Thanks! That's a good baseline to understand how sensitive the body is.
Regards photo.net, well, this and several other reasons are why I
never use them for posting pictures.
Godfrey
On Mar 19, 2006, at 4:35 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
Thanks Godfrey. It was ISO 200, f11 @ 1/2 second. That was plus one
stop of exposure compensation with the meter set to matrix mode.
That seems to produce the best results. Without filter, the
exposure was f11@ 1/500th. So the filter factor is about eight
stops in this case.)
I converted in the channel mixer then made further adjustments to
tonality with an rgb curve. I find I'm not able to get these to
come out of the channel mixer with values that are exactly to my
liking. In lieu of (or in addition to) the rgb curve, the shadow/
highlight tool has proved useful for adjustment.
By the way, PhotoNet requires that you strip the EXIF data for
posting. Don't know why. I suppose to save space. Otherwise, I
would leave it intact. I don't mind sharing :-).
Paul
On Mar 19, 2006, at 1:42 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Nice shot. Can you tell us what settings you used (ISO @ aperture
@ time)? All the EXIF information is stripped out. I'd like to
gauge how sensitive the body is in the IR space.
thx
Godfrey
On Mar 18, 2006, at 3:23 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
I fooled around a bit today with a 49mm Hoya R72 filter and the
FA 35/2. Here's a shot of a church seen through winter trees. I
think I'm going to enable myself with a 77mm version of that
filter for the 12-24. Could be fun. I have a birthday present
coming. My wife warned me that if I don't buy something, she'll
buy me something I dont' want. The filter fits the bill. It's an
extravagance at $200 plus.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4235460
