I suppose. Is it used regulary in product, catalog, documentary,
assignment work where ultimate quality is the goal? Irrespective of
that, it isn't that important to me. High ISO digital shots that I've
seen that are deemed acceptable don't look "right" to me. Yes, they may
be sharp and remarkably noiseless, but there's that plastic look, funky
colours that bother me. Most of what I do doesn't require high ISO, and
when it seems to, it is an indication that I'm too damn lazy to use a
tri- or monopod.
That's not to say that I haven't used high ISO film. I miss Agfa 1000
films, which were grainy but had other attributes that were pleasing. I
haven't tried current high speed emulsions from Fuji or Kodak. I've
heard good things about the Fuji.
Earl
Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>But high ISO is becoming more and more prevalent as we old film based
>guys finally beging to think of the ISO dial as a factor in exposure
>that's just as valid as aperture or shutter speed. In my small part of
>the world, running the C*n*ns at ISO 800 has gotten much more common as
>we realize; Hey, it's there for the asking and it still looks pretty good.
>
>Chuck Norcutt
>
>Earl Dunbar wrote:
>
>
>
>> Noise at high ISO, even
>>though high ISO capture is a very small part of professional
>>photography, is important in the mindspace of a huge number of buyers.
>>
>>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|