[LRflex] Re: The limits of digital... Is this a real limit?
- From: David Young <telyt@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 15:06:00 -0700
Aram Langhans wrote:
>I guess that was my point. If you are looking for perfection, then ISO 1600
>isn't the palce to get it, film or digital.
>
>Aram
>
Hi Aram!
Other than a slight increase in 'noise', the difference in detail
should be little or no different, no matter what ISO is used on a
digital camera. Unlike film, the detail at ISO 1600 is quite
amazing.... certainly far superior to film.
So, when the Waxwing's feather detail disappeared into the 'noise', I
wondered if the "limits of digital had been reached". Then answer, of
course, is 'no'. The problem was the nature of a Waxwing's feathers
(I'd never seen a Waxwing before) ... as proved by Doug's superb shot of
a Cedar Waxwing shot on ISO 100 film. His shot has a tiny bit more
feather detail, but then, judging from his use of a 400mm lens and the
lack of cropping, he was a LOT closer to his bird than I was to mine.
The fact that I "want" perfection, doesn't mean that I expect it. But,
if we are not in pursuit of perfection, both technically and
aesthetically, why are we using Leica's at all?
As Ted said, digi at ISO 1600 is much like film at ISO 400. A good
trade-off when using Telyt 400's with extenders!
BTW: I had a bog-standard 4x6" print made by the local 1-hr lab of the
waxwing. Surprisingly, it looks better as a print than it does on the
screen. Something that can't be said of most shots!
Cheers!
--
David Young,
Logan Lake, BC
CANADA.
Personal Web-site at: http://www3.telus.net/~telyt
Leica Reflex Forum web-page: http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm
------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm
Archives are at:
www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
Other related posts:
