Fuji FinePix S3

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 12:19:12 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

I do reccomend you get the magazine, it is replete with information
about the camera. You might disagree with some of it, but in general is
well presented. Your high school French will help carry you through...

They don't carry it in this part of Ontario. Is it an expensive
subscription?

Gene Palmiter wrote:


You surely didn't mean to call me Shirley, did you?

he he, no. It was a tongue in cheek, comic substitution for the word
'surely', as used so entertainingly by Steve Martin(?) in 'Airplane', the
movie. ;-)


All that being said in defense of the S3 (which might be my next
camera) I don't think its the best choice for your stated purpose.
It's selling point is the D-range that you won't use (for your stated
purpose).

I am not entirely sure I know what you mean by Dynamic Range. Are you
referring to the ability to distinguish between very close shades of the
same colour throughout the 0-255 RGB range, or the ability to pick out
different shades of black? Or something else? What I want, even at the sake
of overkill in terms of camera's ability, is the ability to locate and
correctly register as many (ideally all) pigment based colours identifiable
by the human eye. All this whilst coping with the light which has passed
through a polarising resin filter positioned over tungsten floods. (This to
ensure reflection-free images are obtained from paintings encapsulated
behind framed glass).

You are shooting art for the purpose of someday printing
out copies of that art. You won't know how good the printers might be
when that day comes so you want the best file possible to begin with.
You want MP...so maybe the Kodaks might be better.

Not least because of the reduced FOV inherent in partial-frame sensors of
semi-pro DSLR's, I have already been looking at the Kodak full frame DSLR's
to ultimately complete my transition from analogue to digital. However, by
way of a stop gap and interim experience gathering measure, I may simply
have to purchase a camera which can deal with some of my work, and keep the
film-camera handy for the remainder.

Gene Palmiter wrote:


You surely didn't mean to call me Shirley, did you?

he he, no. It was a tongue in cheek, comic substitution for the word
'surely', as used so entertainingly by Steve Martin(?) in 'Airplane', the
movie. ;-)


All that being said in defense of the S3 (which might be my next
camera) I don't think its the best choice for your stated purpose.
It's selling point is the D-range that you won't use (for your stated
purpose).

I am not entirely sure I know what you mean by Dynamic Range. Are you
referring to the ability to distinguish between very close shades of the
same colour throughout the 0-255 RGB range, or the ability to pick out
different shades of black? Or something else? What I want, even at the sake
of overkill in terms of camera's ability, is the ability to locate and
correctly register as many (ideally all) pigment based colours identifiable
by the human eye. All this whilst coping with the light which has passed
through a polarising resin filter positioned over tungsten floods. (This to
ensure reflection-free images are obtained from paintings encapsulated
behind framed glass).

You are shooting art for the purpose of someday printing
out copies of that art. You won't know how good the printers might be
when that day comes so you want the best file possible to begin with.
You want MP...so maybe the Kodaks might be better.

Not least because of the reduced FOV inherent in partial-frame sensors of
semi-pro DSLR's, I have already been looking at the Kodak full frame DSLR's
to ultimately complete my transition from analogue to digital. However, by
way of a stop gap and interim experience gathering measure, I may simply
have to purchase a camera which can deal with some of my work, and keep the
film-camera handy for the remainder.

Siggy wrote:
Gene Palmiter wrote:


You surely didn't mean to call me Shirley, did you?

he he, no. It was a tongue in cheek, comic substitution for the word
'surely', as used so entertainingly by Steve Martin(?) in 'Airplane',
the movie. ;-)


Steve Martin, Leslie Nielsen. Same-o, same-o.


--
Frank ess

Siggy wrote:
Gene Palmiter wrote:


You surely didn't mean to call me Shirley, did you?

he he, no. It was a tongue in cheek, comic substitution for the word
'surely', as used so entertainingly by Steve Martin(?) in 'Airplane',
the movie. ;-)


Steve Martin, Leslie Nielsen. Same-o, same-o.


--
Frank ess

Dynamic range...how many stops it can record. I don't recall the exact
numbers but the world has a far greater range of "brightness" than cameras
can capture. We can see into shadows and adjust to all but specular
highlights. Cameras cannot. Great pains were taken with BW films to compress
all the values in the real world into the range that the film could
capture...the Zone System. And...the full range of the film could not be
printed.

The modern equivalent with digital cameras is where our shadows are all
blocked up and our highlights are burned out. I think I have read where a
sensor might have 6 stops difference between the two extremes between dark
detail and bright detail. Shooting raw will give a bit more. The S3 was
designed so that the smaller sensors preserve data when the highlights blow
out the large sensors.

All this is nice to know...but what is important to you for your purpose is
that art work cannot display even as much as any digital camera can capture.
(Unless its shiny and unevenly lit or ....well...the exceptions are all
unlikely) Suffice it to say that for the stated purpose the best features of
the S3 are useless.


"Siggy" wrote in message
...
Gene Palmiter wrote:


You surely didn't mean to call me Shirley, did you?

he he, no. It was a tongue in cheek, comic substitution for the word
'surely', as used so entertainingly by Steve Martin(?) in 'Airplane', the
movie. ;-)


All that being said in defense of the S3 (which might be my next
camera) I don't think its the best choice for your stated purpose.
It's selling point is the D-range that you won't use (for your stated
purpose).

I am not entirely sure I know what you mean by Dynamic Range. Are you
referring to the ability to distinguish between very close shades of the
same colour throughout the 0-255 RGB range, or the ability to pick out
different shades of black? Or something else? What I want, even at the
sake
of overkill in terms of camera's ability, is the ability to locate and
correctly register as many (ideally all) pigment based colours
identifiable
by the human eye. All this whilst coping with the light which has passed
through a polarising resin filter positioned over tungsten floods. (This
to
ensure reflection-free images are obtained from paintings encapsulated
behind framed glass).

You are shooting art for the purpose of someday printing
out copies of that art. You won't know how good the printers might be
when that day comes so you want the best file possible to begin with.
You want MP...so maybe the Kodaks might be better.

Not least because of the reduced FOV inherent in partial-frame sensors of
semi-pro DSLR's, I have already been looking at the Kodak full frame
DSLR's
to ultimately complete my transition from analogue to digital. However, by
way of a stop gap and interim experience gathering measure, I may simply
have to purchase a camera which can deal with some of my work, and keep
the
film-camera handy for the remainder.

Dynamic range...how many stops it can record. I don't recall the exact
numbers but the world has a far greater range of "brightness" than cameras
can capture. We can see into shadows and adjust to all but specular
highlights. Cameras cannot. Great pains were taken with BW films to compress
all the values in the real world into the range that the film could
capture...the Zone System. And...the full range of the film could not be
printed.

The modern equivalent with digital cameras is where our shadows are all
blocked up and our highlights are burned out. I think I have read where a
sensor might have 6 stops difference between the two extremes between dark
detail and bright detail. Shooting raw will give a bit more. The S3 was
designed so that the smaller sensors preserve data when the highlights blow
out the large sensors.

All this is nice to know...but what is important to you for your purpose is
that art work cannot display even as much as any digital camera can capture.
(Unless its shiny and unevenly lit or ....well...the exceptions are all
unlikely) Suffice it to say that for the stated purpose the best features of
the S3 are useless.


"Siggy" wrote in message
...
Gene Palmiter wrote:


You surely didn't mean to call me Shirley, did you?

he he, no. It was a tongue in cheek, comic substitution for the word
'surely', as used so entertainingly by Steve Martin(?) in 'Airplane', the
movie. ;-)


All that being said in defense of the S3 (which might be my next
camera) I don't think its the best choice for your stated purpose.
It's selling point is the D-range that you won't use (for your stated
purpose).

I am not entirely sure I know what you mean by Dynamic Range. Are you
referring to the ability to distinguish between very close shades of the
same colour throughout the 0-255 RGB range, or the ability to pick out
different shades of black? Or something else? What I want, even at the
sake
of overkill in terms of camera's ability, is the ability to locate and
correctly register as many (ideally all) pigment based colours
identifiable
by the human eye. All this whilst coping with the light which has passed
through a polarising resin filter positioned over tungsten floods. (This
to
ensure reflection-free images are obtained from paintings encapsulated
behind framed glass).

You are shooting art for the purpose of someday printing
out copies of that art. You won't know how good the printers might be
when that day comes so you want the best file possible to begin with.
You want MP...so maybe the Kodaks might be better.

Not least because of the reduced FOV inherent in partial-frame sensors of
semi-pro DSLR's, I have already been looking at the Kodak full frame
DSLR's
to ultimately complete my transition from analogue to digital. However, by
way of a stop gap and interim experience gathering measure, I may simply
have to purchase a camera which can deal with some of my work, and keep
the
film-camera handy for the remainder.

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 20:27:20 GMT, "Siggy"
wrote:

pedant

Yes, I shall do that, but like an electric current, I am inclined to seeking the shortest path to my intended destination.

An electric current would take the path of least resistance.

/...


Pete S.

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 20:27:20 GMT, "Siggy"
wrote:

pedant

Yes, I shall do that, but like an electric current, I am inclined to seeking the shortest path to my intended destination.

An electric current would take the path of least resistance.

/...


Pete S.

Frank ess wrote:

Steve Martin, Leslie Nielsen. Same-o, same-o.

Ah yes. Thanks for the heads-up. ;-)