> > From: Aaron Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2006/04/05 Wed PM 12:57:59 GMT > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Why dustproblems ? (WasRE: *ist D vs DS2, some questions) > > > On Apr 5, 2006, at 3:47 AM, mike wilson wrote: > > > You have _no_ hot/dead pixels? Anyone else? > > No, I wouldn't say that I have no hot or dead pixels -- someone > previously said that the camera's software knows where these pixels are > and compensates in some way. However, I do not get these spots like > what you saw in the link I put up previously. Knowing now that these > are sensor defects, if that were my camera I would have returned it as > unacceptable -- there are probably a dozen.
That sems to be about average...... > > The whole point of shooting digital, for me, is faster turnaround. Why > should I expect to spend time in post for this? It's also the same > reason I'm not shooting RAW -- if I want to spend time afterwards to > work on the photographs, I'll shoot 6x7 and scan it and get a better > result. Shhhhh! You'll wake up the Inquisition..... > > We'll see if any of these spots manifest themselves after shooting for > three or four hours at ISO 1600 the whole time on Thursday night. But > even in casual use, those spots were all over Dave Brooks' D (sorry > Dave). I have not yet seen a single image with these spots out of my > DS2 (going on 5000 images). > > Could this simply be improved software on the camera? My understanding is that there is software to deal with this in camera and you can also (_at specific sizes_) produce actions in PS to "phix" the problem with, relatively, very little effort. Certainly less effort than dust spotting takes. mike ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
