# Automatic ISO



## Tighearnach (Sep 2, 2009)

Ok so i am just wondering if this feature exists on all SLR's or maybe just the higher end ones or maybe none at all? 

The feature would be that you would be shooting in Aperture priority as you wanted a particular depth of field. As you panned your camera or just from changing light over time the respective shutter speed will fluctuate. 

So is it possible to lock in to your camera a range of shutter speeds that are acceptable (for instance 1/1000 sec to 1/4000 sec). Then if the light determines that your camera will under/overexpose within these shutterspeeds your camera will automatically adjust your ISO to stay within the range obviously staying as low as possible? 

So am i making sense? Is this a feature on may cameras. Have i got it on my own and just dont realise it? (400d)


----------



## itznfb (Sep 2, 2009)

I know you can do that on the D90 and D300s. Not sure about Canon.


----------



## Overread (Sep 2, 2009)

Sadly I don't know which (if any) canon cameras its on, though its something that I do wish for also.
As for the 400D I am pretty sure its not on that camera at all - if it is its been hinding from me too!


----------



## Big Mike (Sep 2, 2009)

The latest Canon cameras (since at least the 40D), including the Rebel models, do now have Auto ISO.

Digital Cameras Side-by-Side, 9 cameras: Digital Photography Review


----------



## Josh66 (Sep 2, 2009)

I think it's on the 450D and newer models...  Not sure, but I know the newer ones have it - I just can't remember what model it starts on.

I don't have it (350D), and I'm not even sure if I would use it were it available...
It would probably be useful sometimes, but for the type of shooting I usually do, it would be of little use to me.


----------



## Big Mike (Sep 2, 2009)

The 'mode' that I don't have, that the newer ones do (and I think I would like), is highlight tone priority.


----------



## JerryPH (Sep 2, 2009)

Nikon D200 and up all have it, but I never use it... I prefer to have total control over my camera, rather than let the camera decide what ISO is good for me.


----------



## gsgary (Sep 2, 2009)

Don't have it and don't want it, i want to decide what iso to use


----------



## itznfb (Sep 2, 2009)

Being able to set a range is quite handy when panning in and out of shadows. Letting the camera automatically change between 200 and 800 ISO on it's own is very useful. You can set the top level to Hi if you really want.


----------



## Overread (Sep 2, 2009)

Its certainly a feature which I feel would be used a lot more on, say, a 5DM2 when tracking something moving from light to shadowed environments since it has a high range of usable ISOs - as opposed to on lower end cameras where the range of usables ISOs is often much smaller (this is especaily the case when you factor in the quality demands of the in question since most people don't like highly noisy shots)


----------



## JerryPH (Sep 2, 2009)

Overread said:


> Its certainly a feature which I feel would be used a lot more on, say, a 5DM2 when tracking something moving from light to shadowed environments since it has a high range of usable ISOs - as opposed to on lower end cameras where the range of usables ISOs is often much smaller



I'm not knocking the feature... and I know how it works, but on my D200 and now D700, I found that many of my shots were at a higher ISO than they needed to be.  On a camera that has cleaner higher ISO if it can be the difference between saving a shot or not for someone less experienced, then it is a boon, however, I find that when I take control of all aspects of my camera controls, I may sometimes get a few less keepers, but the keepers I get are of a higher quality. 

It's a trade-off that I think most people will have to decide on themselves.


----------



## Tighearnach (Sep 2, 2009)

Thanks for the replies. Yeah I agree its better to have total control however when shooting on the go especially for sports photography where a high shutter speed might be essential and a shot might be missed when going back to the camera to up your ISO because the light is not there I think it would be very useful. 

Id be interested to hear more about Highlight tone priority. What is it for starters!

Thanks again
T


----------



## Josh66 (Sep 2, 2009)

Tighearnach said:


> Id be interested to hear more about Highlight tone priority. What is it for starters!



Digital ProTalk: Highlight Tone Priority - Image Salvation!


From what I understand, it basically helps to make sure you don't blow anything out.


----------



## JerryPH (Sep 2, 2009)

Ah... a Canon thing.  I am clueless there.


----------



## Overread (Sep 2, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> Tighearnach said:
> 
> 
> > Id be interested to hear more about Highlight tone priority. What is it for starters!
> ...



O.O I sooooo want that mode now!


----------



## Big Mike (Sep 2, 2009)

I don't know the details about HTP, but the basic idea is that it gives you an exposure that is as bright (to the right) as possible, without blowing (or clipping) the highlights.  

I don't know how sensitive or picky it is.  A few blown pixels out of several million isn't going to be a big deal...but you don't want too much blow out either.  

Either way, the way I often try to shoot, is to Expose to the Right...so this mode sounds like I'd like it.


----------



## gsgary (Sep 2, 2009)

Tighearnach said:


> Thanks for the replies. Yeah I agree its better to have total control however when shooting on the go especially for sports photography where a high shutter speed might be essential and a shot might be missed when going back to the camera to up your ISO because the light is not there I think it would be very useful.
> 
> Id be interested to hear more about Highlight tone priority. What is it for starters!
> 
> ...


 
I shoot mostly sports and it would be no use to me i'm always changing ISO shutter speed and aperture because i shot in manual and don't miss the shots i want


----------



## Tighearnach (Sep 2, 2009)

Each to his own brother.....


----------



## Derrel (Sep 2, 2009)

Auto-ISO is a feature Nikon has perfected after having had it in their d-slrs for several years now. It's a feature Canon steadfastly refused to incorporate for numerous body generations. Now that Nikon sensors are finally out of the "noisy ages" (D3,D300,D700 and newer bodies) , it's possible to shoot at elevated ISO setting without a disastrous loss of quality. Ken Rockwell is one of the few web writers that intelligently discusses Nikons AUTO ISO mode. INstead of Auto ISO, Canon keeps giving its users, like me, that wonderful Direct Print button!

What Canon calls Highlight Tone Priority is an innovation Nikon first had years ago, in Nikon Capture software,called D-Lighting; now, newer Nikons have Active D-Lighting in-body.


----------



## PhotoXopher (Sep 2, 2009)

Some talk about Auto ISO like it's a disease, much like video on a DSLR.

I have both on my camera and find them to be very useful and handy when needed - yet I can choose not to use them as well.


----------



## Plato (Sep 2, 2009)

N0YZE said:


> Some talk about Auto ISO like it's a disease, much like video on a DSLR.
> 
> I have both on my camera and find them to be very useful and handy when needed - yet I can choose not to use them as well.



Only Luddites would disagree.


----------



## Gaerek (Sep 2, 2009)

Don't know if it was answered or not yet (didn't go through the whole thread) but as far as Rebel series, XSi (450d) and above have it, XTi (350d) and below do not. I would assume the XS does, but I've never used one. I only know this because I have an XTi and a friend has the XSi.


----------



## JerryPH (Sep 2, 2009)

Derrel said:


> What Canon calls Highlight Tone Priority is an innovation Nikon first had years ago, in Nikon Capture software,called D-Lighting; now, newer Nikons have Active D-Lighting in-body.



Active D-lighting is not  over exposure protection,  it is a way to raise detail in the shadows.  It is also an option that I pretty much avoid. 

Nikon glass: Active D-Lighting

http://sportsphotoguy.com/active-d-lighting-on-the-nikon-d300/

http://www.nx101.com/dlighting.html

It also cannot be "used" unless you convert a file to JPG in camera like a D700/D3 or use Nikon's Capture NX to access this info within he RAW file.  It is very Nikon proprietary... and apps like Lightroom or CS3 and CS4 cannot directly access that "switch".


----------



## Moglex (Sep 3, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> Nikon D200 and up all have it, but I never use it... I prefer to have total control over my camera, rather than let the camera decide what ISO is good for me.



So, how does that work in the situation specified?

The photographer has determined the aperture.

The photographer has determined the acceptable shutter speed range.

The light changes.

What control would you have over the camera other than to change the ISO?

Does this mean that you never use aperture or shutter priority (as that would involve the camera deciding what shutter speed or aperture is 'good for you')?


----------



## Moglex (Sep 3, 2009)

N0YZE said:


> Some talk about Auto ISO like it's a disease, much like video on a DSLR.
> 
> I have both on my camera and find them to be very useful and handy when needed - yet I can choose not to use them as well.



Quite.

Some people are just control freaks who haven't quite got the plot yet.


----------



## JerryPH (Sep 3, 2009)

Moglex said:


> So, how does that work in the situation specified?
> The photographer has determined the aperture.
> The photographer has determined the acceptable shutter speed range.
> The light changes.
> What control would you have over the camera other than to change the ISO?



Most likely shutter speed, as I am very good right down to about 1/15th without motion blur.  I practiced hard on my technique to get good at this.



Moglex said:


> Does this mean that you never use aperture or shutter priority (as that would involve the camera deciding what shutter speed or aperture is 'good for you')?



Pretty much yes.  I am 80-90% of my time in full manual mode.  Shutter priority is pretty much never used by me except the odd time in a sporting event... but I do flip over to aperture priority mode now and then when doing portrait shots near a window or something like this:







This doesn't mean that I do not use high ISO... I use it when I need it, and it is very clean on my camera, I just never leave those decisions in the hands of the designing engineers when I start pushing boundaries.





A slightly nervous bride, minutes before walking the isle.  The shot was taken in a small room at  100% ambient.  ISO 3200, D700, 24-70 @ F/2.8 and 1/25th shutter speeds.

In these conditions, the camera would have set the ISO to 6400 (which was obviously not needed) or even possibly 25,600 if I let it, and ruined a nice moment and cost me a shot.


----------



## JerryPH (Sep 3, 2009)

Moglex said:


> Some people are just control freaks who haven't quite got the plot yet.





When it comes to me and my photography, you're darn right that I would rather be 100% in control of my results rather than some engineer that designed the camera 5 years before it was placed on the market.  

If that makes me a "control freak", let's make that a "proud control freak"! :mrgreen:


----------



## itznfb (Sep 3, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> A slightly nervous bride, minutes before walking the isle.  The shot was taken in a small room at  100% ambient.  ISO 3200, D700, 24-70 @ F/2.8 and 1/25th shutter speeds.
> 
> In these conditions, the camera would have set the ISO to 6400 (which was obviously not needed) or even possibly 25,600 if I let it, and ruined a nice moment and cost me a shot.



Just to clarify. When you set Auto-ISO in camera you don't exit the menu until you've set the Hi/Low range. So it would only have set the ISO to 6400 if you set the Hi to 6400 or higher. If you set Hi to 3200 then you would have ended up with the same shot you set manually.


----------



## JerryPH (Sep 3, 2009)

itznfb said:


> Just to clarify. When you set Auto-ISO in camera you don't exit the menu until you've set the Hi/Low range. So it would only have set the ISO to 6400 if you set the Hi to 6400 or higher. If you set Hi to 3200 then you would have ended up with the same shot you set manually.



Yes.  And if I needed ISO 6400 with an auto ISO level set to max out at ISO3200, I'd yet again have missed a shot thanks to an unacceptably long shutter speed.

Being in control means never having to blame your camera for missing the shot... it's your fault and I can live with that, since I have the control... and not the camera.


----------



## JerryPH (Sep 3, 2009)

itznfb said:


> Just to clarify. When you set Auto-ISO in camera you don't exit the menu until you've set the Hi/Low range. So it would only have set the ISO to 6400 if you set the Hi to 6400 or higher. If you set Hi to 3200 then you would have ended up with the same shot you set manually.



Yes.  And if I needed ISO 6400 with an auto ISO level set to max out at ISO3200, I'd yet again have missed a shot thanks to an unacceptably long shutter speed.

Being in control means never having to blame your camera for missing the shot... it's your fault and I can live with that, since I have the control... and not the camera.

I know my capabilities... the camera doesn't... however I know that camera's capabilties and can push them a lot further than the conservative and "safe" settings that the good people at Nikon thought other photographers "should" shoot at.


----------



## Moglex (Sep 3, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> Moglex said:
> 
> 
> > Some people are just control freaks who haven't quite got the plot yet.
> ...



Intelligent use of any equipment is based upon knowing when it is safe to devolve some of the decision making process to that equipment. (Think aircraft captains and automatic pilots.)

There are some circumstances when aperture priority is a useful tool and some where auto ISO is similarly.

If you're thinking: "if the light changes then I'll alter the speed" AP does what you've decided to do.

If you're thinking: "if the light changes then I'll alter the ISO" auto ISO does what you've decided to do.

In both of these cases *provided you monitor what the camera is doing* you remain in control because all it will be doing is what you would have done anyway because that's what you decided.

It's a bit like being a good officer who stays in control but delegates compared to a poor officer who attempts to unnecessarily micromanage everything..


----------



## Plato (Sep 3, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> Moglex said:
> 
> 
> > Some people are just control freaks who haven't quite got the plot yet.
> ...



Do you trust the engineers to crank the mirror out of the way and to stop down the lens to the desired aperture when you press the shutter button?

Does your car have a manual spark advance?

Does your home HVAC system have a thermostat?


----------



## Moglex (Sep 3, 2009)

Plato said:


> JerryPH said:
> 
> 
> > Moglex said:
> ...



I'm surprised that some people even use digital, what with the sensor having been made by someone else. 

*Real* photographers use (home made) plate cameras and coat their own glass plates rather then use these new fangled 'ready coated' plates.


----------



## Plato (Sep 3, 2009)

Moglex said:


> Plato said:
> 
> 
> > JerryPH said:
> ...



I like to carve out pictures on the walls of caves.  I don't trust glass that someone else made!


----------



## harleyrider (Sep 3, 2009)

my 50d as auto iso,i have never tryed it.when i put my iso settings on the big screen to look at it shows just to the left of iso 100 in the top row of iso settings.can you use this auto setting in manual? or just in av, tv


----------



## JerryPH (Sep 3, 2009)

Plato said:


> Do you trust the engineers to crank the mirror out of the way and to stop down the lens to the desired aperture when you press the shutter button?


No, not all the time.  Mirror slap can cause camera shake and add motion blur to a shot.  



Plato said:


> Does your home HVAC system have a thermostat?


Yes, but the next time it tries to take a picture, I will be sure to disable the auto ISO feature.



Plato said:


> Does your car have a manual spark advance?



Yes, but *I* control that in ways you previously could not imagine.  Not only can I control my spark, but control how much spark occurs at what airmass intake value vs what throttle setting AND if I use high octane or low octane in the car.  I control not only the main spark, but the Mean Best Torque Spark as well... along with about 100 other spark tables that my car uses.  I've been doing this longer than photography!     :mrgreen:  My car does 265kph, 12.8 in the 1/4 mile and does better mileage than a Toyota Corolla on the highway at 37mpg.  The same basic concept can be applied to photography... it is sometimes easy to out think the engineers becuase they are handcuffed to assume that most people won't take the time to know their equipment or do better than an auto setting.







I don't know why people think it's so hard to out think their cameras... all it takes is practice!


----------



## JerryPH (Sep 3, 2009)

Plato said:


> I like to carve out pictures on the walls of caves.  I don't trust glass that someone else made!




Ok, this thread just dropped from useful to childish.  :lmao:
My response is... are you the guy that buys a D3 or 5D and takes all the shots with the camera on P-mode?  And if not... why not?  Seems the camera can do it all for you, right?


----------



## Plato (Sep 3, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> Plato said:
> 
> 
> > I like to carve out pictures on the walls of caves.  I don't trust glass that someone else made!
> ...



No.  I know how to use the right tool at the right time.  There's a time and place for manual functions and there's a time and place for automatic functions.  The end result is what counts.

By the way, if you think that you're manually cranking the mirror out of the way, you're clueless.  All you're doing is changing the time when the CAMERA moves the mirror.

By the way, 12.8 in a quarter doesn't impress me.


----------



## itznfb (Sep 3, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> I don't know why people think it's so hard to out think their cameras... all it takes is practice!



Because trying to out-think your camera is like pushing a boulder up hill when you could have reached the same destination by going down hill.

The technology in these cameras is so advanced I don't care how good you think you are or how much experience you have you're not smarter than the camera. You may be able to make some manual adjustments and reach more desirable results in certain situations but not learning and using the technology to it's fullest and to your advantage is just plain stupid.

If you want to use M 80%+ of the time just because you think it impresses a bunch of people on a forum then more power to you. Your results will never be as good as they could be.


----------



## Josh66 (Sep 3, 2009)

itznfb said:


> The technology in these cameras is so advanced I don't care how good you think you are or how much experience you have you're not smarter than the camera. You may be able to make some manual adjustments and reach more desirable results in certain situations but *not learning and using the technology to it's fullest and to your advantage is just plain stupid.*
> 
> If you want to use M 80%+ of the time just because you think it impresses a bunch of people on a forum then more power to you. Your results will never be as good as they could be.



See, that point can be used as an argument for either side.  To me, "Auto" is not using the technology to it's fullest, nor to your advantage.  Yes, you are *relying* on the technology more, but you are not using it more.

I think the last sentance is just completely ignorant.  You honestly think Auto produces better results than Manual?  80%+ of the time?


----------



## JerryPH (Sep 3, 2009)

itznfb said:


> Because trying to out-think your camera is like pushing a boulder up hill when you could have reached the same destination by going down hill.


... to someone of limited understanding of how their camera works, yes I agree.



itznfb said:


> The technology in these cameras is so advanced I don't care how good you think you are or how much experience you have you're not smarter than the camera.


Then let me throw out another example... camera metering which is WAY more complex than simple ISO selection... it is WELL known that anyone that knows the Zone System for digital cameras can easily outthink the camera metering system and get superior results by understanding how the camera works and how to change settings to make it work better for you. Anyone that ever took a shot of snow or a black wall and left it medium grey... was equally stupid.  Stupid is too strong a word... let's just say "of limited understanding until they read, learn, try and then find it to be true on their own".



itznfb said:


> If you want to use M 80%+ of the time just because you think it impresses a bunch of people on a forum then more power to you. Your results will never be as good as they could be.


 
I am not here to impress anyone and of all the people on this board, you the least. If your personality is threatened by someone who may know more and has an honest opinion based on facts and personal experiences... well you are the person pushing that boulder uphill.  As for my results... my examples here always speak for themselves.  What can you offer?

Not just mine but ANYONE's results can be better if they know what they are doing... now if someone is clueless and P-mode is the best they can do... that is their choice. One day, they may choose to take off the blinders and try it out before arguing it.


----------



## JerryPH (Sep 3, 2009)

Plato said:


> No. I know how to use the right tool at the right time. There's a time and place for manual functions and there's a time and place for automatic functions. The end result is what counts.


 
YES! That is all that I am saying. :thumbup:
And I am also saying that my final results are proven to be better when not relying on this option. You may be different, others may be even more different.



Plato said:


> By the way, if you think that you're manually cranking the mirror out of the way, you're clueless. All you're doing is changing the time when the CAMERA moves the mirror.


Not exactly. I am changing the time the SHUTTER opens and closes, the mirror says up and is NOT involved in the process, hence eliminating it's contribution of the vibration.  Shall we now discuss the direction of the "clueless" comment further?



Plato said:


> By the way, 12.8 in a quarter doesn't impress me.


I could not care less to impress you, it was an example. Personally, after 35 years of racing cars, I have yet to see a 4-door 4000 pound car that carries 5 people and 2 weeks of groceries pull 108mph in the 1/4 mile, 165mph on the top end and *still* do over 575 miles on a single tank of gas cruising along at 75mph. 

The point being... if you know what you are doing... you can improve on your results and *you* brought up the "do you have a manual spark table"... I said yes, and proved it... and discussed the resultant series of improvements it contributed to.

Anyways, before this thread tuns into another *****-fest, I am just going to end my participation in this thread at this point... you can choose to live with blinders... or not, I could not care any less. 

Others are totally free to do their own research, and of course use what they wish. I am only discussing MY findings with MY cameras.


----------



## itznfb (Sep 3, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> itznfb said:
> 
> 
> > The technology in these cameras is so advanced I don't care how good you think you are or how much experience you have you're not smarter than the camera. You may be able to make some manual adjustments and reach more desirable results in certain situations but *not learning and using the technology to it's fullest and to your advantage is just plain stupid.*
> ...



I'm not saying using technology is using Auto. And I think few people are understanding the capabilities of Auto-ISO. If you're in a situation where you know you will need +/- 2 ISO stop and you set that range it will adjust according way more accurately and much faster than any human is capable of doing. Using the technology to it's fullest isn't just slapping it in Auto obviously. and Auto ISO technically isn't "Auto" since you giving it a defined range to work with. Knowing how to utilize that range with other features is where it becomes more powerful than human ability.



JerryPH said:


> itznfb said:
> 
> 
> > Because trying to out-think your camera is like pushing a boulder up hill when you could have reached the same destination by going down hill.
> ...



No. Using manual doesn't prove you have a vast understanding of how your camera works. Knowing how to use the technical functionality built in and using that to produce better faster results is actually having a more in-depth understanding of your camera.

And now that I think about it the analogy I used kind of sucks as it more implies that you're taking the easy way out by auto which obviously isn't where I was going with that.



JerryPH said:


> itznfb said:
> 
> 
> > The technology in these cameras is so advanced I don't care how good you think you are or how much experience you have you're not smarter than the camera.
> ...


 
As I said... I realize it isn't JUST about Auto-ISO and that's not what I'm implying. Knowing how to use it in conjunction with the other features is much more powerful and effective than someone using all manual. And I completely disagree that someone is able to out think the camera metering systems of the current gen cameras. When used properly. There's no way because as you put it, leaving it medium grey wouldn't be the optimal solution. That's why there are a boat load of other compensation features built in that can be utilized that will give you better results than manual is capable of doing.



JerryPH said:


> itznfb said:
> 
> 
> > If you want to use M 80%+ of the time just because you think it impresses a bunch of people on a forum then more power to you. Your results will never be as good as they could be.
> ...



The majority of your comments on this forum make it sound like you are desperately seeking attention and approval from the other members. And the fact that you believe you are smarter than todays digital camera just makes it seem like you're naive and you are the one that doesn't know how to use your camera. It takes much much less knowledge and skill to throw it in manual and just be satisfied with the results than it does to really know the capabilities of the camera and use it to it's fullest potential.

It's like the people that say why are you buying that $5000 camera when you will only use 10% of the functionality? Same applies to you. Why did you buy a D700 when you're satisfied getting basic results with fewer shots due to being slower in manual? You'd be better off with a N75.

I purchased my D90 last August and starting studying it. I would say on an average hike or trip to the zoo I use 90-100% of the features in there and often felt I could have used a few features in the D300 and now D300s. If you aren't utilizing your camera then you aren't getting as good of a result as you could and you certainly wasted your money.


----------



## Plato (Sep 3, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> Plato said:
> 
> 
> > No. I know how to use the right tool at the right time. There's a time and place for manual functions and there's a time and place for automatic functions. The end result is what counts.
> ...



Actually, I asked you if you used manual spark advance and you showed my a display from a computer software program.  Duh...

You're not manually cranking the mirror.  The camera is cranking it for you.  This has nothing to do with WHEN it's cranked out of the way.

The part that I disagree with are statements like the following that are typical from you (emphasis is mine):
_"Nikon D200 and up all have it, but I *never* use it... I prefer to have *total* control over my camera, rather than let the camera decide what ISO is good for me."_

If you had TOTAL control over your car, you wouldn't depend on a computer program.  You would use your personal knowledge to determine when to move a lever to control the spark advance.

Ironically, when I do use some of the automatic features of my camera, I do feel that I have control, total control, because I am well aware of the decisions that the camera is making and will make and, if those decisions were not to my satisfaction, I would not have chosen that particular automatic feature.


----------



## fiveoboy01 (Sep 3, 2009)

> _Does your home HVAC system have a thermostat?_
> 
> Yes, but the next time it tries to take a picture, I will be sure to disable the auto ISO feature.


 
Funniest thing I have read all day:lmao:


----------



## Derrel (Sep 3, 2009)

The fear of technology and the simple misunderstanding of it and the proclamations of the superiority of manual exposure is absolutely hilarious on this thread.

Just so you know, Highlight Tone Priority is not an overexposure protection method--it's Canon's attempt to imitate Nikon's D-Lighting. If you're going to make a comment about something you know nothing about, and proclaim loudly over and over and over how great your technical skills are--then why are you shooting an autofocusing camera.

Only whimps use AF cameras.

Are you also using your camera's in-board light metering system 100 percent of the time, for every shot? Oh,yeah, I guess not...you're not hand metering with a Gossen Luna Pro and transferring the readings from the meter to your lens and your camera, still, thirty years later? (snicker)


----------



## fiveoboy01 (Sep 3, 2009)

Your inflammatory posts are getting old.


----------



## itznfb (Sep 3, 2009)

oh for gods sake. I'd rather be wrong than have Derrel agree with me.


----------



## JerryPH (Sep 3, 2009)

itznfb said:


> The majority of your comments on this forum make it sound like you are desperately seeking attention and approval from the other members.


 
Wow, how old are you, 15-16? You know, maybe if I was 12 and needy or something, maybe... but I'm 49 years old and a little bit past the peer pressure days of needing your or anyone else's approval.

The sign of desperation with someone that has poor debating skills in a discussion-cum-argument is the person's need to bring in more and more and more things outside the ONE SIMPLE POINT of discussion.



itznfb said:


> And the fact that you believe you are smarter than todays digital camera just makes it seem like you're naive and you are the one that doesn't know how to use your camera.


 
Actually, anyone with Google access and able to type the words "zone system for digital cameras" will be able to out think their camera's metering system in a couple of hours.  Anyone that plays with their cameras at a more advanced level in low light situations will be able to make better ISO choices than their cameras.



itznfb said:


> It takes much much less knowledge and skill to throw it in manual and just be satisfied with the results than it does to really know the capabilities of the camera and use it to it's fullest potential.


 
That is quite a broad statement... obviously on somethings it will be true, but when it comes to auto ISO and a D200 and D700, which I am intimately familiar with, no, it is wrong. A knowledgeable user can make a better choice of ISO in situations where you are pushing the enveolpe. Obviously in daylight conditions... it makes zero difference what your auto ISO settings are, but I gave a clear example where I made a better choice of ISO settings than the camera could.



itznfb said:


> It's like the people that say why are you buying that $5000 camera when you will only use 10% of the functionality? Same applies to you. Why did you buy a D700 when you're satisfied getting basic results with fewer shots due to being slower in manual? You'd be better off with a N75.


 
Again, love that "let's bring in the kitchen sink into this argument fast... becuase he has a good point and I cannot beat him on that, so let's make up something else". ALL the functions of a D700 are vast, we are talking ONE SIMPLE ITEM.



itznfb said:


> If you aren't utilizing your camera then you aren't getting as good of a result as you could and you certainly wasted your money.


 
Are you saying that if you are not regularly using the camera in P-mode, then you are not getting the most from your camera? Uhmmm, okay, whatever puts the cream in your twinky. But I am not speaking about that... we're talking auto ISO... stick to that, this is the topic being discussed.


----------



## JerryPH (Sep 3, 2009)

Derrel said:


> The fear of technology and the simple misunderstanding of it and the proclamations of the superiority of manual exposure is absolutely hilarious on this thread.


 
My understanding of Auto ISO is complete, my proof that I can make better decisions than the D700 is in this thread also.

Do you also have issues discussion/arguing by tossing in the kitchen sink as well? Having another bad day? I do not care about any excuses you have, I am just tired of your totally crap and useless posts. 

When I do not know what something is, I say it (go to post #14 in this very thread), but if you look at the name of *HIGHLIGHT* recovery (Canon's own name for this), it's not outside the realm of the possible that it will have little to anything to do with the *SHADOW DETAIL* recovery methods of ACTIVE D-LIGHT. Have I read up on it, nope, I am not a Canon user, not care to read up, and if the above statement is wrong... well, what do AF lenses have to do with with the temperature of tea served in China?


----------



## itznfb (Sep 3, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> itznfb said:
> 
> 
> > The majority of your comments on this forum make it sound like you are desperately seeking attention and approval from the other members.
> ...



Yea I'm 15 :er: Just a response to you saying you're not here to impress anyone or care what people think when it's pretty clear that you have to make you presence known in every thread and somehow make some comment to mention you own a D700 or make some comment that implies you're better than the person posting. That is attention seeking behavior.

And again... if you think you can out smart or out think the camera, then you don't know the capabilities of your camera or you have a much bigger and more unrealistic ego that I thought.

Again... (I don't know how many times I have to something before you actually comprehend) I'm not talking about Auto-ISO as a stand-alone feature. Features within a camera actually work together. I know it's hard to grasp the concept but it's true.

Kitchen sink? Good point? We're talking ONE SINGLE ITEM.. AGAIN I wasn't aware an item in a camera was capable of functioning 100% on it's own. I'm glad I learned that today. You haven't made a single point. Is your ego so big that you think a vague opinion of yours is somehow fact, make a point and applies to anything outside of your head? You're delusional.

I can't reply with anything technical because you haven't said anything technical or provided any validity to anything you've said.

I work with a lot of pros who use these cameras all day every day. From Victorias Secret photogs to Sports Illustrated photogs; and not one of them uses manual more than 10% of the time. The majority of them have said they never use manual.


----------



## itznfb (Sep 3, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> My understanding of Auto ISO is complete, my proof that I can make better decisions than the D700 is in this thread also.



No you can't. And "because I said so" isn't providing proof. You haven't provided proof of anything. Just like always. You expect people to accept your word as god.


----------



## JerryPH (Sep 3, 2009)

itznfb said:


> No you can't. And "because I said so" isn't providing proof. You haven't provided proof of anything. Just like always. You expect people to accept your word as god.


 
My word is my bond, and worth a lot more than you ever will be.

However, you are MORE than welcome to try to set your camera to P-mode or A-mode walk into a dark room, set the auto ISO to 6400 and get a clear 1/25th of a second shot at ISO3200 when the camera is trying to shove ISO 6400 in there for you... by coincidence, just like I posted earlier in this same thread.

Ok... back into the ignore list with you... we're done.


----------



## dizzyg44 (Sep 3, 2009)

Well, I guess it goes from God, to Jerry to you to the cleaners. Right, Kent?
:lmao:


----------



## itznfb (Sep 3, 2009)

lol. Once again the only thing that Jerry proves is that he really has no clue what he's talking about. You keep mentioning P and A mode incorrectly. You word is worth more than me. lol. You're becoming a bigger joke and nuisance than Derrel.


----------



## camz (Sep 3, 2009)

You two need to hug and kiss! :hug:: LOL


----------



## itznfb (Sep 3, 2009)

Oh c'mon. He is the most annoying person on this forum. He can't make a single post without saying he's better than someone in some way.


----------



## manaheim (Sep 3, 2009)

This is ridiculous and I'm kinda disgusted with most of you on this thread.

What I see in this thread is one person saying what _he_ does with his equipment and giving some rational reasons why, and the rest of you beating him up for it for no reason other than, essentially, him being a silly old fart and not embracing the new fangled technology.

I see very insulting and degrading posture from a _lot_ of people here... some folks I would think that know better... others that I'm starting to think perhaps do not.

How many of you prople belittling Jerry drive a manual transmission car? Hm? Based upon the logic I see being tossed around this thread... if you do, yer basically a huge idiot.

Grow up.


----------



## PhotoXopher (Sep 3, 2009)

I love you man!

Yes, I'm drumk... cheers!

My signature says it all... take my replies with full knowledge of my sources - I hide nothing! 

Manaheim, you're one of my favorite people on this site - I hope you don't hate me brother!


----------



## itznfb (Sep 3, 2009)

manaheim said:


> This is ridiculous and I'm kinda disgusted with most of you on this thread.
> 
> What I see in this thread is one person saying what _he_ does with his equipment and giving some rational reasons why, and the rest of you beating him up for it for no reason other than, essentially, him being a silly old fart and not embracing the new fangled technology.
> 
> ...



That's actually the problem. It's not one person saying what they do with their equipment and giving reasons why. It's one person coming into a thread and attacking everyone else because he finds them inferior. Jerry doesn't explain things. He demands that you do things his way of you're inferior, inexperienced and an idiot. When in reality. His methods are ridiculously outdated and generally have no relevance in the threads he enters. He is the one constantly belittling people.

If you see him being insulted and degraded then good. He deserves it. Do unto others...

If you like manual settings fine. But don't come in here and attack everyone else because you can't figure out your camera and they actually use the technology found in todays cameras.


----------



## dizzyg44 (Sep 3, 2009)

I just wanted to use a line from one of my favorite movies .......

Nothing personal


----------



## PhotoXopher (Sep 3, 2009)

itznfb said:


> That's actually the problem. It's not one person saying what they do with their equipment and giving reasons why. It's one person coming into a thread and attacking everyone else because he finds them inferior. Jerry doesn't explain things. He demands that you do things his way of you're inferior, inexperienced and an idiot. When in reality. His methods are ridiculously outdated and generally have no relevance in the threads he enters. He is the one constantly belittling people.
> 
> If you see him being insulted and degraded then good. He deserves it. Do unto others...
> 
> If you like manual settings fine. But don't come in here and attack everyone else because you can't figure out your camera and they actually use the technology found in todays cameras.



I'll stick my neck out and agree with you 100%. I won't name names but some people come in here with a holier than thou attitude for no apparent reason and talk down on others because they don't do things the same way.

I respect them for their work and as photographers but that's as far as it goes - their attitude sucks.


----------



## manaheim (Sep 3, 2009)

itznfb said:


> That's actually the problem. It's not one person saying what they do with their equipment and giving reasons why. It's one person coming into a thread and attacking everyone else because he finds them inferior. Jerry doesn't explain things. He demands that you do things his way of you're inferior, inexperienced and an idiot. When in reality. His methods are ridiculously outdated and generally have no relevance in the threads he enters. He is the one constantly belittling people.
> 
> If you see him being insulted and degraded then good. He deserves it. Do unto others...
> 
> If you like manual settings fine. But don't come in here and attack everyone else because you can't figure out your camera and they actually use the technology found in todays cameras.


 
Really?  I don't see it.

I see Jerry on this board a lot and he has always offered help and experienced insight to people on this board, and people get ticked off at him for it.

The best I can figure is that he says "I don't do such and such because I know better how to handle this than my camera does", and those of you who DON'T do such and such... perhaps unknowingly... take that as a direct assault on your capabilties as photographers... which it isn't.

I also feel I know more than my camera does in a lot of situations and I -never- use Auto-ISO... in fact, of all the auto features on my camera, I trust that one the least.  Does this make me someone worthy of your derision as well?

I also drive a manual transmission car because I like having greater control over how the car performs.  Does this make me foolish in some way?

I frequently use an unpowered screwdriver...?


----------



## Josh66 (Sep 3, 2009)

manaheim said:


> I frequently use an unpowered screwdriver...?



Does it ratchet?


----------



## PhotoXopher (Sep 3, 2009)

The point is, there's never an explanation - just insult. As if people who do things differently are supposed to know better.

FWIW, my D90 (and D60 for that matter) are quite good at auto ISO and I can set the parameters to my liking (minimum shutter speed for it to be activated as well as maximum ISO used).

I'm not a paid photographer, so maybe that's the difference - I know I'm not the only hobbyist photographer here - so perhaps that's the key in deciphering the statements made. We're all here because we enjoy photography, however we're not all on the same level.

Making blanket statements isn't always the right thing for everyone - a little clarification wouldn't hurt, it's easy to insult - it's another to educate.


----------



## itznfb (Sep 3, 2009)

manaheim said:


> itznfb said:
> 
> 
> > That's actually the problem. It's not one person saying what they do with their equipment and giving reasons why. It's one person coming into a thread and attacking everyone else because he finds them inferior. Jerry doesn't explain things. He demands that you do things his way of you're inferior, inexperienced and an idiot. When in reality. His methods are ridiculously outdated and generally have no relevance in the threads he enters. He is the one constantly belittling people.
> ...



Yea I see him help maybe 1 out of every 20 posts. The rest are just him trying to make himself look superior or trying to make you look inferior.

I'll refer to the bolded statement: That isn't what he does at all. Take this Auto-ISO for example. He doesn't know how it works or how to implement it properly so he berates everyone who uses it.

I don't really care what settings you use because you don't go into threads and tell people that they are awful because they don't do it the same way you do. I can't even count how many times I've seen Jerry do this.


----------



## Josh66 (Sep 3, 2009)

N0YZE said:


> We're all here because we enjoy photography, however we're not all on the same level.



And, I would think that we would all like to improve - no matter what level you're at now.

Everyone has their preferences...  I use M most of the time because that's what I'm comfortable with, and that's what works for me.

If I didn't care what shutter speed or aperture I was using, I would use the green box all the time.  The problem is - I do care.

So - why do I not use Av or Tv more?  Mostly because I want the control that only M can provide.  I meter what I want to meter and adjust accordingly.  M is just easier most of the time.  Settings don't move every time you move the camera.  Sure, you can lock in the exposure in Av or Tv, and recompose - but it just feels like an unnecessary step to me.


----------



## itznfb (Sep 3, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> N0YZE said:
> 
> 
> > We're all here because we enjoy photography, however we're not all on the same level.
> ...



I use manual quite a bit but not more than 20% of the time. My point is.... how many times have you or I tried to make someone feel inferior for not using it?


----------



## Josh66 (Sep 3, 2009)

itznfb said:


> The rest are just him trying to make himself look superior or trying to make you look inferior.



Honestly, I don't see that.  He's just trying to help.  Maybe he should write his responses a little differently sometimes, but it's all just trying to help.


----------



## PhotoXopher (Sep 3, 2009)

Sorry, but essentially telling someone you're a moron for not doing something one way is different than saying you should do it this way because 'insert reason'.

I don't see tha very often from some people.

They are happy to criticize, but offer little for explanation - which to me does nothing for education/help.

I'll add to this that I respect Jerry and other professional photographers for taking the time to share their knowledge, I don't take any of it for granted and appreciate all the help they provide. My point is that it's frustrating/non-productive to be told what to do and not know why.


----------



## manaheim (Sep 3, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > I frequently use an unpowered screwdriver...?
> ...


 
I don't dare say.  If I say no, I may be stoned to death.



itznfb said:


> Yea I see him help maybe 1 out of every 20 posts. The rest are just him trying to make himself look superior or trying to make you look inferior.
> 
> I'll refer to the bolded statement: That isn't what he does at all. Take this Auto-ISO for example. He doesn't know how it works or how to implement it properly so he berates everyone who uses it.
> 
> I don't really care what settings you use because you don't go into threads and tell people that they are awful because they don't do it the same way you do. I can't even count how many times I've seen Jerry do this.


 
Up until about Post 41, I see him mostly trying very hard to honestly answer the barbs being lobbed at him.  Then he clearly got a bit miffed... but even then... he was way nicer about it than I would have been.

The simple fact is he probably should have bailed on this long before then, and he didn't.  I'd say that was his sole mistake.

Whatever.  I'm done bickering about this with you lot.  You've clearly got your opinions and will not be changing them.  I'll keep this thread in mind and be sure not to abuse you with accurate information in any of your posts in the future.

Here, let me start...

"Auto-ISO rocks!  Anyone who doesn't use it 100% of the time is a total freaking moron!"

Oh, and by the way, MY posts have been way nastier than any of Jerry's, so I hope you'll be certain to bash my head in with a rock as well... I like to see equality in my online forums. :thumbup:


----------



## itznfb (Sep 3, 2009)

manaheim said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > manaheim said:
> ...



Again.... I've never seen you personally attack someone because their way of doing things differs from yours... _until now_. And I see this every day from him and a couple others that just think they are gods gift to photography.


----------



## fiveoboy01 (Sep 3, 2009)

> That's actually the problem. It's not one person saying what they do with their equipment and giving reasons why. It's one person coming into a thread and attacking everyone else because he finds them inferior. Jerry doesn't explain things. He demands that you do things his way of you're inferior, inexperienced and an idiot.


 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't *you* toss out the first barb by proclaiming that someone who doesn't use all their camera's technological whiz-bang features is *stupid*?



> You may be able to make some manual adjustments and reach more desirable results in certain situations but not learning and using the technology to it's fullest and to your advantage is just plain stupid.





> If you want to use M 80%+ of the time just because you think it impresses a bunch of people on a forum then more power to you. Your results will never be as good as they could be.


 
How do you know what his intentions are?  Perhaps he uses M 80% of the time becuase _that's what works for him._ 

Sorry I just don't see where Jerry is attacking anyone. He's simply rather opinionated, and you're taking it too personally.


----------



## itznfb (Sep 3, 2009)

fiveoboy01 said:


> > That's actually the problem. It's not one person saying what they do with their equipment and giving reasons why. It's one person coming into a thread and attacking everyone else because he finds them inferior. Jerry doesn't explain things. He demands that you do things his way of you're inferior, inexperienced and an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm not going to spend all night explaining this but if you see some of his posts and the ridiculous way he talks down to people... you see this every day and then look at his first post in this thread you understand that he's not just making a statement he's implying that the OP is inferior and that he is too good for these noob settings. When in reality it takes more skill to use settings like these, not less.

And I know what his intentions are because he shoves them down this forums throat every day. It's one thing to be opinionated, it's another to think your opinion is the word of god.

I'm not taking it personally. I see other people taking it personally. New people that probably rarely use the internet that never return to the forums because he was an asshole to them.

Granted he is not the only one who acts this way.... but most of the others have left the forums or rarely visit.


----------



## fiveoboy01 (Sep 3, 2009)

> if you see some of his posts and the ridiculous way he talks down to people...


 
Care to provide some examples? 



> look at his first post in this thread you understand that he's not just making a statement he's implying that the OP is inferior and that he is too good for these noob settings.


 
Here's his first post:



> Nikon D200 and up all have it, but I never use it... I prefer to have total control over my camera, rather than let the camera decide what ISO is good for me.


 
How you infer the above from his first post, I haven't a clue. 



> And I know what his intentions are because he shoves them down this forums throat every day.


 
If your above "interpretation" of Jerry's post is any indication, it's clear that you DON'T know his intentions, or you have a bone to pick, or you're overly sensitive.... Either way I don't care but in this particular thread, YOU started the ****storm, not him.

I've read plenty of Jerry's posts and I haven't really seen anything that rubs me the wrong way... Now if you REALLY want to talk about a condescending individual, well Darrel definitely fits the bill...


----------



## itznfb (Sep 3, 2009)

This is the last I'll say on this as I need to get some sleep and I won't care enough to revisit tomorrow... posts 29 and 30 he makes ridiculous statements basically saying he's smarter than a computer and tries to talk down to me and make me seem like I'm less of a photographer because I use an Auto setting. He only makes these statements because he actually has no clue how Auto-ISO works or what it is intended for.... yet he rambles on like a drunken retarded child because he has some inability to acknowledge he has no clue what he's talking about and in over his head. So he falls down the downward spiral and resorts to name calling and his normal childish behavior. Which, I'll admit.. I follow him on the way down because I just find it way too entertaining to avoid.


----------



## Moglex (Sep 4, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> itznfb said:
> 
> 
> > If you want to use M 80%+ of the time just because you think it impresses a bunch of people on a forum then more power to you. Your results will never be as good as they could be.
> ...



You are misinterpreting what itznfb said.

There are other modes between full manual and full auto.


----------



## Moglex (Sep 4, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> Plato said:
> 
> 
> > I like to carve out pictures on the walls of caves.  I don't trust glass that someone else made!
> ...



Only if you have had a sense of humour bypass. And lyao at childish jokes. 



> My response is... are you the guy that buys a D3 or 5D and takes all the shots with the camera on P-mode?  And if not... why not?  Seems the camera can do it all for you, right?



That response is nothing short of asinine.

Why would the fact that someone makes intelligent use of certain automatic features imply that they are going to use 'p' mode?

It doesn't unless you are completely clueless about modern camera technology.


----------



## Moglex (Sep 4, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> My car does 265kph, 12.8 in the 1/4 mile and does better mileage than a Toyota Corolla on the highway at 37mpg.



I bet you spent a lot of your time in pissing contests when you were at school, eh, Jerry? 



> I don't know why people think it's so hard to out think their cameras... all it takes is practice!



Another comment that indicates that you really haven't got a clue about how to make the best use of the tools available to you.


----------



## Moglex (Sep 4, 2009)

fiveoboy01 said:


> > if you see some of his posts and the ridiculous way he talks down to people...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Quite how you fail to make the same inference is a bit of a mystery. 
Jerry is someone who has some serious personality issues that cause him to  make more or less overt boasts on a very frequent basis. How the hell anyonyone can think it's normal behaviour to start trying to impress people with his car in the middle of a photograpy thread is beyond me.

Presumably he thinks this will impress people:



JerryPH said:


> But since I own vehicles of my own, I have not sat in the back seat of anyone's car since 1976 (and that was my last time in a vehicle with me not driving... my last day in highschool when the bus driver drove me to my bus stop).





JerryPH said:


> Copy #2 - I have a 48TB SAN in the basement





JerryPH said:


> Something that I do in all weddings is I can follow a bride from the inside to the outside of the church where I use custom gelled lights inside to ambient  outside lighting, as she walks down the isle after the wedding... and literally... I am changing WB settings, ISO settings, exposure compensation settings shutter settings and changing channels on the pocket wizard... *all* without taking my eye off the eyepiece and also snapping shots and I get 95% of my shots nailed down as I am walking backwards!





JerryPH said:


> My car does 265kph, 12.8 in the 1/4 mile and does better mileage than a Toyota Corolla on the highway at 37mpg. (*Note the odd (for an American) use of kph for the max speed to make the number look bigger *)


I dare say some people find this sort of BS (BS irrespective of the truth of the statements) impressive, I and I know many others just find it rather sad and wearisome.

Can you imagine Ansel Adams wittering on about how big a camera he used?

Or Cartier Bresson boasting that any decent protographer only needed one lens?


----------



## JamesMason (Sep 4, 2009)

> Can you imagine Ansel Adams wittering on about how big a camera he used?
> 
> Or Cartier Bresson boasting that any decent protographer only needed one lens?


 
well said.

 I know i say nikon is better than canon for a joke sometimes (ok most times) but does it really matter about what gear you use.


----------



## musicaleCA (Sep 4, 2009)

Sheesh, why didn't I start reading this thread sooner?


----------



## manaheim (Sep 4, 2009)

Moglex said:


> Quite how you fail to make the same inference is a bit of a mystery.
> Jerry is someone who has some serious personality issues that cause him to make more or less overt boasts on a very frequent basis. How the hell anyonyone can think it's normal behaviour to start trying to impress people with his car in the middle of a photograpy thread is beyond me.


 
Well, this confirms it for me... you guys are inferring things.

And you're taking his "boasts" as personal insults.

I, too, think I am smarter than my camera and am far better prepared to select ISO than it is.  Does that make me stupid, or worthy of your derision?  Does that mean that I have attacked you, personally?  Is MY statement of MY feelings about MY capabilities in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM a statement or reflection on yours?

I would like an answer to this question, because the way I see it...

Well, here...

Here are posts #29 and #30 that ifnzb (sp?) referenced.



JerryPH said:


> itznfb said:
> 
> 
> > Just to clarify. When you set Auto-ISO in camera you don't exit the menu until you've set the Hi/Low range. So it would only have set the ISO to 6400 if you set the Hi to 6400 or higher. If you set Hi to 3200 then you would have ended up with the same shot you set manually.
> ...


 
I don't see any offense to anyone here.  Not even REMOTELY.  Jerry says he doesn't want to have to worry about blaming the camera or himself... he knows if he messes up it's his fault, and he PERSONALLY feels more comfortable making the decision himself.  HE PERSONALLY wants to remain in control.

I see ZERO comment on anyone else, and what's more is even if you interpret this ASSUMING he's out to get you, it's a stretch.

Ok, maybe the next one then...



JerryPH said:


> itznfb said:
> 
> 
> > Just to clarify. When you set Auto-ISO in camera you don't exit the menu until you've set the Hi/Low range. So it would only have set the ISO to 6400 if you set the Hi to 6400 or higher. If you set Hi to 3200 then you would have ended up with the same shot you set manually.
> ...


 
Here he says HE knows HIS capabilities better than the camera.  He says HE can push the camera better than what HE declares are "safe" settings.

I suppose you could have misinterpreted the "your" fault to be pointing at you, but it seemed clear to me he was speaking in the third person about himself since he immediately reverts back to "I" in the remaining pronouns.  Even if this was pointed DIRECTLY at you and you interpreted it as an offense, it was a light one at best, and that's assuming that you're working pretty hard to read into this, since he seems pretty clearly to again be talking about HIMSELF.



itznfb said:


> This is the last I'll say on this as I need to get some sleep and I won't care enough to revisit tomorrow... posts 29 and 30 he makes ridiculous statements basically saying he's smarter than a computer and tries to talk down to me and make me seem like I'm less of a photographer because I use an Auto setting. He only makes these statements because he actually has no clue how Auto-ISO works or what it is intended for.... yet he rambles on like a drunken retarded child because he has some inability to acknowledge he has no clue what he's talking about and in over his head. So he falls down the downward spiral and resorts to name calling and his normal childish behavior. Which, I'll admit.. I follow him on the way down because I just find it way too entertaining to avoid.


 
"drunken retarded child"

Nice.

It's _abundantly _clear to me that the set of people who have been acting poorly on this is not a set that includes Jerry.

This kind of behavior on this forum really sucks.  It's very much why some members have left, and it's very much the kind of thing that will continue to drive folks away.  This is why I'm so ticked off about this particular thread, and why I'm speaking up on it.  Those of you who have behaved thusly have behaved atroiciously... you have definitely earned a place on my list of people who I consider to be detractors in this community.

Not Jerry.

You.


----------



## Moglex (Sep 4, 2009)

manaheim said:


> Moglex said:
> 
> 
> > Quite how you fail to make the same inference is a bit of a mystery.
> ...



Wow!

Certainly touched a bit of a nerve there, didn't we?


----------



## Moglex (Sep 4, 2009)

manaheim said:


> I, too, think I am smarter than my camera and am far better prepared to select ISO than it is.  Does that make me stupid, or worthy of your derision?



No, but it does show that you haven't thought through the occasions when auto-ISO might be useful.

As with Jerry it just shows that you have not worked out how to use all the facilities of your camera to the utmost in all circumstances.



> Does that mean that I have attacked you, personally?  Is MY statement of MY feelings about MY capabilities in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM a statement or reflection on yours?
> 
> I would like an answer to this question, because the way I see it...



No, it doesn't.

But when I read your posts I *never* get the idea that you are trying to overcome your own insecurity issues by unnecessary boasting or implicit put-downs.



> It's abundantly clear to me that the set of people who have been acting poorly on this is not a set that includes Jerry.



If you *really* think that (for example) trying to start a pissing contest about how fast your car goes is good behaviour on a photographic forum then I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to differ.

And if you think that you can castigate someone for saying "drunken retarded child" but not mention Jerry's "My word is my bond, and worth a lot more than you ever will be" then one can only assume you are taking a bizarrely partisan approach for some reason.


----------



## fiveoboy01 (Sep 4, 2009)

> No, but it does show that you haven't thought through the occasions when auto-ISO might be useful.



And you know this HOW?  Can you read Chris' mind?  Apparently so, since you all seem to be able to read Jerry's mind as well.  

Maybe Chris KNOWS that Auto ISO could be useful in some situations and STILL chooses not to use it?  Is that a REMOTE possiblity, or are you going to stick with the "Chris is too stubborn to try new stuff" theory?



> Not Jerry.
> 
> You.



Agreed.  

Some of you have some serious issues.  You look like politicians on a witch hunt.

If you don't like Jerry's posts, quit whining about them, and use the ignore button.  End of story.


----------



## Moglex (Sep 4, 2009)

fiveoboy01 said:


> > No, but it does show that you haven't thought through the occasions when auto-ISO might be useful.
> 
> 
> 
> And you know this HOW?  Can you read Chris' mind?



No, I just read what he said. 



fiveoboy01 said:


> If you don't like Jerry's posts, quit whining about them, and use the ignore button.  End of story.



So if we don't like Jerry's posts we have to 'quit whining about them' but if you don't like people's posts you feel quite entitled to throw you weight around and tell them not to post.

Do you understand the meaning of hypocrisy?


----------



## JamesMason (Sep 4, 2009)

6 pages of arguement over and auto iso setting. Wow


----------



## PhotoXopher (Sep 4, 2009)

Has the answer to the posters question even been answered?


----------



## Plato (Sep 4, 2009)

N0YZE said:


> Has the answer to the posters question even been answered?



What question?


----------



## fiveoboy01 (Sep 4, 2009)

> No, I just read what he said.



Where did he say he "hadn't thought it through"?


----------



## PhotoXopher (Sep 4, 2009)

Who cares!

The original poster asked a very simple question (relatively speaking).

Good grief guys... step away from the computer and go photograph something, I know I'm going to!


----------



## Moglex (Sep 4, 2009)

fiveoboy01 said:


> > No, I just read what he said.
> 
> 
> 
> Where did he say he "hadn't thought it through"?



Where he said: "and am far better prepared to select ISO than it is" rather than "and am *usually* far better prepared to select ISO than it is".



			
				NOYZE said:
			
		

> step away from the computer and go photograph something



LOL.

Good advice.


----------



## manaheim (Sep 4, 2009)

I use Auto-ISO setting on a very rare occasion because I do know where it works well, but generally I don't need it and I don't like the result.

So, yes, I'm pretty familiar with it.

There are areas of my camera I haven't really gotten into yet (such as using the AF/ON button instead of having it as a part of the shutter button), but I've explored the whole auto-ISO thing reasonably well at this point.

I missed the remark you quoted from Jerry.  I looked over the thread a couple times to honestly try to find where he was inflamatory and missed it.  I'm not going to look again, but I wanted to be clear on this point.

I'm only posting this to tie up a couple loose ends.


----------



## camz (Sep 4, 2009)

N0YZE said:


> Has the answer to the posters question even been answered?


 
 No kidding. This has to be one of the most ridiculous threads I've seen here in TPF. I have no idea what everyone is arguing about when the process of creating a shot is always different for everybody. It's achieving the end result is what counts anyways. These people are just fighting over details


----------



## manaheim (Sep 4, 2009)

I'm mainly just pissed because this whole thread wound up making Jerry decide to quit TPF.  I'm sure some people think that's just awesome... but I don't.


----------



## Overread (Sep 4, 2009)

manaheim said:


> I'm mainly just pissed because this whole thread wound up making Jerry decide to quit TPF.  I'm sure some people think that's just awesome... but I don't.



??? what where did he say this?
can't find any refrence to it in his post history.


----------



## manaheim (Sep 4, 2009)

Overread said:


> ??? what where did he say this?
> can't find any refrence to it in his post history.


 
He PMed me about it.  That's what clued me in to this thread... he said he had it and was outta here, so I went looking for his last posts and found this thread.


----------



## Overread (Sep 4, 2009)

I don't know anymore - I gave up with these threads. Sadly it seems that too many people cannot have a debate without a fight it seems - and then of course come the personal insults and the "I've been in it Xperiod of time and done Xstuff" parts....

gah......


----------



## Moglex (Sep 4, 2009)

manaheim said:


> I'm mainly just pissed because this whole thread wound up making Jerry decide to quit TPF.  I'm sure some people think that's just awesome... but I don't.



Well I for one do not think it's awesome.

In fact I feel very bad about it. 

Jerry is obviously a very good photographer who is very knowledgeable and gives out a great deal of excellent advice and as such is a great asset to these forums.

There are a couple of things about his posting style that irritate me (as I dare say things about my style irritate others) but if he, after due reflection, changes his mind I will be pleased to see him back and will not mention them again.


----------



## musicaleCA (Sep 4, 2009)

See? The internet is srs bzns. *sigh*



manaheim said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > ??? what where did he say this?
> ...



This is saddening.  

I was really looking forward to finding out about that ultra-secret scheme he had going. Ah well, time to fly to Quebec and hunt that man down!



Overread said:


> I don't know anymore - I gave up with these threads. Sadly it seems that too many people cannot have a debate without a fight it seems - and then of course come the personal insults and the "I've been in it Xperiod of time and done Xstuff" parts....
> 
> gah......



That wouldn't be a debate then. Some take a debate way to far and do everything to get the upper hand, and if that means resorting to personal insults they'll do it (politicians too; how much it's tolerated very much depends on the country, but Canada and the US are pretty bad for this). That's pretty much why I broke out the popcorn; such a blooming silly question sparking so much heat. Yeesh.


----------



## camz (Sep 5, 2009)

> I'm mainly just pissed because this whole thread wound up making Jerry decide to quit TPF. I'm sure some people think that's just awesome... but I don't.


 
Jerry If you can see this...I had the impression that you had thicker skin then that. Don't let ASCII code generated words get to you. You may rub people the wrong way but I think you're more of an asset to this forum then others described.


----------



## lvcrtrs (Sep 5, 2009)

Jerry - come back, the world is full of *ss holes with no people skills. Some don't get that they can be honest, helpful and interactive without being brutal, sarcastic, hateful sounding or acting like they are the right hand of God.

Take a break and catch your breath, then return. You are valued.


----------

