A photo's emotional, expressive content outweighs any technical notions of noise or grain. It all depends on the particulars of a specific photo.
Godfrey On Nov 23, 2006, at 12:25 PM, Adam Maas wrote: > With the right shot, even 3200 is quite usable. I've got a very > nice 16x20 on the wall, shot with the D at 3200. No NR or anything. > > -Adam > > > > Paul Stenquist wrote: >> I'd definitely be happy with a print from a noisy ISO 1600 shot. I've >> printed quite a few. To me, it's quite similar to grain. It looks >> very nice in Bw. And, yes, I've sold some very noisy stock photos. >> Art directors are strange animals. Frequently, they look for >> something other than the usual or ordinary. Sometimes, grain or noise >> works very well. >> Paul >> On Nov 23, 2006, at 12:26 PM, Markus Maurer wrote: >> >> >>> Hi Paul >>> while I agree that scanning negatives is a pain for me (doing it >>> now) your >>> latest high iso photo samples did not convince me noise wise. Could >>> you sell >>> such photos or would you be happy with a print from iso 1600? The >>> SR feature >>> of the K10D seems to be very useful on the other side as your >>> latest lovely >>> photo of grace easily showed. >>> greetings >>> Markus >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Ursprungliche Nachricht----- >>> Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Auftrag >>> von >>> Paul Stenquist >>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 23. November 2006 13:59 >>> An: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> Betreff: Re: Printing Digital Photos >>> >>> >>> Yeah, it's pretty hard to go back to scanning film once you've >>> been to >>> the mountain. >>> >>> On Nov 23, 2006, at 1:29 AM, Doug Franklin wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Howdy, folks, >>>> >>>> Well, today, I had my first real experience printing digital photos >>>> captured on digital. I'm using the same Epson Stylus Photo 820 >>>> that >>>> I've been using the last several years, and I'm still on >>>> Photoshop 7. >>>> My system is well enough color-calibrated that I don't think twice >>>> about >>>> whether the print will match what I saw on screen. That's largely >>>> luck >>>> or something, but that's another story. >>>> >>>> The story is that for irrelevant reasons, I've been called upon to >>>> generate 8" x 10" prints from some photos I shot with the *ist >>>> D. I >>>> suddenly realized a few minutes ago that this was the first set of >>>> prints I'd made from images captured directly to digital. >>>> >>>> In the past, I've done a lot of capturing and printing of digital >>>> images, but it was always in workflows mediated by film. Shoot on >>>> film. >>>> Scan to digital. Digital workflow from there to prints. >>>> >>>> I've been scanning the film at 4000 ppi, and spending untold >>>> hours of >>>> angst dealing with "Nyquist noise" ("grain aliasing"). I'm used to >>>> having to dink with the levels extensively, or resort to curves >>>> a lot >>>> of >>>> the time, nontrivial amounts of "spotting" for dust and such. I'm >>>> used >>>> to having to apply some Gaussian Blur before the Unsharp Mask >>>> will do >>>> what it ought to do. >>>> >>>> All I can say is "WOW!". Generating good to excellent prints took >>>> about >>>> 90 seconds each ... load in PS, crop, 15 seconds in levels, set >>>> image >>>> size for print size, print ... about 0.01 of the time I'm used to >>>> doing >>>> to get a decent print of a film image scanned to digital. "WOW!" >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Thanks, >>>> DougF (KG4LMZ) >>>> >>>> -- >>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> [email protected] >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> [email protected] >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> >> >> > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
