Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Popular Photography tough on noise issues

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 6:45:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

They don't mince words;
Nikon D2x; Noise low right up to ISO 3200 where they call it
"moderately low."
Canon Digital Rebel XT: moderate at 800, unacceptable at 1600.
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ20: Unacceptable at ISO 100(!)
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 11:50:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:73qh81drsn6uu9a2sg5spnn91e8nme2prf@4ax.com...
> They don't mince words;
> Nikon D2x; Noise low right up to ISO 3200 where they call it
> "moderately low."
> Canon Digital Rebel XT: moderate at 800, unacceptable at 1600.
> Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ20: Unacceptable at ISO 100(!)
>
And you think this is wrong why?

Noise in a digital photograph is worse than grain in film because of the
unpredictable nature of it and the potentially large range of pixel values
that result. Assuming that they're being consistent in their appraisals, I
heartily approve of calling a "spade" a pointed garden implement whenever
it's encountered ;-))

Norm
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 11:50:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 16 May 2005 19:50:23 GMT, "Norm Dresner" <ndrez@att.net>
wrote:

>"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>news:73qh81drsn6uu9a2sg5spnn91e8nme2prf@4ax.com...
>> They don't mince words;
>> Nikon D2x; Noise low right up to ISO 3200 where they call it
>> "moderately low."
>> Canon Digital Rebel XT: moderate at 800, unacceptable at 1600.
>> Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ20: Unacceptable at ISO 100(!)
>>
>And you think this is wrong why?

Not at all. I just surpised me, given the sugar-coated reviews of
most mags.
>
>Noise in a digital photograph is worse than grain in film because of the
>unpredictable nature of it and the potentially large range of pixel values
>that result. Assuming that they're being consistent in their appraisals, I
>heartily approve of calling a "spade" a pointed garden implement whenever
>it's encountered ;-))
>
> Norm

It does makes choosing a camera a bit easier.
-Rich
Related resources
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 12:32:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Norm Dresner wrote:
> "RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
> news:73qh81drsn6uu9a2sg5spnn91e8nme2prf@4ax.com...
>> They don't mince words;
>> Nikon D2x; Noise low right up to ISO 3200 where they call it
>> "moderately low."
>> Canon Digital Rebel XT: moderate at 800, unacceptable at 1600.
>> Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ20: Unacceptable at ISO 100(!)
>>
> And you think this is wrong why?
>
> Noise in a digital photograph is worse than grain in film because of
> the unpredictable nature of it and the potentially large range of
> pixel values that result. Assuming that they're being consistent in
> their appraisals, I heartily approve of calling a "spade" a pointed
> garden implement whenever it's encountered ;-))
>
> Norm

I would venture to suggest that noise in digital images is /more/
predictable than grain in film. The acceptability or not of noise is, in
any case, a subjective judgment. Does their measurement method allow for
the differing sensitivity of the eye to noise at different spatial
frequencies? I suspect not. Having said that, with similar sensors and
similar image processing, comparative measurements may be rather more
valid than absolute levels.

The FZ20 is perfectly capable of producing acceptable pictures at ISO
100 - at least to my eyes and brain it is. But I'm not printing at 11 x
14 and using a magnifying glass to examine the print...

David
May 17, 2005 2:06:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

>" I heartily approve of calling a "spade" a pointed garden implement
whenever
> it's encountered ;-))"

Have to disagree, no garden spade of mine could be called 'pointed' :o )
May 17, 2005 2:06:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"dylan" <no@nospam.com> wrote in news:D 6b20l$9d3$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk:

>
> >" I heartily approve of calling a "spade" a pointed garden implement
> whenever
>> it's encountered ;-))"
>
> Have to disagree, no garden spade of mine could be called 'pointed' :o )

Personally I believe in calling a spade a manual excavation implement.


--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 3-May-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 2:11:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:

> They don't mince words;
> Nikon D2x; Noise low right up to ISO 3200 where they call it
> "moderately low."
> Canon Digital Rebel XT: moderate at 800, unacceptable at 1600.
> Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ20: Unacceptable at ISO 100(!)


Awaiting Mr Scharf's comments....

A bit skeptical myself.
May 17, 2005 2:20:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <3Q6ie.773588$w62.341286@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Norm Dresner <ndrez@att.net> wrote:

>Noise in a digital photograph is worse than grain in film because of the
>unpredictable nature of it and the potentially large range of pixel values
>that result.

Are you suggesting that the CCD response isn't deterministic?

I think the preference for film grain over digi-noise is something
similar to the preference for analog distortion ("warmth") in audio.

There's an aesthetic element to film grain that may be desirable in
situations where digi-noise is seen as ugly.
May 17, 2005 6:09:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Norm Dresner wrote:

> "RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
> news:73qh81drsn6uu9a2sg5spnn91e8nme2prf@4ax.com...
>> They don't mince words;
>> Nikon D2x; Noise low right up to ISO 3200 where they call it
>> "moderately low."
>> Canon Digital Rebel XT: moderate at 800, unacceptable at 1600.
>> Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ20: Unacceptable at ISO 100(!)
>>
> And you think this is wrong why?
>


If they are looking for the noise in a given print size I agree. If they are
looking at 100% crops from 8MP+ images, it's absurd. I've made 11X14 size
prints from files that look "noisy" at 100% but none of it is seen in the
print so why would I care? I do suppose if your wanting to make 20X30
prints with no post processing it would matter.

--

Stacey
May 17, 2005 2:55:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
> Norm Dresner wrote:
>
>
>>"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>>news:73qh81drsn6uu9a2sg5spnn91e8nme2prf@4ax.com...
>>
>>>They don't mince words;
>>>Nikon D2x; Noise low right up to ISO 3200 where they call it
>>>"moderately low."
>>>Canon Digital Rebel XT: moderate at 800, unacceptable at 1600.
>>>Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ20: Unacceptable at ISO 100(!)
>>>
>>
>>And you think this is wrong why?
>>
>
>
>
> If they are looking for the noise in a given print size I agree. If they are
> looking at 100% crops from 8MP+ images, it's absurd. I've made 11X14 size
> prints from files that look "noisy" at 100% but none of it is seen in the
> print so why would I care? I do suppose if your wanting to make 20X30
> prints with no post processing it would matter.
>

Ah, Stacey. You know better than to bring actual photography into this
newsgroup. This is a place for technical debate, personal opinions, and
(if all else fails) flames. Here we talk about numbers. Pictures have no
place.

If your gear is not up to EVERYONE's spec (even if that is impossible)
please confine yourself to actual photography. In actual photography you
can actually use camera equipment that is not perfect. You are in luck,
as 99.9% of the great photographs in this world were taken with
equipment that wasn't even close to perfect -- by the standards of this
group.

For example, if you had a camera with any of these flaws, you wouldn't
be able to take pictures: Film, very grainy film, very slow film, film
that didn't see all or even most colors, film you had to make and
develop yourself - on location, film with no color or bad color, manual
focus lenses, really slow lenses, poor optics, primitive optic design,
no lens coatings, no zooms lenses, no alternative lenses at all,
exposure meters that read only one place, no exposure meters at all,
inaccurate shutters, shutters with only a few speeds, no shutters at all
(that's what lens caps are for), huge & very heavy cameras, nothing
waterproof, and on and on...

As our forefathers and foremothers had no technology even close to what
we spend hours arguing about, we have no idea how they took all those
great pictures. Shouldn't we be taking pictures that are 10x better than
their's? So, get out there and do actual photography.

[Hum, I wonder if there is an inverse correlation between the ease and
amount of technology and the photographic/pictorial quality of the picture?]

;-)
Clyde
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 8:22:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 17 May 2005 10:55:02 -0500, Clyde <clyde@world.comedy> wrote:

>Stacey wrote:
>> Norm Dresner wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>>>news:73qh81drsn6uu9a2sg5spnn91e8nme2prf@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>They don't mince words;
>>>>Nikon D2x; Noise low right up to ISO 3200 where they call it
>>>>"moderately low."
>>>>Canon Digital Rebel XT: moderate at 800, unacceptable at 1600.
>>>>Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ20: Unacceptable at ISO 100(!)
>>>>
>>>
>>>And you think this is wrong why?
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> If they are looking for the noise in a given print size I agree. If they are
>> looking at 100% crops from 8MP+ images, it's absurd. I've made 11X14 size
>> prints from files that look "noisy" at 100% but none of it is seen in the
>> print so why would I care? I do suppose if your wanting to make 20X30
>> prints with no post processing it would matter.
>>
>
>Ah, Stacey. You know better than to bring actual photography into this
>newsgroup. This is a place for technical debate, personal opinions, and
>(if all else fails) flames. Here we talk about numbers. Pictures have no
>place.
>
>If your gear is not up to EVERYONE's spec (even if that is impossible)
>please confine yourself to actual photography. In actual photography you
>can actually use camera equipment that is not perfect. You are in luck,
>as 99.9% of the great photographs in this world were taken with
>equipment that wasn't even close to perfect -- by the standards of this
>group.
>
>For example, if you had a camera with any of these flaws, you wouldn't
>be able to take pictures: Film, very grainy film, very slow film, film
>that didn't see all or even most colors, film you had to make and
>develop yourself - on location, film with no color or bad color, manual
>focus lenses, really slow lenses, poor optics, primitive optic design,
>no lens coatings, no zooms lenses, no alternative lenses at all,
>exposure meters that read only one place, no exposure meters at all,
>inaccurate shutters, shutters with only a few speeds, no shutters at all
>(that's what lens caps are for), huge & very heavy cameras, nothing
>waterproof, and on and on...

An excellent post, Clyde.

>As our forefathers and foremothers had no technology even close to what
>we spend hours arguing about, we have no idea how they took all those
>great pictures. Shouldn't we be taking pictures that are 10x better than
>their's? So, get out there and do actual photography.

Well a lot weren't actually that great. Many are interesting purely
because they are old - and evolution let only the best ones survive.

>[Hum, I wonder if there is an inverse correlation between the ease and
>amount of technology and the photographic/pictorial quality of the picture?]

It's been discussed here before, and I am convinced this is true in
many situations. However, timing is an important part of some types of
photography (and I don't mean sunrise for landscapes, I mean split
second reactions to events that are unfolding). In these situations
you'll simply fail to get the photograph if you are forced to do it
the old way: ..starting with getting out your tape measure etc to set
the focus..

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 8:22:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 17 May 2005 16:22:15 GMT, Owamanga
<owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 17 May 2005 10:55:02 -0500, Clyde <clyde@world.comedy> wrote:
>
>>Stacey wrote:
>>> Norm Dresner wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:73qh81drsn6uu9a2sg5spnn91e8nme2prf@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>>They don't mince words;
>>>>>Nikon D2x; Noise low right up to ISO 3200 where they call it
>>>>>"moderately low."
>>>>>Canon Digital Rebel XT: moderate at 800, unacceptable at 1600.
>>>>>Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ20: Unacceptable at ISO 100(!)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And you think this is wrong why?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If they are looking for the noise in a given print size I agree. If they are
>>> looking at 100% crops from 8MP+ images, it's absurd. I've made 11X14 size
>>> prints from files that look "noisy" at 100% but none of it is seen in the
>>> print so why would I care? I do suppose if your wanting to make 20X30
>>> prints with no post processing it would matter.
>>>
>>
>>Ah, Stacey. You know better than to bring actual photography into this
>>newsgroup. This is a place for technical debate, personal opinions, and
>>(if all else fails) flames. Here we talk about numbers. Pictures have no
>>place.
>>
>>If your gear is not up to EVERYONE's spec (even if that is impossible)
>>please confine yourself to actual photography. In actual photography you
>>can actually use camera equipment that is not perfect. You are in luck,
>>as 99.9% of the great photographs in this world were taken with
>>equipment that wasn't even close to perfect -- by the standards of this
>>group.
>>
>>For example, if you had a camera with any of these flaws, you wouldn't
>>be able to take pictures: Film, very grainy film, very slow film, film
>>that didn't see all or even most colors, film you had to make and
>>develop yourself - on location, film with no color or bad color, manual
>>focus lenses, really slow lenses, poor optics, primitive optic design,
>>no lens coatings, no zooms lenses, no alternative lenses at all,
>>exposure meters that read only one place, no exposure meters at all,
>>inaccurate shutters, shutters with only a few speeds, no shutters at all
>>(that's what lens caps are for), huge & very heavy cameras, nothing
>>waterproof, and on and on...
>
>An excellent post, Clyde.
>
>>As our forefathers and foremothers had no technology even close to what
>>we spend hours arguing about, we have no idea how they took all those
>>great pictures. Shouldn't we be taking pictures that are 10x better than
>>their's? So, get out there and do actual photography.
>
>Well a lot weren't actually that great. Many are interesting purely
>because they are old - and evolution let only the best ones survive.
>
>>[Hum, I wonder if there is an inverse correlation between the ease and
>>amount of technology and the photographic/pictorial quality of the picture?]
>
>It's been discussed here before, and I am convinced this is true in
>many situations. However, timing is an important part of some types of
>photography (and I don't mean sunrise for landscapes, I mean split
>second reactions to events that are unfolding). In these situations
>you'll simply fail to get the photograph if you are forced to do it
>the old way: ..starting with getting out your tape measure etc to set
>the focus..

What you've said presuposes that more pictures today turn out to be
"good" ones than years ago. But my hunch is that the sheer number
taken today means that isn't the case.
-Rich
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 9:38:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Clyde" <clyde@world.comedy> wrote in message
news:D c-dnYf1BLnXiRffRVn-gg@comcast.com...
> Ah, Stacey. You know better than to bring actual photography into this
> newsgroup. This is a place for technical debate, personal opinions, and
> (if all else fails) flames. Here we talk about numbers. Pictures have no
> place.
>
> If your gear is not up to EVERYONE's spec (even if that is impossible)
> please confine yourself to actual photography. In actual photography you
> can actually use camera equipment that is not perfect. You are in luck, as
> 99.9% of the great photographs in this world were taken with equipment
> that wasn't even close to perfect -- by the standards of this group.
>
> For example, if you had a camera with any of these flaws, you wouldn't be
> able to take pictures: Film, very grainy film, very slow film, film that
> didn't see all or even most colors, film you had to make and develop
> yourself - on location, film with no color or bad color, manual focus
> lenses, really slow lenses, poor optics, primitive optic design, no lens
> coatings, no zooms lenses, no alternative lenses at all, exposure meters
> that read only one place, no exposure meters at all, inaccurate shutters,
> shutters with only a few speeds, no shutters at all (that's what lens caps
> are for), huge & very heavy cameras, nothing waterproof, and on and on...
>
> As our forefathers and foremothers had no technology even close to what we
> spend hours arguing about, we have no idea how they took all those great
> pictures. Shouldn't we be taking pictures that are 10x better than
> their's? So, get out there and do actual photography.
>
> [Hum, I wonder if there is an inverse correlation between the ease and
> amount of technology and the photographic/pictorial quality of the
> picture?]
>
> ;-)
> Clyde

You read my mind!
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 9:53:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <dc-dnYf1BLnXiRffRVn-gg@comcast.com>,
Clyde <clyde@world.comedy> wrote:
>
>[Hum, I wonder if there is an inverse correlation between the ease and
>amount of technology and the photographic/pictorial quality of the picture?]


No. A good photographer will take good photographs with just about
any camera. Some good photographers have high-tech cameras, etc.
Therefore, some good photographs get taken on high-tech equipment.
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 3:13:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Clyde" <clyde@world.comedy> wrote in message
news:D c-dnYf1BLnXiRffRVn-gg@comcast.com...
> Stacey wrote:
> > Norm Dresner wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
> >>news:73qh81drsn6uu9a2sg5spnn91e8nme2prf@4ax.com...
> >>
> >>>They don't mince words;
> >>>Nikon D2x; Noise low right up to ISO 3200 where they call it
> >>>"moderately low."
> >>>Canon Digital Rebel XT: moderate at 800, unacceptable at 1600.
> >>>Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ20: Unacceptable at ISO 100(!)
> >>>
> >>
> >>And you think this is wrong why?
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > If they are looking for the noise in a given print size I agree. If they
are
> > looking at 100% crops from 8MP+ images, it's absurd. I've made 11X14
size
> > prints from files that look "noisy" at 100% but none of it is seen in
the
> > print so why would I care? I do suppose if your wanting to make 20X30
> > prints with no post processing it would matter.
> >
>
> Ah, Stacey. You know better than to bring actual photography into this
> newsgroup. This is a place for technical debate, personal opinions, and
> (if all else fails) flames. Here we talk about numbers. Pictures have no
> place.
>
> If your gear is not up to EVERYONE's spec (even if that is impossible)
> please confine yourself to actual photography. In actual photography you
> can actually use camera equipment that is not perfect. You are in luck,
> as 99.9% of the great photographs in this world were taken with
> equipment that wasn't even close to perfect -- by the standards of this
> group.
>
> For example, if you had a camera with any of these flaws, you wouldn't
> be able to take pictures: Film, very grainy film, very slow film, film
> that didn't see all or even most colors, film you had to make and
> develop yourself - on location, film with no color or bad color, manual
> focus lenses, really slow lenses, poor optics, primitive optic design,
> no lens coatings, no zooms lenses, no alternative lenses at all,
> exposure meters that read only one place, no exposure meters at all,
> inaccurate shutters, shutters with only a few speeds, no shutters at all
> (that's what lens caps are for), huge & very heavy cameras, nothing
> waterproof, and on and on...
>
> As our forefathers and foremothers had no technology even close to what
> we spend hours arguing about, we have no idea how they took all those
> great pictures. Shouldn't we be taking pictures that are 10x better than
> their's? So, get out there and do actual photography.
>
> [Hum, I wonder if there is an inverse correlation between the ease and
> amount of technology and the photographic/pictorial quality of the
picture?]
>
> ;-)
> Clyde

My first camera was a Kodak Instamatic (ca1973). My new camera is a
Panasonic FZ20.
There have been several in between, Practica, Nikon, Hanimex, Polaroid.
While they were all good enough in their time, I wouldn't want to have to go
back.
My 70's vintage Nikons were among the best in their day but they can't
compare to the features and control of the FZ20 and a good editor (psp9).
By the time that I have gotten good enough that the camera is a limitation,
better cameras will be available.
I'm looking forward to being as good as Ansel Adams, and hoping someone is
working on a 8x10" ccd ;) )
I'm sitting here, totally impressed by a 12X zoom with image stabilization,
a Leica lens and a card that holds 400 - 5MP images.
My goal is to get 1 or 2 good images per cardful, good enough that the image
makes up for the limitations of the photographer and his equipment.
I frankly don't have time to whine or worry about the limitations, real or
imagined, of the FZ20. I'm enjoying the hell out of this camera.
I'm having a great time finding out what the camera CAN DO and what I CAN DO
with it.
These are the good old days!
Jack
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 3:16:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

" look for stuff you'll never see in a print or viewing the
whole image on any monitor created today."

I don't know about that. I've already run into a few CA issues that I
would have never expected to be significant, until I got them on a
photo and they annoyed me.

And what's wrong with close inspection of your images? That doesn't
strike me as being overly obsessive.
May 18, 2005 3:29:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Clyde wrote:


>
> Ah, Stacey. You know better than to bring actual photography into this
> newsgroup. This is a place for technical debate, personal opinions, and
> (if all else fails) flames. Here we talk about numbers. Pictures have no
> place.
>


Sure they do, post an image to show the color the "firmware" creates or the
optical properties of the lens and all anyone wants to see is full screen
100%+ crops to look for stuff you'll never see in a print or viewing the
whole image on any monitor created today. These same "technoids" I guess
are used to looking at their film prints with a loupe or even a microscope?

Another case of they can't see the forest for the trees? If I can't see it
in the finished product, why would I even care about it? Then again you
can't graph objectivity.

--

Stacey
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 4:06:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Cost would be around $150,000, not
including the software to work with it. "

Be sure to compare the results with what you get from the Horseman.
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 6:05:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 17 May 2005 23:13:07 -0400, "Jack Rosier"
<jhrosier@berkshire.net> wrote:

>
>"Clyde" <clyde@world.comedy> wrote in message
>news:D c-dnYf1BLnXiRffRVn-gg@comcast.com...
>> Stacey wrote:
>> > Norm Dresner wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>> >>news:73qh81drsn6uu9a2sg5spnn91e8nme2prf@4ax.com...
>> >>
>> >>>They don't mince words;
>> >>>Nikon D2x; Noise low right up to ISO 3200 where they call it
>> >>>"moderately low."
>> >>>Canon Digital Rebel XT: moderate at 800, unacceptable at 1600.
>> >>>Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ20: Unacceptable at ISO 100(!)
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>And you think this is wrong why?
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > If they are looking for the noise in a given print size I agree. If they
>are
>> > looking at 100% crops from 8MP+ images, it's absurd. I've made 11X14
>size
>> > prints from files that look "noisy" at 100% but none of it is seen in
>the
>> > print so why would I care? I do suppose if your wanting to make 20X30
>> > prints with no post processing it would matter.
>> >
>>
>> Ah, Stacey. You know better than to bring actual photography into this
>> newsgroup. This is a place for technical debate, personal opinions, and
>> (if all else fails) flames. Here we talk about numbers. Pictures have no
>> place.
>>
>> If your gear is not up to EVERYONE's spec (even if that is impossible)
>> please confine yourself to actual photography. In actual photography you
>> can actually use camera equipment that is not perfect. You are in luck,
>> as 99.9% of the great photographs in this world were taken with
>> equipment that wasn't even close to perfect -- by the standards of this
>> group.
>>
>> For example, if you had a camera with any of these flaws, you wouldn't
>> be able to take pictures: Film, very grainy film, very slow film, film
>> that didn't see all or even most colors, film you had to make and
>> develop yourself - on location, film with no color or bad color, manual
>> focus lenses, really slow lenses, poor optics, primitive optic design,
>> no lens coatings, no zooms lenses, no alternative lenses at all,
>> exposure meters that read only one place, no exposure meters at all,
>> inaccurate shutters, shutters with only a few speeds, no shutters at all
>> (that's what lens caps are for), huge & very heavy cameras, nothing
>> waterproof, and on and on...
>>
>> As our forefathers and foremothers had no technology even close to what
>> we spend hours arguing about, we have no idea how they took all those
>> great pictures. Shouldn't we be taking pictures that are 10x better than
>> their's? So, get out there and do actual photography.
>>
>> [Hum, I wonder if there is an inverse correlation between the ease and
>> amount of technology and the photographic/pictorial quality of the
>picture?]
>>
>> ;-)
>> Clyde
>
>My first camera was a Kodak Instamatic (ca1973). My new camera is a
>Panasonic FZ20.
>There have been several in between, Practica, Nikon, Hanimex, Polaroid.
>While they were all good enough in their time, I wouldn't want to have to go
>back.
>My 70's vintage Nikons were among the best in their day but they can't
>compare to the features and control of the FZ20 and a good editor (psp9).
>By the time that I have gotten good enough that the camera is a limitation,
>better cameras will be available.
>I'm looking forward to being as good as Ansel Adams, and hoping someone is
>working on a 8x10" ccd ;) )

You could make one. Just use 20, 16-22 megapixel CCDs in an array,
and then remove the dividing lines in software. Trouble is, images
would be about 7 gig each. Cost would be around $150,000, not
including the software to work with it.
-Rich

>I'm sitting here, totally impressed by a 12X zoom with image stabilization,
>a Leica lens and a card that holds 400 - 5MP images.
>My goal is to get 1 or 2 good images per cardful, good enough that the image
>makes up for the limitations of the photographer and his equipment.
>I frankly don't have time to whine or worry about the limitations, real or
>imagined, of the FZ20. I'm enjoying the hell out of this camera.
>I'm having a great time finding out what the camera CAN DO and what I CAN DO
>with it.
>These are the good old days!
>Jack
>
May 18, 2005 1:49:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Owamanga wrote:
> On Tue, 17 May 2005 10:55:02 -0500, Clyde <clyde@world.comedy> wrote:
<snip>

>>As our forefathers and foremothers had no technology even close to what
>>we spend hours arguing about, we have no idea how they took all those
>>great pictures. Shouldn't we be taking pictures that are 10x better than
>>their's? So, get out there and do actual photography.
>
>
> Well a lot weren't actually that great. Many are interesting purely
> because they are old - and evolution let only the best ones survive.
>
>
>>[Hum, I wonder if there is an inverse correlation between the ease and
>>amount of technology and the photographic/pictorial quality of the picture?]
>
>
> It's been discussed here before, and I am convinced this is true in
> many situations. However, timing is an important part of some types of
> photography (and I don't mean sunrise for landscapes, I mean split
> second reactions to events that are unfolding). In these situations
> you'll simply fail to get the photograph if you are forced to do it
> the old way: ..starting with getting out your tape measure etc to set
> the focus..
>
> --
> Owamanga!
> http://www.pbase.com/owamanga

Good point. A photo can be great for the time it was shot too. A man
getting his shoes polish in a French city square isn't that interesting
until you know that it is the first human ever caught on film. Then it's
great. Jackson's shots of the American West and Yellowstone aren't great
technical photos, by today's standards. However, they told a story to
the audience of the time. After the civil war, Brady couldn't give his
photos away. They were great during the war and much later. However, the
feature of shooting to the time also turns them into important history.

Sometimes it isn't noticed until later. I'm sure that we've missed a few
completely. A guy shooting night shots, with flash bulbs, of the last
American steam powered trains isn't great until the audience has
forgotten about steam trains. Then they are seen as great. OK, the
technical was pretty good on these too.

My point, building on yours, is that photographs are communication
devices. They have to speak to an audience. They have to say something
to a significant number of people to be important. That will always come
through the ART of photography and not through its CRAFT. Therefore, any
photographer who can do that, can do it with any camera.

Alas, it doesn't make for very good arguing in newsgroups. It's hard to
make yourself seem important with your opinions-as-fact if you focus on
the art. (Hum, it makes me wonder why I'm in here reading all of it.)

Thanks,
Clyde
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 3:57:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <k6SdnXAjdsVVLxffRVn-oA@berkshire.net>, Jack Rosier
<jhrosier@berkshire.net> wrote:

> I'm looking forward to being as good as Ansel Adams, and hoping someone is
> working on a 8x10" ccd ;) )

Why would you want a grayscale CCD?

<G>
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 7:18:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:73qh81drsn6uu9a2sg5spnn91e8nme2prf@4ax.com...
> They don't mince words;
> Nikon D2x; Noise low right up to ISO 3200 where they call it
> "moderately low."
> Canon Digital Rebel XT: moderate at 800, unacceptable at 1600.
> Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ20: Unacceptable at ISO 100(!)

The reviews that I've seen have the XT as moderate at 1600, with the D2x as
noisy at 1600. Even Ken Rockwell, who is loathe to say anything negative
about Nikon, states: " The D2x also has noisy pushed modes of ISO 1,600 and
3,200 ISO called H1 and H2"

With Popular Photography, you may want to count the advertising inches of
each manufacturer, and factor that into the results of their tests. They are
the Motor Trend of photography magazines.
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 2:28:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Steve Cutchen" <maxfaq@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:180520050657467237%maxfaq@earthlink.net...
> In article <k6SdnXAjdsVVLxffRVn-oA@berkshire.net>, Jack Rosier
> <jhrosier@berkshire.net> wrote:
>
> > I'm looking forward to being as good as Ansel Adams, and hoping someone
is
> > working on a 8x10" ccd ;) )
>
> Why would you want a grayscale CCD?
>
> <G>
Steve,
Let's imagine a 7GIG (thanks for doing the math, Rich) grayscale image...
The detail, sharpness and dynamic range would be at least breathtaking.
Of course, then we would have to find a printing process that could do the
image justice (it just never ends).

The whole point is to take whatever imperfect camera you can lay your hands
on now and learn to use it effectively.
I worked, by choice, pretty much exclusively in BNW for a couple of years
and never felt that it was a disadvantage.
I still sometimes feel that the presence of color can be a distraction.
IMHO, a great image is great for reasons that transcend the medium, be it
color, BNW, or green lumber crayon on a shopping bag.
Jack
May 19, 2005 5:06:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

James Of Tucson wrote:

>
> And what's wrong with close inspection of your images? That doesn't
> strike me as being overly obsessive.


??? Looking for things you'd never see in a print? I can see being bothered
by CA that can be seen, but looking at the individual pixels for noise?
Maybe looking at 100% images was important when using a 2MP camera, I can't
see it today.

--

Stacey
May 19, 2005 5:09:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Clyde wrote:

>
> Alas, it doesn't make for very good arguing in newsgroups. It's hard to
> make yourself seem important with your opinions-as-fact if you focus on
> the art. (Hum, it makes me wonder why I'm in here reading all of it.)
>


Good arguement. :-)

--

Stacey
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 6:05:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <dc-dnYf1BLnXiRffRVn-gg@comcast.com>,
Clyde <clyde@world.comedy> wrote:

>Ah, Stacey. You know better than to bring actual photography into this
>newsgroup. This is a place for technical debate, personal opinions, and
>(if all else fails) flames. Here we talk about numbers. Pictures have no
>place.

This is a newsgroup dedicated to a certain type of technology. Perhaps
you need to get your bearings straight.

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 6:14:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <dc-dnYf1BLnXiRffRVn-gg@comcast.com>,
Clyde <clyde@world.comedy> wrote:

>As our forefathers and foremothers had no technology even close to what
>we spend hours arguing about, we have no idea how they took all those
>great pictures. Shouldn't we be taking pictures that are 10x better than
>their's? So, get out there and do actual photography.

That's all very nice, but this newsgroup is about a certain type of
camera, not about the zen of photography.

Just because people talk about technical issues here, doesn't mean that
they couldn't appreciate low-tech photography. The criticisms are about
the tech, not the art!

There are also people who are only interested in the tech, and they have
every right to be so, and it's none of your business.


--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
May 19, 2005 6:14:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:

> In message <dc-dnYf1BLnXiRffRVn-gg@comcast.com>,
> Clyde <clyde@world.comedy> wrote:
>
>>As our forefathers and foremothers had no technology even close to what
>>we spend hours arguing about, we have no idea how they took all those
>>great pictures. Shouldn't we be taking pictures that are 10x better than
>>their's? So, get out there and do actual photography.
>
> That's all very nice, but this newsgroup is about a certain type of
> camera, not about the zen of photography.

No this group seems to ONLY be about high ISO noise performance PERIOD. No
one ever discusses the look certain lenses in a system have, only test
chart resolution performance. No one ever discusses how the color
renditions of the different camera's compare, only shoot color charts for
absolute color accuracy. At least the film groups talk about how the
different films look from each other but here it's like that doesn't
matter, only 100% crop checking for noise?

>
> There are also people who are only interested in the tech,

No they are ONLY interested in the technical aspects that their personal
camera choice excells in. Start talking dynamic range, lens contrast etc
and no one seems to care.

Again my point was why give a damn about what an image blown up WAY beyond
what it would ever be blow up to looks like? I know a film shot done on
800asa film is going to be a grainy mess at 30X40, doesn't mean it won't
make a wonderful 8X10 print, so why judge this image at 30X40 magnification
which is eactly what looking at a 8MP image 100% on screen is doing.

--

Stacey
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 6:22:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <3evr48F4vv51U1@individual.net>,
Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Another case of they can't see the forest for the trees? If I can't see it
>in the finished product, why would I even care about it? Then again you
>can't graph objectivity.

Stacey, look at the name of this newsgroup ... could it be that this
newsgroup might exist to discuss the features and qualities of different
DSLRs? DO WE HAVE TO TURN EVERY GROUP INTO A GENERAL PHOTOGRAPHY GROUP?
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
May 19, 2005 1:34:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:
> In message <dc-dnYf1BLnXiRffRVn-gg@comcast.com>,
> Clyde <clyde@world.comedy> wrote:
>
>
>>Ah, Stacey. You know better than to bring actual photography into this
>>newsgroup. This is a place for technical debate, personal opinions, and
>>(if all else fails) flames. Here we talk about numbers. Pictures have no
>>place.
>
>
> This is a newsgroup dedicated to a certain type of technology. Perhaps
> you need to get your bearings straight.
>

You are absolutely right. I'd rather be a photographer than a camera
technician. Therefore, this isn't the right group for me. Thanks.

Then again, what good is technology without a purpose? The technology of
DSLR cameras is rather interesting. However, it only makes sense if it
does anything for pictures.

Clyde
May 19, 2005 1:47:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:
> In message <dc-dnYf1BLnXiRffRVn-gg@comcast.com>,
> Clyde <clyde@world.comedy> wrote:
>
>
>>As our forefathers and foremothers had no technology even close to what
>>we spend hours arguing about, we have no idea how they took all those
>>great pictures. Shouldn't we be taking pictures that are 10x better than
>>their's? So, get out there and do actual photography.
>
>
> That's all very nice, but this newsgroup is about a certain type of
> camera, not about the zen of photography.
>
> Just because people talk about technical issues here, doesn't mean that
> they couldn't appreciate low-tech photography. The criticisms are about
> the tech, not the art!
>
> There are also people who are only interested in the tech, and they have
> every right to be so, and it's none of your business.
>
>

I have no problem with people talking about the technical issues of
DSLRs. I'm just questioning the usefulness of unproductive arguing,
unwavering bullheadedness, and silly fighting over things that don't do
anything to improve photographs.

OK, if the discussions were actually civil and the members showed basic
human consideration, it might be more useful. I keep thinking of the old
saying "a man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still".
i.e. Arguing never accomplishes anything, except to puff up your own
ego. I guess newsgroups will never learn that.

Thanks for this discussion. While I am not sure what is "none of my
business", I am now sure that this group does nothing to enhance my
goals in photography. I will leave when I have answered all replies.

Thanks,
Clyde
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 2:16:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <1rtn8191jnc4h1e7ms6gcthi17bst8i4l4@4ax.com>, <JPS@no.komm> wrote:
>In message <3evr48F4vv51U1@individual.net>,
>Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Another case of they can't see the forest for the trees? If I can't see it
>>in the finished product, why would I even care about it? Then again you
>>can't graph objectivity.
>
>Stacey, look at the name of this newsgroup ... could it be that this
>newsgroup might exist to discuss the features and qualities of different
>DSLRs? DO WE HAVE TO TURN EVERY GROUP INTO A GENERAL PHOTOGRAPHY GROUP?

But if goal is to use a camera to take pictures then some reflection on
whether differences that can be measured are actually relevant seems
appropriate.

If noise is clearly visible at 100dpi (i.e., at a computer screen at 100%)
then a case can be made that in some large prints it may become an issue.
However, printing an 8 Mpixel image at 100dpi results in a 23"x35" print,
which may be bit excessive.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 3:30:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Clyde wrote:

> I have no problem with people talking about the technical issues of
> DSLRs. I'm just questioning the usefulness of unproductive arguing,
> unwavering bullheadedness, and silly fighting over things that don't do
> anything to improve photographs.

I've rarely seen an ng where there isn't a degree of such behavior. It
is much less unpleasant here than in other NG's.

> OK, if the discussions were actually civil and the members showed basic
> human consideration, it might be more useful. I keep thinking of the old
> saying "a man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still".
> i.e. Arguing never accomplishes anything, except to puff up your own
> ego. I guess newsgroups will never learn that.

Newsgroups are made up of very different people. For the less socially
inclined, it is an unfettered place where they can be less polite with
high isolation against societal correction.

For honest debators, "argument" is not vindictive, it is a means to
discovering new insights and occasional flashes of hard truth. Being
"right" on a technical matter rarely has much bearing on producing
better photos.

> Thanks for this discussion. While I am not sure what is "none of my
> business", I am now sure that this group does nothing to enhance my
> goals in photography. I will leave when I have answered all replies.

Do as you like. Equipment groups such as this one tend to focus on the
equipment. No surprise. Some participants are less than objectively
loyal to their particular chosen brand.

If you do listen carefully, you will hear discussions of technique, more
to the technical as opposed to aesthtic side. The technical can help
improve photography (witness the "sunset" thread), but only a given
photographer can improve his photography in a whole manner, by actually
going out and making photographs. Essential to this is the presentation
of photographs for others to enjoy and comment, or gasp, criticize.

On that note, I do suggest a monthly or so visit to the galleries at
www.photo.net and a look at the high scoring (by number of views) photos
there.

Cheers,
Alan
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 8:15:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Clyde <clyde@world.comedy> wrote:
>
>I have no problem with people talking about the technical issues of
>DSLRs. I'm just questioning the usefulness of unproductive arguing,
>unwavering bullheadedness, and silly fighting over things that don't do
>anything to improve photographs.


You can be 100% certain that most of the regular posters here simply
don't know how to take good photographs, digital or otherwise. If
they did know how, they would be out doing exactly that, rather than
spending their time doing the things you mentioned above.
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 8:15:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:33bp815m87eh9c26s1gn54mlpf4h2qg32q@4ax.com...
> Clyde <clyde@world.comedy> wrote:
> >
> >I have no problem with people talking about the technical issues of
> >DSLRs. I'm just questioning the usefulness of unproductive arguing,
> >unwavering bullheadedness, and silly fighting over things that don't do
> >anything to improve photographs.
>
>
> You can be 100% certain that most of the regular posters here simply
> don't know how to take good photographs, digital or otherwise. If
> they did know how, they would be out doing exactly that, rather than
> spending their time doing the things you mentioned above.
>

You can be 100% certain that this is most overused putdown on Usenet.

Greg
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 8:44:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> Clyde wrote:
>
>> I'm just questioning the usefulness of unproductive arguing, unwavering
>> bullheadedness, and silly fighting over things that don't do anything to
>> improve photographs.

"Alan Browne" wrote:
> I've rarely seen an ng where there isn't a degree of such behavior.

There is one.
alt.binaries.photos.original is populated by people with a genuine interest
in taking photographs.
Comments are always positive and supportive.
Practical help is available and freely given.
It's a place to learn from each other and contributions encompass the full
spectrum from family snaps to superb wildlife, macro, sport, landscape,
portraiture.... it's all there in a great friendly NG
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 8:44:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Thu, 19 May 2005 11:45:49 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>Tumbleweed wrote:
>
>> portraiture.... it's all there in a great friendly NG
>
>I'll be sure to go and mess it up!

Hey that was my plan!

...37,000 headers are taking a little while to come in...

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 9:24:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

<JPS@no.komm> wrote:

> Stacey, look at the name of this newsgroup ... could it be that this
> newsgroup might exist to discuss the features and qualities of different
> DSLRs? DO WE HAVE TO TURN EVERY GROUP INTO A GENERAL PHOTOGRAPHY GROUP?

Where is the general photography group, where people care more about
photography than brand wars and pixel peeping?

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 9:24:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

<JPS@no.komm> wrote:

> That's all very nice, but this newsgroup is about a certain type of
> camera, not about the zen of photography.

This newsgroup is about brand advocacy, unfortunately.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 9:25:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Tumbleweed <Shovels@five.paces> wrote:

> There is one.
> alt.binaries.photos.original is populated by people with a genuine interest
> in taking photographs.

Well, thanks. I'll definitely have to check that out...

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 9:27:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:

>
>"Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.net> wrote in message
>news:33bp815m87eh9c26s1gn54mlpf4h2qg32q@4ax.com...
>> Clyde <clyde@world.comedy> wrote:
>> >
>> >I have no problem with people talking about the technical issues of
>> >DSLRs. I'm just questioning the usefulness of unproductive arguing,
>> >unwavering bullheadedness, and silly fighting over things that don't do
>> >anything to improve photographs.
>>
>>
>> You can be 100% certain that most of the regular posters here simply
>> don't know how to take good photographs, digital or otherwise. If
>> they did know how, they would be out doing exactly that, rather than
>> spending their time doing the things you mentioned above.
>>
>
>You can be 100% certain that this is most overused putdown on Usenet.


Overused? The only thing that is overused is bandwidth.

My comments are probably valid across much of Usenet, but nowhere more
so than in the rec.photo newsgroups.
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 9:27:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Thu, 19 May 2005 17:27:50 +0100, Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote:

>"G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.net> wrote in message
>>news:33bp815m87eh9c26s1gn54mlpf4h2qg32q@4ax.com...
>>> Clyde <clyde@world.comedy> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >I have no problem with people talking about the technical issues of
>>> >DSLRs. I'm just questioning the usefulness of unproductive arguing,
>>> >unwavering bullheadedness, and silly fighting over things that don't do
>>> >anything to improve photographs.
>>>
>>>
>>> You can be 100% certain that most of the regular posters here simply
>>> don't know how to take good photographs, digital or otherwise. If
>>> they did know how, they would be out doing exactly that, rather than
>>> spending their time doing the things you mentioned above.
>>>
>>
>>You can be 100% certain that this is most overused putdown on Usenet.
>
>
>Overused? The only thing that is overused is bandwidth.
>
>My comments are probably valid across much of Usenet, but nowhere more
>so than in the rec.photo newsgroups.
>

Lets say someone was more interested in the technical aspects
of photography than photography itself. Why is that so bad?
It's just another interest.
-Rich
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 9:46:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Thu, 19 May 2005 17:25:44 -0000, Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com>
wrote:

>Tumbleweed <Shovels@five.paces> wrote:
>
>> There is one.
>> alt.binaries.photos.original is populated by people with a genuine interest
>> in taking photographs.
>
>Well, thanks. I'll definitely have to check that out...

Hmm, after 20 seconds of painstakingly careful review, I come to the
conclusion that the NG is just a big load of back-slapping.

'ooh nice', 'great shot', 'oh, I could just eat those', 'lovely',
'nice series giles' 'What a cutie, Bob. I know you're proud. :-)
Great baby shot!'

Bluuugggh!

...the other 50% of the posts are the original posters saying thank-you
to the backslappers for the back-slap.

<...must...control...fist..of...death...>

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 12:09:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Thu, 19 May 2005 09:47:39 -0500, Clyde <clyde@world.comedy> wrote:
>
> I have no problem with people talking about the technical issues of
> DSLRs. I'm just questioning the usefulness of unproductive arguing,
> unwavering bullheadedness, and silly fighting over things that don't do
> anything to improve photographs.

Don't bother. Those who want to do that will do it.

I try to think of this as being actually two newsgroups -- one for
boring flamage, and one for actual discussion. When I catch myself
following up to a flame thread, I just remind myself that that's
not the newsgroup I want to be part of, and cancel the post. :-)

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 12:12:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Thu, 19 May 2005 10:16:31 +0200, Philip Homburg
<philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl> wrote:
>
> If noise is clearly visible at 100dpi (i.e., at a computer screen at 100%)

I believe most computer screens are 72ppi.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 12:14:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ben Rosengart wrote:
> On Thu, 19 May 2005 10:16:31 +0200, Philip Homburg
> <philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl> wrote:
>>
>> If noise is clearly visible at 100dpi (i.e., at a computer screen at
>> 100%)
>
> I believe most computer screens are 72ppi.

My 19 inch LCD has 1024 pixels in 11.8 inches - so 87 pixels per inch.

David
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 12:40:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Thu, 19 May 2005 16:22:05 -0400, RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>
> Lets say someone was more interested in the technical aspects
> of photography than photography itself. Why is that so bad?
> It's just another interest.

If no one concentrated on the technical aspects, who would build the
digital cameras?

On the other hand, there are definitely some things that might be
done better if the camera boffins were also avid photographers. I
still very frequently wish that I could set my aperture and a range
of acceptable shutter speeds and let my camera pick the ISO to suit.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 12:58:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ben Rosengart wrote:

> On Thu, 19 May 2005 10:16:31 +0200, Philip Homburg
> <philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl> wrote:
>
>>If noise is clearly visible at 100dpi (i.e., at a computer screen at 100%)
>
>
> I believe most computer screens are 72ppi.

Mine is about 88. There is no 'fixed' standard. Each is what it is.



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 1:24:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Thu, 19 May 2005 17:24:49 -0000, Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com>
wrote:

> <JPS@no.komm> wrote:
>
>> That's all very nice, but this newsgroup is about a certain type of
>> camera, not about the zen of photography.
>
>This newsgroup is about brand advocacy, unfortunately.

To some extent. But it is probably inveitable, considering the fierce
brand loyalty of may photographers, both amateurs and professionals. I
stumbled in here a couple of months ago, and I don't think it's too
bad. One learns who are more and less into brand advocacy pretty
quickly.

Jan Böhme
Korrekta personuppgifter är att betrakta som journalistik.
Felaktigheter utgör naturligtvis skönlitteratur.
!