On 13/4/07, Mark Erickson, discombobulated, unleashed: >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?
Nail ------> head. I don't :-) -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
