Dario, I'll admit that I haven't been closely following this thread, but did see the "eye" shot and have been aware of the ongoing speculations. Just to be certain, was the eye shot cropped from a full head shot or is it 100% (as you stated) of an image only of the area shown?
Thanks, Jack --- Dario Bonazza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK folks, it's been long enough... > The answer nobody dared to risk (and the most > obvious) is: > > Camera: Pentax *ist D > ISO: 400 > Lighting: Studio bank (not flash) > Lens: Sigma 70-200/2.8 > Focal length: 180mm > Aperture: 2.8 > Shutter speed 1/125s (hand held, with elbow against > something for extra > support) > JPEG file, straight from the camera. > > I understand that focal length and shutter speed > were not so obvious. > The funny thing is that apparently nobody among > those who usually say the > *istD to be tack sharp (most *istD users out there) > thought it to be capable > of such result ;-) > It is also funny that somebody who usually criticize > its "softness" (me) has > to prove it can be sharp ;-) > > So, what did I learn from all this? > > 1) If you don't agree with mainstream opinion, don't > debate first and show > pictures then to support your idea. If so, all those > already engaged in > disagreeing with you won't truly see your pictures > and will never admit your > opinion can make some sense. It is much better you > show a meaningful > picture, let people comment it as you could do, and > then feel free to agree > with them. > E.g. Isn't this picture detail better than just > claiming bullshit such > statements supposing digital quality to be far from > that delivered by > comparable film cameras? > > 2) With proper lighting, proper lens, proper > focusing and steady support, > the *ist D can give excellent results, even better > than expected (by me and > by most, apparently). I can almost hear the crowd > rejoicing there: "At last, > he has understood that!" However, don't forget that > I've fallen in love with > the *istD long time ago, and I never denied it can > deliver excellent > results. I only wrote that a lighter anti-alias > filter and/or a better > software could allow higher resolution and higher > sharpness. Given such > sharpness, think what you could get with a better > calibrated filter in front > of the sensor:-) > > And now another old question by me: Is it really > necessary shooting RAW all > the time as most of you guys keep doing and > advicing? I fully agree that > with a proper conversion software (thanks Pentax for > introducing PhotoLab > 2.0 asap :-) you can squeeze something extra out of > your CCD, but I think > that choosing the right lens and using it carefully > about shake can mean a > lot more. If your camera (or subject) is not still, > I'm afraid RAW is of > little help. > > Dario > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
