Digital BW, The Print

Steve,

 
> I just spent a little time checking the raw processing abilities of
> Vuescan; I'm wondering if you've had the time to do likewise, and if so
> what your impressions are?

No, I have not anything with Vuescan.  I have the CS2 raw converter and will
probably stick with it.  For me the less software the better.


> 
> My comparison with the Canon software puts Vuescan about half-way
> between ACR and Canon in terms of gritiness (luminance noise?), with
> Canon being the smoother of the three. However the lack of noise in the
> Canon sw is paid for in fine detail delineation. Vuescan seems to be
> the best trade-off between the three. Comments?

I think most of what I saw in the various converters is accounted for be
differing levels of sharpening.  As with GEM in the Nikon 8000, I found I
preferred to do 2 scans -- one with and one without GEM.  I'll probably do
the same with digital where there is sky in the image.  I'll have one
converted with no sharpening at all.  The CS2 seems to give me the controls
I need.

I have not done all that much shooting with the XT so far.  After looking at
shots of test charts and other mundane subject I'm probably going to carry
the Canon 50mm f2.5 macro and the 24mm f2.8 as my minimalist outfit to see
if the 8 mp is going to be useable for me.  The wide angle edge quality is a
problem, but the 24 seems to be the best I can do.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com