Me wrote:
On 25/03/2012 4:36 p.m., Robert Coe wrote:
On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 20:51:55 -0500, wrote:
: Robert wrote in
: :
:
: On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 14:10:14 -0700 (PDT),
: wrote:
:: Rendering of dark areas. This is a shot from Dpreview's new gallery
:: of pre-production test images from the Canon 5DIII. 3200 ISO. I
:: raised the illumination level 25% beyond theirs. Look at the black
:: background. Film doesn't produce that ugly, mottled effect. It
:: simply goes black, which means all the silver/dye simply washed away
:: leaving the base of the film.
:: (Typo corrected at no additional charge)
:
: Your favorite photo editor will let you blacken the shadows of your
: digital images as much as your heart desires. And blow out the
: highlights too, if that's what you want (e.g., if that's what you were
: trying to achieve by jacking up the illumination level).
:
: Bob
:
:
: The highlights held fine. I can pretty much guarantee the background
: wasn't pitch black to human eyes in that photo shoot.

Then how does that square with your assertion (see above) that film does a
better job of rendering dark areas?

Why use a Canon DSLR in order to make a proclamation about shadow detail
recovery?
Canon's latest FF camera has two stops less dynamic range than the
competition at base ISO due to read noise from the sensor.

And where did you get the supposed information? Did you hack into
Canon's proprietary information? Did you disassemble a camera and
measure the read noise from the sensor?

--
Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
| Goethe