I've just been getting some of my wife's photos from her Digital Stylus
4100 ready to have Fuji Crystal Archive prints made. She had one photo of
the whale (the papier mache [sp?] one) hanging in the Bishop Museum in
Honolulu that was just about black and lost in the shadows. I'm kind of
amazed that I didn't imperiously delete it without benefit of examination
in PS. It was certainly not acceptable when I brought it into range with
levels, but after futzing with the highlight/shadow tool a wee bit and then
Noiseware (thanks for recommending this, Ags), one might actually say it
looks almost good. SWMBO is pleased.
This preoccupation with noise is some sort of "mine's bigger than yours"
line drawn in the sand (not to start a mixed metaphor thread). It's sad to
see some of the samples in dpreview of shots that are nice and smooth
(=noise-free) and not sharp.
Joel W.
At 09:06 AM 1/23/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>Amazing how we have to convince ourselves. I do it too. In the words of
>the old song, "Don't worry. Be happy." You will love your new camera.
>
>
>
>Winsor
>Long Beach, California, USA
>On Jan 23, 2005, at 4:58 AM, James Royall wrote:
>
> >
> > I did a comparison of high ISO images between the E1, E300, 20D, istDs
> > and D70 recently. To this I've added 400 iso images from the E1 and
> > E300, both out of the camera and then filtered with Noise Ninja.
> >
> > My thinking in doing this exercise is that much has been made of the
> > poor high ISO performance of the E300. But comparisons have always been
> > made straight out of the camera, and I would always use a noise
> > reduction utility so it seemed to me a more useful comparison to make
> > after noise reduction.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|