If at first, you don't succeed, get a cold, sit back and feel miserable.
THEN - take another shot at it.
Same old lowering Maine sky, perspective corrected to avoid vertigo.
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Misc/Clouds.htm>
New subject, the beautiful old boat I got to tool around Moosehead Lake in.
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Misc/ChrisCraft.htm>
The point I thought I was headed for is that lots of talk about ISO invariance, 12 vs. 14 bit, and so, on may overstate
problems and distract from the primary job of making good photos.
These two photos were taken in 2001, with the then new Canon Digital IXUS v / S110
Digital Elph P&S camera.
This is an 8 bit camera, producing only JPEGs. Might be 10 bit, internally??
It's maximum image size is 1600x1200 pixels, a whopping 1.9 MP. What you see in these examples is actually pixel peeping
@ 100%.
ISO is spec. is 100, mostly: "ISO 100 equivalent (automatically raised to ISO
150 equivalent in low light)" EXIF mostly says ISO 69, with a handful from
there to close to 150.
Soooo, If shadows can be raised this way on such image files, where's the
problem for contemporary sensor systems?
Wayne raises the question of 12 vs. 14 bit ADCs, and how that might improve shadows. Yeah, the theory is clear, but does
it really matter, in practice? I have trouble imagining how in my example of high DR still life with the GX85, 14 bits
would have improved it.
Shadowy Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|