharp as
> the pictures I take now with what I have. Mind you with the
> high frame rate of today's cameras, it is a lot easier to get
> a good shot compared to cock and shoot. I relied more on my
> eyes to get a good focus, now at my age, I rely on the camera
> to do it properly (which it does).
>
> Jean
>
> PS I was (and still are) more into motorcycles than cars,
> capturing them on film has remained the same.
>
I have scanned some of my slides and I agree with you. Lenses on
slide projectors like my Kodak Carousel are notoriously soft and
when a slide is blown up on the wall or screen, it always looks
good in spite of any limitations in the slide itself or the soft
projector lens because it is so bright and contrasty.

I've never gone in for racing or sports photography, but do know
that one can create both exciting action photos and minimize
shake and subject blurring by panning as the shot is taken. My
early slides are largely scenics and indoor shots in European
castles, museums, Disneyworld exhibits, and the like, so nothing
is moving and it boils down to proper color temperature selection
- what we now call white balance - and reasonable shutter.

As to today's images being superior, I would expect that to be
true if any real progress has been made in photographry in the 30
years since I stopped 35mm and went to movies and video, finally
to digital. But there are also people who think that a really
good slide or neg scanned with a really good scanner by someone
who is skilled can exceed the quality of even a 12 mega pixel
digital. Just not me...

Have a great Sunday, Jean!

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Surely you jest - and don't call me Shirley!" - from the movie
"Airplane!"

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 00:57:20 -0600, "Randy Berbaum"
<rberbaum.DeleteThis@prairienet.org> wrote:

>>> I have a monopod (or unipod) that extends to about 5', but is about
>>> 15" unextended. For all but very long exposures, it works as well as
>>> my tripod. It's much lighter and easy to carry than a tripod and fits
>>> in the knapsack I use for a camera bag.
>>>
>>> It's also better than a tripod in that you can carry the camera
>>> mounted on the unextended monopod and use it hand-held.
>>
>> I've been thinking about picking up one of those. You may have just
>> convinced me with the hand-held unextended idea. I never thought of that.
>>
>
>Personally I don't leave my camera on the monopod because I find it awkward.

I don't leave the monopod on my camera at all times...just when I'm
out looking for particular types of shots where stability is needed.
Still, I can ignore the monopod and shoot a hand-held if the situation
comes up.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida