Sorry, Gonz - you read way too much into my comments. I said I'm no expert, that the test was not a good one and should be done again in better conditions, and that the test ~seemed~ to indicate that lower noise was observable.
At no point did I indicate that I thought the technique was "better," nor did I indicate in any way that I'd use the technique (even if it were "better"). Again, I ~do~ appreciate your effort, but it's more explanation than I need. Were I to be photographing something that was important, or that I wanted to keep, I'd never use an untried exposure scheme. But that doesn't preclude me from exploring other options, or knowing that a technique exists. Truth be told, the technique, while nice on the face of it, and even if it worked like a charm, would probably not be something I'd use - it's too complicated, too many things for me to remember. I prefer my photography very simple ... Shel > [Original Message] > From: Gonz > The problem is Shel, according to your original message, you tried it, > and you seemed to think that its better. Well, you could very well > screw up a shot because you used this technique and just scratch your > head when it looked bad. And maybe keep doing it over and over again > until dawn breaks over marble head. It helps to know your equipment > beyond what button does what. > > Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > I never saw the message but checked the archive when i saw Steve's > > comments.. really, Gonz, I don't need or want explanations, although I > > appreciate that you feel furthering my education has some merit. I point, > > I shoot, I see the results. I don't care to know any more at this time. > > All the math and all the explanations just go over my head. Frankly, I > > don't understand your latest explanation. Makes no sense to me at all. > > > > Please let it rest. However, I promise that if there's a need or a desire > > for me to know all this, I'll be sure to ask. > > > > Thanks. > > > > Shel > > > > > > > > > >>[Original Message] > >>From: Steve Jolly > > > > > >>Gonz wrote: > >> > >>>Let me try to explain it non-mathematically. > >> > >>I still prefer "underexpose and you lose shadow detail" as an > >>explanation ;-) > > > > > > > > -- > Someone handed me a picture and said, "This is a picture of me when I > was younger." Every picture of you is when you were younger. "...Here's > a picture of me when I'm older." Where'd you get that camera man? > - Mitch Hedberg
