Sorry, I didn't follow your logic about decreasing effective ISO. Can
you first define "effective ISO"?
Chuck Norcutt
On 10/10/2011 10:21 AM, Carlos J. Santisteban wrote:
> Hi Chuck, Mike and all,
>
> From: Chuck Norcutt<chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Although I adhere to the shoot-to-the-right method which I learned at
>> Luminous Landscape here:
>> <http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml>
> <snip>
>
> From: usher99@xxxxxxx
>> A link within the 2003 article cited by Chuck was interesting--it
>> updated it for 8/2011.
>>
> <http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/optimizing_exposure.shtml>
> <snip>
>
> Very interesting links, both of them. However, the reason behind the
> signal-to-noise improvement with ETTR is clear: it _decreases_ the effective
> ISO...
>
> I recall doing a similar experiment a while ago... the GF1 has acceptable
> quality (well, sort-of) up to ISO 800, but that's on daylight WB -- on
> Tungsten setting it's no longer that good. Since the sensor's native WB
> seems closer to daylight, what if I left the daylight setting and put a 80A
> filter instead? I did it and reusulting image quality was _way_ better...
> but then realized that now the exposure was equivalent to ISO 200 -- the 80A
> filter loses about two stops :-(
>
> I should have compared it with another shot without filter, but on Tungsten
> WB @ ISO 200. Maybe some day...
>
> Cheers,
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|