AG Schnozz wrote:
>To insert my dog into this fight...
>
>
Welcome, Joel has decamped to a beautiful place where he can just take
pretty pictures, rather than sit around being compulsive about this
stuff. Hmmm.. What does that ay about you - and me? :-)
Actually, I did take some shots Tues. and worked on a few tonight.
>When printing, noise tends to minimize a little because of "dot
>gain". On-screen 100% pixel viewing you see luminous noise
>expand--especially with CRTs. However, on when printing, the
>opposite happens with the ink expanding into the lighter areas.
>
>
I hear waht you are saying, and I think I hear waht Joel was saying.
Mostly, it seems to boil down to:
1. Noise is sort of like grain, and I sort of like a bit of it.
2. I won't ever view images at more than 50%, so I don't see mush noise.
3. I don't print anything very big, nor crop much.
4. So I'm happy with what I have and don't bother me.
So that's perfectly fine for Joel. And yet, I'm sitting here looking at
a print from my Epson 1280 of this shot
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/FilmvsDigi/FvD04.htm>.
The print is about 3 3/4 x 5 3/4 and essentially the same crop as the
100% crop on the web page. And I see grain in the print. Granted,
although visible, it isn't a problem at this size. At a 10 in. vertical
dimension, it would start to be noticeable enough to be distracting to
me. And this is iso 800 on a 300D, which is quite a bit less noisy than
an E-1, at least in all the comparisons I've seen.
Now this shot is a significant crop of a shot taken with the eq. of 480
mm in 35mm film terms. So maybe I'm crazy to want something at least
this good, and even crazier to want something better, at least in some
eyes. But if some cameras will do it, why should I settle for one that
won't?
>I have nearly all of my work printed by a professional lab these
>days. The improved print quality over inkjet prints is highly
>visible. In fact, when comparing outputs of two different
>professional labs I see a dramatic difference between them too.
>The one lab I use has a very good RIP and the results in any
>size I choose is flawless. I'm making 16x20 and 20x24 prints
>that are every bit the equivelent of anything I managed with
>645.
>
>
Well, I don't have the good fortune to be where I can see these results.
It's mysterious to me how a different printing system can erase noise
without reducing detail, but I'd like to see how. I don't know how to
test that route without spending a lot on tests. That works for a pro
who can spread the start-up cost over lots of subsequent paid prints,
but doesn't seem very attractive to me. Besides, I get great prints out
of my printer. Of course I can't see how they compare to your Can*n or
the pro shop.
>In the end, what is more important isn't whether or not there is
>noise/grain in the image, but that you got the image. Lately
>there is so much fixation on noise and megapixels, but the
>overall quality of the images is going down. Never before has
>so much schlock been more technically perfect.
>
>
Well, now I know what you really think of my work!! :-)
Seriously, I know what you mean, although a lot of that was already
going on, although perhaps less technically perfect, but we just didn't
have such easy access to so much of it on the web.
On the other hand, I don't much care whether others are turning out good
or bad stuff, I'm concerned about what I do and how I like it. And the
nose characteristics of the 300D just make it for me. I'm quite sure I
would be frustrated by an E-1 .
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|