Jump to content


Member Since 03 May 2006
Offline Last Active Nov 21 2006 01:40 PM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: The Future of DSLRs . . .

27 September 2006 - 04:06 PM

The future is pretty bright if you ask me.

I think that we may very well be close to the point where technology out works the human eye. It won't be long before resolution is less important than the physical relationship between the human eye and the printed image. Yes, we will be able to make images within a razors edge of perfection, but will we be able to recognize this perfection without massive projections or printed images?

Maybe we have already had the best, maybe there will never be any digital image as fulfilling as what a lightbox, slide and loup gave us. It's tough to believe there will ever be any digital imaging that will converse with our eyes in the same way.

In Topic: The Future of DSLRs . . .

26 September 2006 - 02:28 PM

Why limit resolution to that of 35mm film?

Already we see 10-12-16 mp cameras exhibiting the shortcomings of current glass. It is a real problem when resolving power outperforms glass and in doing so sometimes creates some fairly significant "new" photographic challenges.

I question if makers will ever create glass, at acceptable prices, that won't marginalize current or higher available resolving power.

In Topic: The Future of DSLRs . . .

23 September 2006 - 04:36 PM

I can only hope that the next in the D-line will accomodate the equipment I have on hand

What is it they could offer in a new D-body that would make you want to move to the newer camera for UW shooting? I'm just kind of interested in what you are looking for.

Happily I think I am at the point where it doesn't matter to me anymore. The D2x is a camera I can live with for a very long time. From this point, regardless of what they do with resolving power, I think the only thing that would even get me to consider changing cameras is if they were to offer a substantial decrease in noise at higher ISOs. To me that is the most meaningful thing. To be able to shoot at higher ISO's and keep my shutter speeds slow for good ambient capture would really open up the possibilities.

With the film cameras they still had significant room for improvements in AF and matrix/auto metering, but these dslr's are so good that what are they going to offer to make people want to move from a D200, D2x, idsmkII or 5D to something else.

In Topic: Strobe temperature - cold or warm

23 September 2006 - 04:07 PM

Is this correct or confusing??? hope this post is not too long.... but if someone can confirm this, then I know that I finally got it!

For RAW capture I think it is better to remember that WB setting in the camera has no effect at all on the pixel capture information. This way all you have to think about is that you are simply attempting to create a differential in foreground and background temp that allows you to cool/warm the whole image in a way that brings foreground and background to a point where both are pleasing to your eye. But in all cases getting the same exact blue background is as easy with one strobe temp as it is with the other, if you consider that a person's foreground temp is a matter of personal preference.

In Topic: Strobe temperature - cold or warm

19 September 2006 - 02:07 PM

Whoa nelly Manual,

NO YOU DIDN'T!!!......no you didn't say "Whoa nelly"! :lol: James, that's way to funny :blush:

Listen, I am sincerely sorry if you thought I was calling you a sheep (I am generally far more crass than to call anyone a benevolent fuzzy animal). I must admit though, that it is a curious interpretation of what is an accurate comment (the e-mails I have received indicate that there are people who look unkindly on challenging Alex's assertions). To me there's no harm to this being the case and there is nothing cowardly about any forum having preferred commentators.