Photo by Greg MarkleyI've been going on about the importance of good low light performance of cameras. And what do you know, in my inbox today came the perfect example of why it's important. Clearly flash would have totally ruined this wonderful picture from my pal Greg. It's like a Rembrandt, isn't it.
Leviathud sed:
"But...but.. it's low light.. and there are no strange coloured grainy dots and smudges and.."
To be frank, I have run the picture through an anti-noise filter in Photoshop (Noise Ninja). There was noise before that.
It was taken with a pretty standard digicam. But I think if it had been taken with a camera with excellent low-light handling, like a Fuji F30 or a Canon 5D, then the noise filter might not have been necessary and then the picture would have more detail. Of course this kind of picture does not live on detail, so it may not have been "better" for that.
Here it is before my slight editing:
13 comments:
Wow, a real nice photograph! It really does look like a Rembrandt!
PS: I found your blog through your profile interests. I was looking through profiles with people who have similar interests as myself. I hope you don't mind I left a comment!
I wonder what camera and film Rembrandt used for HIS pics. ;-)
Say, Lauren, anybody ever told you that on your photo you look like a movie star? Can't recall which one right now but I'm sure it'll come back to me eventually. :-D
Lauren,
I love comments.
I once heard a musician explain his use of synthesizers by saying that if van Gogh had lived today, he might be using a camera.
Which is a good point, at the same time as being a little funny, since photography was invented 50 years before Gogh painted.
The photo does look like a Rembrandt, or like Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel before the recent restoration.
I wonder -- if those restoration experts got their hands on some Rembrandt paintings, would we discover that Rembrandt loved the bright, snappy look of flash photography, and it's only years of grime and aging pigments that make us think he was a master of light and shadow?
But...but.. it's low light.. and there are no strange coloured grainy dots and smudges and...
WOW.
Impressed.
Who could refuse a comment from Lauren Kate :-)))
You're easily impressed. God you people know nothing about art.
Easily impressed and continuously pleased by all the extra beauty our untrained eyes see, and our Philistine ears hear, but we just don't "get" druggy lyrics, or why Dali wanted a tank of swimmers wearing fake breasts.
"You're easily impressed. God you people know nothing about art."
I believe it has more to do with quality camera control than anything else. But I could be wrong. All those years of art classes.. Im sure the teachers were talking to the other people.
Why is it that some people believe that if they think they are correct then everyone who disagrees with them must be wrong.
Dammit people..the world isnt there to affirm your beliefs.
ssuf on htiw tra evol eW
"Why is it that some people believe that if they think they are correct then everyone who disagrees with them must be wrong."
You're doing that right now yourself.
I say, young mister Lincoln, have your parents never tought you some proper conversational etiquette? Jumping into a discussion like that, as if you were answering a personal address, how gauche. Really, you'll never amount to anything in your life without some adequate expression talents. But for that, you need to quit speaking in the world the way you do during recess on the playground, don't you? In my school, you would definitely learn better composure.
Perhaps you should ask your parents to get in contact with me. Our fees are quite reasonable and our average results spectacular.
Miss Gladys Beaurington, headmistress of the London School for Proper Manners
Post a Comment