I see different skin tones in the images. Unattractive tones in the
mixed lighting of a stadium, but looking remarkably similar to the
way people look in that setting. Attractive and natural skin tones in
natural light. Remarkably preserved skin tones at very high ISO. I
don't think you can lump them all together.
I may be a heathen when it comes to this though. I am frequently
repelled by "beautiful skin tones" that look as artificial as a
Playboy centerfold albeit with more clothing. It seems to me that
skin should look like skin. So I am not even sure what the phrase means.
The one thing that no one has mentioned that really impressed me was
the individual pixel sharpness. I had thought that the D2X was the
champ with that, but it is surpassed by this camera. At 100 percent
there is little in the way of a clue to indicate that you are looking
at that resolution. It looks as good as most cameras at 50%. Good job
by Canon indeed.
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On Apr 24, 2007, at 10:43 AM, Jim Couch wrote:
> Who cares about skin tones, it's all about the noise! :)
>
> You are not the only one, I think they are just plain horrid.
>
> Jim
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|