<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.2" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Noise As a Historical Artifact</title>
	<link>http://www.digitalfieldguide.com/blog/1128</link>
	<description>Digital Photographs and Techniques from Harold Davis</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 04:46:27 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Photoblog 2.0: &#187; Photoblog 2.0 Archive: &#187; Processing Noise</title>
		<link>http://www.digitalfieldguide.com/blog/1128#comment-59192</link>
		<dc:creator>Photoblog 2.0: &#187; Photoblog 2.0 Archive: &#187; Processing Noise</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:32:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.digitalfieldguide.com/blog/1128#comment-59192</guid>
		<description>[...] partly on the grounds that my Nikon D300 is remarkably low noise, and partly on the grounds that noise can be used as part of the aeshetic of an image. My photos of the jellyfish in the aquarium tanks at Monterey are examples of this kind of high ISO [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] partly on the grounds that my Nikon D300 is remarkably low noise, and partly on the grounds that noise can be used as part of the aeshetic of an image. My photos of the jellyfish in the aquarium tanks at Monterey are examples of this kind of high ISO [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Photoblog 2.0: &#187; Photoblog 2.0 Archive: &#187; Winter Sunset</title>
		<link>http://www.digitalfieldguide.com/blog/1128#comment-57254</link>
		<dc:creator>Photoblog 2.0: &#187; Photoblog 2.0 Archive: &#187; Winter Sunset</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jan 2008 02:49:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.digitalfieldguide.com/blog/1128#comment-57254</guid>
		<description>[...] noting: the not unattractive noise in the lower left of the image results from lightening up the extremely dark RAW [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] noting: the not unattractive noise in the lower left of the image results from lightening up the extremely dark RAW [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Photoblog 2.0: &#187; Photoblog 2.0 Archive: &#187; Nikon D300 Review</title>
		<link>http://www.digitalfieldguide.com/blog/1128#comment-56723</link>
		<dc:creator>Photoblog 2.0: &#187; Photoblog 2.0 Archive: &#187; Nikon D300 Review</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2008 02:54:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.digitalfieldguide.com/blog/1128#comment-56723</guid>
		<description>[...] So, whether full-frame D3, or somewhat smaller frame D300, some digital lenses don&#8217;t use the entire sensor area in any case. The optical impact of sensor size is a mixed bag, but the impact of sensor size on noise is clear: it&#8217;s a &#8220;true fact&#8221; that the smaller the sensor size the more noise. But noise processing is getting so much better that noise is becoming less of an issue. (For a related story, see Noise as a Historical Artifact.) [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] So, whether full-frame D3, or somewhat smaller frame D300, some digital lenses don&#8217;t use the entire sensor area in any case. The optical impact of sensor size is a mixed bag, but the impact of sensor size on noise is clear: it&#8217;s a &#8220;true fact&#8221; that the smaller the sensor size the more noise. But noise processing is getting so much better that noise is becoming less of an issue. (For a related story, see Noise as a Historical Artifact.) [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
