On 2014-05-15 06:01, Randy Little wrote: > Uhg, why does everyone have to be so black and white on this topic. Because, by now, most of us have been polarized one way or the other. For many of us it was a really easy choice -- My *first* DSLR was spectacularly better than film in most ways I cared about (flash auto-exposure sucked compared to film). My last film is a decade in the past, but I occasionally scan more of the old collection to remind me just how nasty a lot of the characteristics of film were. But you're absolutely right, it's a matter of personal preference. > The spout reasons that are trivial or purely personal like grain. Get > capture one, dxo, or neat and film grain and chip noise will not even be > worth discussing. Interesting, Capture One and DXO I rejected in my big raw processor analysis because their noise reduction was hopelessly bad (I'm used to using Noise Ninja, either as a Photoshop plugin or integrated with Bibble Pro or early versions of Corel Aftershot Pro). Neat Image (I assume that's what your "neat" refers to?) was the other serious competitor back when I made that choice. I hear very good things aobut Topaz Denoise today. -- David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@xxxxxxxx; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info Nikon DSLR photo list: http://d4scussion.com
