paul_chilton2

<p>William,<br> thank you for your reply, and thank you too for a good "proper" answer. I agree with you about the 80/20 rule being applicable in this case, that's why I'm not holding my breath. I'm sure I'll be using my ND filters for the foreseeable future.<br> I don't envy you the job of culling your transparencies. I have been through the process myself recently. I only succeeded because I took a very severe attitude towards doing it. Basically, if the picture didn't have any instant impact on me it went in the bin. I binned over 5,000 in all and I don't miss any of them. Don't think sentimentally, think "photographically, is this picture worth keeping". As for the time involved scanning the keepers, I've archived all mine and will only scan them when I need to.<br> Enjoy your photography.<br> Paul.</p>

<p>William,<br> please accept my apologies for this late reply, but I have not had access to the internet for several days.<br> I apologise for the strength of my comments and appreciate, as Ilkka says above, that you were just trying to help. I was just getting frustrated by the lack of a "proper" answer to my question.<br> All I want to know is why camera manufacturers give us a wide range of shutter speeds but render half of them unusable without investing heavily in neutral density filters. It appears that there may be a technical issue depending on where you pitch the base ISO. However I find it difficult to believe that this problem is insurmountable. Furthermore a number of people have commented that they would still need a higher ISO of 400 or 800. So would I. I never suggested that we should have lower ISOs to the exclusion of the higher ones. Both would be nice. The question is why can't we? At the push of a button an ISO enabling a shutter speed of 1/8000th to be used is readily available. Why cant this be the same for 30 seconds?<br> If all the people who wanted to use a shutter speed of 1/8000th had to attach a "light amplification filter" to their lens every time they needed to, what do you think would happen then?</p> <p> </p>

<p>William,<br /> You posted twice in this discussion and neither of those posts was on topic. In fact your first post appeared to be giving a slap on the wrists to Steven Clarke for suggesting the purchase of some cheap ND filters. You then went on to give us an uncalled for lecture on your knowledge of ND filters. I felt that was extremely impolite, especially as Steven had made a positive contribution to my post. Then you proceeded to talk about leaf shutters. The topic was DSLR Low ISO. Thank you for hijacking my post.<br /> Kind regards<br /> Paul Chilton.</p>

<p>Robin, <br> "I'm not sure why having such low ISO would be much benefit".<br> I don't know about your cameras but both of my Canon DSLRs have shutter speeds down to 30 seconds plus a bulb setting, as well as going up to 1/8000th of a second. The advent of high ISO has made it simple for photographers to use the fast shutter speeds. The reverse cannot be said for photographers who want to use the slower shutter speeds, or who need to use very wide apertures in bright sunshine for example. Of course we can (because we have to) use ND filters, but why can't we have the ISO we require at our fingertips the way you have? That is my point.<br> Incidentally, I have recently retired after spending ten years working as a full time pro. I can't recall ever taking a picture using 1/8000th but I've taken a lot at 1 second or longer.<br> </p>

Thank you for your responses. Hopefully the technicians will find a way to do it in the future, but for now I'll just have to carry on with the ND filters.

I'm unsure as to which category this should be posted in, but as I'm a Canon user I thought I would start here. There appears to be a race to get ever better image quality at higher and higher ISO. There was an awful lot written about the 5DS/R having a maximum ISO of "only" 6400. It's an ISO I'll probably never use. I would happily exchange the high ISOs for a 25, 12 and 6 ISO setting. I'm sure I'm not the only person who feels this way. I suspect, however, that there may be a technical reason why this is currently not possible. Can any one of you shed some light onto this for me? Thanks.

<p>For some time now I have been receiving emails from this company: www.layercakeelements.com which is producing software that takes photographic creativity even further from the camera and into the computer. As a landscape photographer I was particularly disturbed by their Skies series of software which apparently provides you with a choice of their own skies to replace those in your original picture.<br /> I'm all for getting the most out of my raw files but "buying skies" seems a step too far in my opinion. What do you think?</p>