I agree, although I think our taste in these things has some
differences. I took a series of shots of a flower at iso 100, 200, 400,
800 and 1600 and, for that particular image, I think I like the 1600 the
best. The modest noise, like fine grain, adds some texture or character
or whatever that seems ot enhance the image. For some other shots, I
prefer the creamy smooth lower speeds. Certainly not filmlike, but
suited to some subjects. It's all about learning to use tools to
accomplish what I wish.
One thing I definitely like about digital is being able to experiment
with bracketing lots of things extensively, look through the images to
learn what happens, then just discard the ones I don't like without cost.
Moose
AG Schnozz wrote:
>Everybody looks at "sharpness" and "grainlessness" as the holy
>grails of photography. I disagree. These are important, but
>where is the color/tonal responses and toe/shoulder curves and
>lateral smearing which differentiate one film above another?
>It's like Bokeh--it's physical and optical, not
>sensor/electronics based.
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|