February 2005
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28          
Jan   Mar

Previous / Next


Saturday, February 19, 2005

I did a couple of tests where I shot an area of my wall which was fairly dark moving into a lighter area with some objects both at 400 ISO under exposed one stop, and at 800 exposed normally. I then used the Photoshop RAW converter with luminance smoothing at 25, and color noise reduction at 40, and pushed the exposure on the underexposed 400 shot 1.0.

The highlights actually looked better in the "pushed" version. The shadow detail was every so slightly better, probably not to the point that you would notice it in a print at the normal 800 ISO.

I could post a bit of clip from each, but I doubt if you could tell the difference, it is that subtle. However, what is interesting is that if you do shoot at 400 underexposed, you get a smaller file, and hence quicker write times etc. It might be worth doing it for that reason.

I did a more controlled test on a tripod with 800 under exposed and 1600 exposed normally. I put them up on the screen tiled, side by side, looking at each at the pixel level: I can't see any difference at all. I don't care for the look of the stuff once you get past 400. In general, I shoot 200 whenever I can.

6:11:26 PM    

Sleeping Child, Metropolitan Museum

4:23:47 PM    

The site seems to slowly be morphing into a newspaper format. I wish there was a way to have a sort of editorial aspect to the blog, where some posters could post directly into the blog on their own. There are versions of blog software that allow this, but they are expensive, and would mean redoing the whole thing. My site is hosted on a Win2x server and I'm not going to move it. I began writing on this site in 1999. I don't know if blogs even existed at that time. I kept templates for each month and added stuff as I went along.

That's another thing I miss. I would rather have a page which starts at the beginning, say of the week and runs down so you can follow the progression. Maybe this is old fashioned but I would like to be able to post that way.

I'm perfectly willing to put a link to the older blog stuff and start afresh.

Oh, and the blog tool I'm using now is Radioland which posts static pages via ftp to the webserver. It's not bad, but as I say, it is missing some features. The comments via Haloscan; again, they're okay, but I would like to have the reader be able to see the last few lines of the comment as a header so they know if anything new has been added.

I've been doing some more research, and turns out that there may be a way to do multi-author stuff in Radioland.  Multi-author.

12:53:48 PM