Apology and the source of the "doctoring"

[MJSfoto1956]

First off, I would like to apologize to the list for my rude behavior last week in regards to the "Film vs. Digital" article by Reichman et al. I did not mean to sully the professionalism of this list with my unprofessional rants. Blame it on a bad week, problems at home, demanding clients, or frustration with the amount of "bull" to be found on the internet -- but either way, it was uncalled for and has no place on this list. Frankly I haven't a clue what I was thinking.

Secondly, I would like to apologize to David L for smearing his good name. I have been informed by others on this list of his good intentions and valuable contributions to this list and can only say I'm sorry and it won't happen again.

Thirdly, I would like to apologize for the use of the word "doctored" in one of my posts as it conjures up visions of deliberate action on the part of others. This was NOT my intent whatsoever, rather I was seeking to understand why the posted 1DS images were "so damn good" when my own experiences suggested otherwise (at least in comparison with drum scanned and Betterlight data).

And lastly, I have identified the real culprit to explain the purported "doctoring": Adobe RAW conversion itself is the culprit. Briefly, Adobe RAW conversion enhances an image in the following ways:

1. Increases contrast
2. Reduces noise
3. Reduces Bayer artifacts
4. Does some mild sharpening

I have provided a link to an article about Bayer Artifacts and RAW conversion here:

http://www.haywood-sullivan.com/phot...Artifacts.html

The conclusion is the same as my earlier posts (i.e. the methodology is flawed). However, the article provides ample evidence to support the conclusion.
Hopefully, this article will explain to the list (in a rational way) why I took this position.

J Michael Sullivan

[David Luttmann]

Water under the bridge.

Michael, while they used Capture One for their processing, I believe your reasoning could still hold true as Capture One has two settings for RAW output....soft & standard. If "standard" out put is used, then there is a mild amount of sharpening being done for detail enhancement to the image.

I'm not sure if this would be visible on the screen shots that have had bicubic interpolation used. I believe the bicubic interpolation would smear any Bayer effects...at least to a point. It will interesting to see if the DVD RAW samples processed with different convertors and different interpolation routines can show any artifacts. I anticipate receiving the DVD mid June. Hopefully there will be information as to the scanning rez utilized in the drum scan.

P.S. - Welcome back Jorge. I hope your here to raise some hell for a long, long time!

[Don Bryant]

Michael,

A written apology just isn't going to cut it. I think you should submit to some form of corporal mortification while saying 100 Hail Mary's!

Don Bryant

[David Luttmann]

A 6 pack of my favorite beer would be just fine!

[MJSfoto1956]

ok, where do I send it? Hey wait, in most states it is illegal to send alcohol.
Ah well, do you take PayPal?

J Michael Sullivan

P.S. what's this "Jorge" stuff?

[Marko]

Don's been watching the Da Vinci Code?

[QT Luong]

Jorge: http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ad.php?t=17153

[MJSfoto1956]

does this mean that I have to sign my posts "Jorge Miguel" from now on?

J M

[David Luttmann]

Michael,

You could never be a Jorge....you own a digital camera ;-)