Tom's comments only apply to **35MM** film vs current DSLRS, if you go bigger, film still rules because you can eliminate the problems of **35mm film** while still maintaining its advantages like greater dynamic range and resolution. jco
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Simpson Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 7:25 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Pixel peeping and looking for defects (was Re: Full frame lensesand the K10D, CA anyone?) It occurs to me that if you push film as hard as the militant pixel peepers push these digital images, they start to show defects as well, graininess being foremost among them. And surprise, surprise, you get more grain when you go to higher ISO film. Seems like there is a lot of apples=oranges sorts of comparisons going on, Velvia 200 vs. digital at ISO 1600, that sort of thing. The way I look at it, VPN is simply the film grain of our day. I look forward to a day when digital can capture every last bit of the dynamic range that top-quality slide film can, but in the meantime, digital offers advantages that are too numerous to recount here. I admit to my fair share of photo-geekyness, but really... And, occasional dynamic range-related issues aside, my digital images simply look and print better most anything I have ever taken with film, and are a hell of a lot less labor-intensive and bother to work with. Look, I can even use my "darkroom" to type email! :-) -Tom *ist DS Mark Erickson 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 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
