Yeah, I agree, Godfrey. You are right about the exposure too. I just checked the EXIF. They are not spot on. Some are "over" exposed +0.70, compensating for the backlit scenery. That's OK. But others are "under" exposed by -0.3 (the ones with two kids). This is obvioulsy a mistake - I probably have attemptet to set it back in "neutral", but I over did it :-(.
Since they ar e all shot with an M lens (4/75-150mm), metering is not too accurate - since i must press the green button every now and then. So, I am looking foreward to recieving my A 3.5/35-105mm wich would have been much better for shots like these. BTW: I have shot RAW exclusivly, for the last year or so. I won't go back to JPEGs again. Regards Jens Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Godfrey DiGiorgi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 13. februar 2006 21:24 Til: [email protected] Emne: Re: New High End DSLR Speculation On Feb 13, 2006, at 11:43 AM, Jens Bladt wrote: > It is perhaps true, that more exposure reduces the noice - I never > thought > of that - didn't know. Rather, underexposure increases noise. Your shots are slightly underexposed. > Overexposing in order to reduce noise, will still require even longer > speeds, thus more ISO! Do some testing. I think you'll find that similar subjects with a +0.3-0.7EV exposure gain will net better results and not cost you terribly on exposure time. Remember, when you're working RAW, you want to get your exposure as close to the saturation limit as possible without losing details in the highlight areas that are important. That gives the best data to render shadow values smoothly. > But I frequently have to use Neat Image to try to restore > photographs made > at ISO 3200. > I would like not to have to. I almost never even use the noise reduction in Camera Raw other than at its default settings, even with ISO 3200, and I don't feel that my prints are unacceptably noisy for professional presentation prints. > I still want lower noice from the next generation of Petntax DSLR's > - which > was what we were originally discussing. Lower noise is nearly always a good thing, just like less grain. Not always, but nearly always. Godfrey
