gdanmitchell
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: 5D2 banding: what does it take? | |
You want to simplify my position on this issue so that you can make it seem absurd, don\'t you?
I suppose in a sense you might simplify what I wrote to \"the problem doesn\'t exist.\" But before you continue down that path, please read what I wrote about this. My point was not that the 5D2 (or any other camera) is perfect or without room for improvement. In fact, my point was pretty much exactly the opposite of that, and it had more to do with what I characterize as an obsession with issues like this one in general.
I have yet to meet the perfect camera, the perfect lens, the perfect film/sensor, or the perfect much of anything. However, I have met less than perfect cameras, lenses, and film/sensors that do a phenomenal job producing photographic images.
If you - or I, right? - post an opinion in a forum we can all assume that there may be other different opinions. If your point is that the only people who should post in a forum on \"noise banding on he 5D2\" are those who agree that noise banding on the 5D2 is a major issue or who otherwise agree to your notions of what is proper to post, I think it would make more sense for you to get a blog and just post an article on your position and not accept comments or consider alternate points of view. In a forum it isn\'t up to you to say which posts are and are not appropriate - though I grant that you are also free to have an opinion about this...
In a later post you made a comment about (to paraphrase) \"the pattern noise bothers everyone who has come across it\" and \"if you haven\'t come across it\" just be happy and go away. Again, you seem to need to misrepresent that alternate point of view so that you can denigrate it. Although I\'m clearly in the \"stop obsessing about this\" camp, I actually posted a sample image (in this thread, IIRC) that I said showed noise banding. So the \"if you haven\'t come across it\" point is merely a distraction. I can produce it... but only by a series of steps that typically include: significant underexposure, pushing the darkest areas of the underexposed frame by rather extreme amounts, typically also or alternatively altering curves/fill/black point. viewing the image at 100% magnification on the screen, and looking very closely.
My point is not that this particular artifact does not exist - I\'m quite sure I\'ve never written that, but please point out to me where I did if I\'m mistaken. What I have written more than once - and here, yet again - is that I\'ve made many thousands of exposures with this camera during the past year including quite a few with a dynamic range larger than that which the 5D2 sensor (or other DSLR sensors) can handle and that I\'ve never encountered this problem in a way that would be remotely visible in a large print, and even when it is visible at 100% on the screen, better exposure technique would have resolved it.
I know this won\'t change your mind, but I don\'t want my point of view misrepresented.
Dan
Daan B wrote:
gdanmitchell wrote:
AdrianRogers wrote:
... I know a couple of friends, not too dissimilar to many members on here (from my brief browsing experience).. To say they\'re always focused on the technical is an understatement. You know the type, prefers viewing their photos at 100% than in print. It just baffles me when they could tell me the perfect body/lens/shutter/aperture/light ratio combo for the most well exposed, tack sharp photo you\'ve ever seen in your life, yet i\'ve still not seen a single photograph that moves me emotionally. It is genuinely quite sad...
The irony is that some - though perhaps not all - of those for whom technical perfection from equipment is the ultimate goal would find themselves completely lost if they ever achieved it.
It seems to me that what such folks enjoy (and, in fact, almost all of us enjoy at least to some extent) is not technical perfection but the pursuit of technical perfection. If a person whose focus is 100% on technical perfection arrived at this state... there would be nothing left for them.
One of the wonderful things about photographs and making them (as opposed to twiddling with mechanical/optical/electronic devices) is that you\'ll never create an absolutely perfect image. If you work hard, have vision, skill, and luck you will get gratifyingly close from time to time (and you\'ll fail a lot, too) but the goal still hangs out there in front of you.
The fact is that we live in a world of wonderful, powerful photography technology that rarely holds us back nearly as much as the limitations of our own vision and dedication. Use what you have. Make photographs.
Dan
Oh, you guys are above it all... 
Too bad this thread is AGAIN turning into a \"the problem doesn\'t exist\" vs \"the problem does exist\" debate... This is just sad 
Can we just stick to finding ways to work around the \"problem\" - for those who are bothered by it anyway, PLEASE?
|
