With the right shot, even 3200 is quite usable. I've got a very nice 16x20 on the wall, shot with the D at 3200. No NR or anything.
-Adam Paul Stenquist wrote: > I'd definitely be happy with a print from a noisy ISO 1600 shot. I've > printed quite a few. To me, it's quite similar to grain. It looks > very nice in Bw. And, yes, I've sold some very noisy stock photos. > Art directors are strange animals. Frequently, they look for > something other than the usual or ordinary. Sometimes, grain or noise > works very well. > Paul > On Nov 23, 2006, at 12:26 PM, Markus Maurer wrote: > > >>Hi Paul >>while I agree that scanning negatives is a pain for me (doing it >>now) your >>latest high iso photo samples did not convince me noise wise. Could >>you sell >>such photos or would you be happy with a print from iso 1600? The >>SR feature >>of the K10D seems to be very useful on the other side as your >>latest lovely >>photo of grace easily showed. >>greetings >>Markus >> >> >> >>-----Ursprungliche Nachricht----- >>Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Auftrag >>von >>Paul Stenquist >>Gesendet: Donnerstag, 23. November 2006 13:59 >>An: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>Betreff: Re: Printing Digital Photos >> >> >>Yeah, it's pretty hard to go back to scanning film once you've been to >>the mountain. >> >>On Nov 23, 2006, at 1:29 AM, Doug Franklin wrote: >> >> >>>Howdy, folks, >>> >>>Well, today, I had my first real experience printing digital photos >>>captured on digital. I'm using the same Epson Stylus Photo 820 that >>>I've been using the last several years, and I'm still on Photoshop 7. >>>My system is well enough color-calibrated that I don't think twice >>>about >>>whether the print will match what I saw on screen. That's largely >>>luck >>>or something, but that's another story. >>> >>>The story is that for irrelevant reasons, I've been called upon to >>>generate 8" x 10" prints from some photos I shot with the *ist D. I >>>suddenly realized a few minutes ago that this was the first set of >>>prints I'd made from images captured directly to digital. >>> >>>In the past, I've done a lot of capturing and printing of digital >>>images, but it was always in workflows mediated by film. Shoot on >>>film. >>> Scan to digital. Digital workflow from there to prints. >>> >>>I've been scanning the film at 4000 ppi, and spending untold hours of >>>angst dealing with "Nyquist noise" ("grain aliasing"). I'm used to >>>having to dink with the levels extensively, or resort to curves a lot >>>of >>>the time, nontrivial amounts of "spotting" for dust and such. I'm >>>used >>>to having to apply some Gaussian Blur before the Unsharp Mask will do >>>what it ought to do. >>> >>>All I can say is "WOW!". Generating good to excellent prints took >>>about >>>90 seconds each ... load in PS, crop, 15 seconds in levels, set image >>>size for print size, print ... about 0.01 of the time I'm used to >>>doing >>>to get a decent print of a film image scanned to digital. "WOW!" >>> >>>-- >>>Thanks, >>>DougF (KG4LMZ) >>> >>>-- >>>PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>[email protected] >>>http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> >> >> >>-- >>PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>[email protected] >>http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> >> >>-- >>PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>[email protected] >>http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
