==============================================
= Muse wanted, Pittsburgh area. For details, check here: [link]
==============================================
= My OMP Portfolio (Model/Photographer Site): [link]
==============================================

You can see the flag-draped coffins [HERE]

==============================================
==============================================
Journal Entry Begins Below:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I shot some images of kassandria for her pregnancy, and to change some attitudes. As we arrived at the grotto, we lost the light. It was darker than usual, at least 2 stops darker. Rather than risk all blurry images, I dialed the ISO up to 1600. I had a reasonable experience with 1600 for some accident photos a few weeks ago so I knew they were not "horrid."

Oh how I was wishing for a D700 or D3 the whole shoot!!

ISO 400, which I was able to get a few early shots off at, is reasonably good. You can see some of the images on her page , and the tonalty in greyscale is actually pretty good.

The images I posted were mostly at ISO 1600 (you can see the specs, dA seems to have picked them off ok), and the tonality was really lacking.

Even with a lot of work, the images are grainy and noisy. Worse than what I would have gotten with Tri-x and accufine, or similar. Worse than even pushing with a d-76 concoction. And, you feel out of control, because you are stuck with the sensor, and no other. One film, no matter what.

So, while it used to be really true that the camera didn't make a difference, now that the "film" (sensor, software, etc) is in the camera, it *really* does. Digital limits you in ways film never did, while at the same time, giving you more freedom and flexibility in "manipulation", going from IS0 50 to 1600 image-to-image (not roll to roll), and cost.

It's shoots like this that show that $$$$ really makes a difference, and talent and skill are not *only* what separates the pack. The sensors, ISO responsiveness, the software, etc all make a *huge* difference, when in the past it was almost always only the "glass" (quality of the lens) that was the difference -- the film was the same, the processing the same, the fstop/shutter essentially the same. Only the glass (or 6x6 vs 35mm) -- and even that was often the same. So, what separated the good from the bad was _skill_, _talent_, _timing_, etc. Not the amount of money invested.

Disappointing when the tools really do make a difference.

Think about two writers one using an IBM Selectric, the other a Smith Corona typewriter. It *DIDN'T* matter!! Words, ink on paper, was all the same. Now, it's like if you have the better typewriter, your images will be better, all other things (and even some not) being equal.

Hopefully, technology will catch up, and make the quality of the sensors, high-iso performance, and such moot. But til then

Scott

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes:.






======================================================
Deviants I've Worked with: