Re: [Nikon D100 D200] High ISO's

Another good set of points.  

Everything has it's place though.  I have a 32" LCD HDTV set and 
there are certain things that I am in awe of when I watch them on 
the HDTV Channels.   But then, there are some things that just don't 
look right unless they are high in contrast, black and white or 
grainy.  Back when Turner started colorizing old movies, I was one 
that was apalled at the idea.   I don't remember if they ever did it 
but, to colorize, or digitally enhance and improve Citizen Kane, for 
example, would be a sin. The whole cheracter of that film was it's 
lighting, the black and white and the film that was chosen to record 
it.  

Likewise, with still photography, I think films and digital are like 
tools in your tool box. There is a job that each one is better 
suited for.  Like was mentioned, there are people spending a lot of 
money developing and buying software to mimic or duplicate some of 
those cheracteristics for Digital and for Video.  Switches on 
camcorders to add a film grain effect or in digital cameras to add 
sepia toning etc.  Software that will put scratches, dust and pops 
on your video to make it look like an old reel of film.   Film 
Makers are doing all kinds of things to make their video look like 
old film stocks.  Sometimes to put into a movie and have look like 
it was filmed back in the 40s or 60s...   Using the color palattes 
of some of the older news reel films or the grain and so on.   

You can make use of the noise or grain of high ISOs for creative 
purposes.   What is it that was said with the introducing of Video 
Toaster???   Something about breaking the paredigm (sp?)  Break free 
and try things.  As I said in an earlier post, it is all part of the 
balancing of all the tools and settings that you have to work with.  
To create the image or effect that suits your artistic vision.  

There are things that look good in the sanitized sharpness of HDTV.  
Some sports for example.  A program that I saw on Discovery HD the 
other night about National Parks and railroads.  It was fantastic.  
But, there is something about news photos that have some grain to 
them, Like those that were described shot on Tri-X and pushed to 800 
etc.  Or Black and White photos for documentry or journalism that 
add a mood and a feeling to what the viewer experiences.  Just like 
with film/Video, the flicker of the different frame rate or the 
slightly "Pixilated" feel of the film vs. Video.  Film being shot at 
24 fps Progressive v. Video at 60 fps Interlaced.  My Canon XL2 has 
a switch on it where I can shoot normally at 60i(interlaced), or use 
other settings like 30p (progressive) or 24p.  I can shoot video 
that will look, when viewed, like that coming out of a Motion 
Picture Film camera, except for the grain.  I have never tried it 
but I understand, using Final Cut Pro (APPLE) or other editing 
programs, I can then add the grain, scratches, dust, and pops to 
make video look like film.   What a world....    

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I think we are missing something here. Not every shot is the money 
shot,  and 
> most if not all "film based" money shots were done when the 
photographer  
> pushed the limits. I am talking about photo journalism. They were 
not concerned  
> about grain/noise, they were more concerned with getting the image 
that 
> captures  the moment. I have some old 8x10's that I shot in the 
New York City Subway 
>  stations as a kid. Back then I was using an Argus C-3  camera, 
and Tri-X,  
> and shooting at a film speed of 800, and pushing the development 
time. The  
> grain added a realism to the images.
>  
> Yesterday I got in a flyer from a company called Foto Search, in 
it is a  
> program/plug-in for Photoshop. The program is supposed to 
replicate the digital  
> image to represent what it would look like if it was shot on a 
myriad of  
> different films.
>  
> I think we are making our images extremely sterile looking, by 
fighting  this 
> noise issue. 
>  
> Maybe I have become too old, but I prefer a conventional TV to 
Digital  HDTV, 
> and in reality I think everyone is thinking in HD, when we really 
don't  see 
> things as clearly as what is presented via a digital environment. 
>  
> When I recovered the images that I shot in Omaha at the 
Studebaker  
> Nationals, I did not see a sky as a brilliant blue, or the cars 
and trucks as  
> brilliantly colored as the D-200 recorded them.
>  
> Bill
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>





 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NikonD100_D200/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NikonD100_D200/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/