What Bill said. Shooting RAW I find I have a very wide range over which I can extract good detail. Paul On Mar 6, 2007, at 10:39 PM, William Robb wrote:
> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Paul Stenquist" > Subject: Re: beauty shot: Pentax K10D- 17mm lenses are out there > > >> As someone pointed out to me, there's a halo on the right front tire. >> That's generally the result of oversharpening, although I see nothing >> else here to support that. In any case, it's not important. The lens >> performed well, as did the photographer. >> Paul > >>> Regarding the contrast, I already noted the >>> SCENE exceeeded the dynamic range of the camera, >>> there is nothing that can be done to "fix" that >>> other than to buy a better DSLR camera, if one even >>> exists in that regard. > > DSLR cameras are showing 10 stops or more of dynamic range, which is > about 3 > stops more than that of print film, probably 5 stops more range than > slide > film. > > Quoting Roger Clark > (http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html): > > "There seems to be an urban legend that says digital cameras have less > dynamic range than film. The legend is wrong. ...... The slide film > records > only about 5 photographic stops of information (a stop is a factor of > 2, so > 5 stops is 32). The print film shows about 7 stops of information. The > digital camera shows at least 10 stops of information (this test was > limited > to 10 stops). Other tests show the Canon 1D Mark II camera has about > 11.6 > stops of information (a range of 3100 in intensity). Other DSLR > cameras, > like the Canon 10D have around 11 stops. " > > The better DSLR exists already. > > William Robb > > > -- > 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
