Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 2, Issue 509 - filtering
Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 2, Issue 509 - filtering
- Subject: Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 2, Issue 509 - filtering
- From: Nathan Duran <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 14:48:02 -0800
- Thread-topic: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 2, Issue 509 - filtering
> I would also point out that the noise in the red channel does increase
> slightly when the blue filter is used. However, this increase is not as great
> as the blue channel without the filter.
Were any of the differences visible in actual prints? If I were anywhere
near my equipment I'd test it myself, but as it stands, I'm not seeing a
huge difference between 3a and 4a in Gordon's examples unless I isolate the
blue channel (which pretty much never happens unless I'm trying to convert a
black-light lit shot to grayscale or something), and I was able to obtain
eminently pleasing results that easily bested 3a after a bare minimum of
fiddling with the NR parameters applied to 4a (visually speaking, anyway; I
don't have access to a Windows machine to run that S/N measuring utility
with).
Blue channel comparison (mine's at the top):
http://www.khisf.com/tungsten.jpg
I did partially mask out portions of the DVD cover (or whatever that is) as
there was some minor detail loss taking place in the blue channel there, but
that process took me less time than it would to screw a filter on a lens. If
there were thousands of shots to retouch then that absolutely would be a
significant and unacceptable expenditure, but how often do you have
thousands of keepers from a single shoot? If you're that good then you can
certainly afford to pay a retouch artist to do it for you.
The filter obviously makes a difference, but it's nothing that's going to
make me run out and buy one for every lens I own and throw 2 stops to the
dogs (I can just drop down to ISO 100 if I want to do that). Much of the
remaining graininess will simply not appear when printed at any reasonable
size for that resolution. I enjoyed the days of the wet darkroom as much as
the next person, and I can understand a certain degree of Photoshop-phobia,
but staunch traditionalists who regard any manner of post-production as an
overt attempt at masking one's own incompetence with a camera should
probably stay away from digital altogether, as pixel twiddling is as
unavoidable as the stench of fixer in your clothing once was.
I'm sure there are legitimate applications for colored filters with digital
cameras, but based on this evidence, noise reduction isn't something I'd say
they do well enough to justify their purchase, and of course a lot of this
is meaningless if you happen to use a mosaic-less
sensor............//.,m,..<G>G<G><G?G<G?G<>GGG><G...........................
......................,,
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden