hey Ash, Chris, anyone? ND markings on 20X lens equal...?

Jarrod Whaley · August 13th, 2006, 02:53 AM

Greg, thank you for clarifying what Mark was saying. Forgive me for being so daft, but I didn't read the post that way at all. It was sort of ambiguously stated.

That makes me a moron.

Lonnie Bell · August 13th, 2006, 03:44 AM

Josh - i concede as i whipe the sludge from my brow, but i do it smiling...
i got answers to my questions as it seems others have as well...

thanks all, this was a thread with terrific contributions - much appreciated...

Mark Sasahara · August 13th, 2006, 09:51 AM

Ambiguous? No.

Moron? No.

People come here for information. I only talk about what I know. If I, or you don't know, this is a great place to find out. You aren't a moron. I used to teach photography and I always told my students, there are no stupid questions. If you don't know, you don't know. Please ask any questions that you have and I will answer them. If I don't know, I will have an answer for you at the next class.

We all have many different levels of experience, here. My degree is in photography and I've been doing it in one form, or another, for over twenty five years. There is still plenty I don't know about, but I have a lot of resources at my fingertips and I'm willing to learn.

The moment I think I know it all, I'm dead. You can't know it all. But if you are willing to learn and grow and adapt, then you'll probably do fine.

Asking questions is the best way to learn. Making mistakes is part of learning. God knows I've made plenty.

Ash Greyson · August 13th, 2006, 12:02 PM

According to an engineer, my original post was approximately correct... whatever THAT means... I think there is a general misunderstanding of the practical application of the math here. I can tell you in practical terms that there is not a 3200% difference with the ND filter on 1/32 and with it off. That makes no practical sense, even if that is what the "math" says. I am sure it has something to do with the CCD size, etc.

The entire reason ND filters are so important on small chip cameras is because the do not operate well with a closed iris. I try to never go above F5 or so...

ash =o)

Greg Boston · August 13th, 2006, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dale Guthormsen

Most have a history with 35mm photography where if you were to be shooting a sunny day with 100 asa film a standard ballpark exposure would be 125 @ f16. In general if you upped your shutter two speeds you would have to open up your aperature two stops.

That's great, Dale. But what if you're not shooting in a ballpark?

Sorry, warped humor mode was on there for a moment. (grin)

-gb-

Mark Sasahara · August 13th, 2006, 11:10 PM

At older ballparks, you have to open up a short stop.

Greg Boston · August 14th, 2006, 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Sasahara

At older ballparks, you have to open up a short stop.

Arrggghh... I guess we'll all be a bunch of comedians when our video/film careers flop. :-)

I recall a few years back, there was a problem at one ballpark with overexposure in the stands.

-gb-

Mark Sasahara · August 14th, 2006, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Boston

I recall a few years back, there was a problem at one ballpark with overexposure in the stands.

-gb-

Yeah, uncontrolled flashing can really bounce the DMax right out of the ballpark.

August 13th, 2006, 02:53 AM	#16
Jarrod Whaley Major Player Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: chattanooga, tn Posts: 721	Greg, thank you for clarifying what Mark was saying. Forgive me for being so daft, but I didn't read the post that way at all. It was sort of ambiguously stated. That makes me a moron. __________________ -->jarrod whaley. www.oakstreetfilms.com Last edited by Jarrod Whaley; August 13th, 2006 at 03:26 AM.

August 13th, 2006, 03:44 AM	#17
Lonnie Bell Major Player Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Las Vegas, NV United States Posts: 361	Josh - i concede as i whipe the sludge from my brow, but i do it smiling... i got answers to my questions as it seems others have as well... thanks all, this was a thread with terrific contributions - much appreciated... __________________ Lonnie Bell mamas boy productions Las Vegas, NV

August 13th, 2006, 09:51 AM	#18
Mark Sasahara Major Player Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: NYC Posts: 649	Ambiguous? No. Moron? No. People come here for information. I only talk about what I know. If I, or you don't know, this is a great place to find out. You aren't a moron. I used to teach photography and I always told my students, there are no stupid questions. If you don't know, you don't know. Please ask any questions that you have and I will answer them. If I don't know, I will have an answer for you at the next class. We all have many different levels of experience, here. My degree is in photography and I've been doing it in one form, or another, for over twenty five years. There is still plenty I don't know about, but I have a lot of resources at my fingertips and I'm willing to learn. The moment I think I know it all, I'm dead. You can't know it all. But if you are willing to learn and grow and adapt, then you'll probably do fine. Asking questions is the best way to learn. Making mistakes is part of learning. God knows I've made plenty. __________________ Mark Sasahara Director of Photography

August 13th, 2006, 11:10 PM	#21
Mark Sasahara Major Player Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: NYC Posts: 649	At older ballparks, you have to open up a short stop. __________________ Mark Sasahara Director of Photography

August 13th, 2006, 12:02 PM	#19
Ash Greyson Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tulsa, OK Posts: 1,689	According to an engineer, my original post was approximately correct... whatever THAT means... I think there is a general misunderstanding of the practical application of the math here. I can tell you in practical terms that there is not a 3200% difference with the ND filter on 1/32 and with it off. That makes no practical sense, even if that is what the "math" says. I am sure it has something to do with the CCD size, etc. The entire reason ND filters are so important on small chip cameras is because the do not operate well with a closed iris. I try to never go above F5 or so... ash =o)