Good point, Mark. In fact, I could really care less about it except that I've had some rejections because of it. Now, are the inspectors looking past 100%? I have no idea, but probably so.
For my own peace of mind, I'm trying to get to the bottom of something that will, in the end, make me a more competent "fixer" of images, as opposed to let's say, a better photographer. It is, unfortunately, part and parcel of the digital capture world in which we wish to function. To go little further with this, I have been reading a few Photoshop books and visiting forums recently and I've come away with the feeling that Photoshop, as great and wonderful a tool as it is, is also the bane of my existence. It is not really a photographer's tool; it is a designers tool. Probably 80% of what PS can do I want absolutely no part of. I cringe at even needing to learn the 20% I MUST learn. But forge ahead I will. So, your point is very well received. I would so much rather be out shooting. But if I want to move forward with my images I have to dig a bit deeper into some of the mundane issues that I would normally ignore with pleasure. -Brendan --- Mark Erickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Brendan's post and the response bring up an > interesting issue that seems to > increasingly dominate the digital photography > world--pixel peeping and > hunting for defects. It is easy to zoom up to 200% > and tear apart an image, > but how much of the defects we observe will actually > show up in real world > applications? > > For example, the DPReview Pentax SLR forum has had > several VPN (vertical > pattern noise) threads lately. Basically, if you > crank the ISO way up, > shoot in very low light, then amplify the shadow > areas in Photoshop you'll > see patterns in the noise. My *ist-Ds does it, but > I never noticed it until > I went looking for it. My ultimate conclusion is, > "So what?" It's like the > old joke where the patient says, "Doctor, it hurts > when I do XXXX," and the > doctor responds, "So don't do XXXX". > > I know that blooming and CA can be pretty obvious in > certain situations > (e.g., backlit tree branches in winter). In less > contrasty cases, you may > be able to find it if you go looking for it. If > it's not obtrusive, > however, why worry so much about it? > > Just a thought.... > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
