On 14 Jun 2005 at 20:32, Boris Liberman wrote: > Duly noted. I stand corrected and will try to memorize that :). However, > among these five rolls how many were slide and how many were negative? > > My wild guess would be that it was mostly slide :).
A good guess, three slide and two colour print films :-) > In my recent photo-life (which started a bit earlier than I subscribed > to PDML ;-) ) I shot only one slide film. So I've no clue almost > whatsoever as to how slide film behaves. My general assumption however > is that *istD (or any other digital camera for that matter) behaves more > like slide and less than negative film w.r.t. exposure latitude... The current crop of Pentax DSLRs provide a capture latitude that lies between colour print film and slide film though it's behaviour is more like slide as the media is "positive" ie excessive brightness leads to media saturation. It's also quite linear in response much like slide film but obviously over a wider brightness range. > I was speaking particularly about the borders of the boat... But then of > course I was looking at web-JPG... The boat surface is bare anodised aluminium and the sun was directly in front of and above so the reflections were quite harsh, I expect that it would have lead to saturation regardless of the media. > I've been battling with this phenomenon (I don't recall its proper name > in English) when the strongly lit areas seem to bleed into their > neighborhood... Having seen images from quite a few cameras based on > same Sony CCD sensor (including *istD(S)) I've come to the conclusion > that it is at least partly in the lens... I think you may be referring to "bloom" which is primarily a sensor based problem and is generally a product of saturation adjacent to dark areas but yes it can be exacerbated by lens CA. > Nowadays when I go outdoor I set my *istD to -0.7 Ev compensation by > default... Probably wrong thing do, but that's how it is for now... I tackle the problem an entirely different way. I know when to expect "bloom" so firstly I use lenses with low inherent CA to shoot. Then in post processing the RAW files I apply the minimum of sharpening and ensure that the CA is minimized (using the lens controls). Once the image is imported into PS I apply custom actions which mask and then desaturate the bright coloured edges. Then I go about noise reduction, eliminating remnant geometric distortion and sharpening. > I am not sure... I mean I cannot answer neither yes nor no. You see, I > think that it has partly to do with that "bleeding" I mentioned above. > On film, the transition from image "meat" to burnt "bone" is usually > (perceived as) very smooth while on digital it is (perceived as) much > more abrupt. Hence the burnt highlights on film are much less > objectionable... Assuming that the taking lens isn't the primary source of aberrations then the way that the saturated areas are rendered is very dependent on the post processing as I described above. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
