bergdev

<p>For me, color isn't so much distracting as yet another element of an image to be considered. In other words, black and white images have less to analyze. However, the monochrome photographer opens him/herself up to increased scrutiny on the remaining elements of his/her composition.<br>

Yes, color can be downright distracting if it's done incorrectly. And, of course, there are those images which are at their core, an expression of color. But an image which happens to be representative of the subject and which is done well just is and doesn't distract at all. It simply adds extra dimensions which dilute, at least to some degree the other aspects of the image.<br>

For me personally, I struggle to strike that balance between an accurate/realistic and aesthetically pleasing representation of a scene's color. Based on others' critiques of my images, accuracy doesn't seem to pay off. Some images are panned as too drab while others (adjusted while actually looking at the very scene that I just photographed) come across as too saturated.<br>

So perhaps there's just no way to avoid making color a distraction or, at a minimum, having to mess with color for a given image, which makes for more opportunity to make it a distraction.<br>

That said, I have the utmost respect for those who can successfully work in the monochrome medium. I hope someday to venture into that domain.</p>

<p>Vicki, I simulated the zoomed in image by resizing to 700%, disabling resampling (looks exactly like the original zoomed in with PS). I have marked what I believe are some problem areas from my previous comment. Wouldn't IS result in a blurring, not oversharpening of the high contrast areas? Please see http://bergdev.com/Zoom.png. I am a Photoshop enthusiast who has stared at a lot of images. Opinions from more experienced photographers would be welcome.</p>

<p>I agree with Geoff and Scott about oversharpening (whatever the source) being evident in a number of places. For example, in the second image, not the lighter colored fringe on the tree branches.<br>

Also, look at what appears to be a silhouette of the wall "tower" in the second image. The oversharpening has created a sort of ringing (in terms of spatial frequency) into the shadowed portion, resulting in every other pixel band being lighter than it should be.<br>

The JPEG compression artifacts only make matters worse, resulting in color distortion in these high-contrast areas, further exacerbating the problem for enlargements. Given the obvious challenge of your print size, I would consider the following:</p>

<ul>

<li>Don't use JPEG at all, opting instead for a lossless compression format such as TIFF. Consider outputting PDF format, selecting "High Quality Print" profile. If you have to use JPEG, go for the highest possible quality.</li>

<li>Given your humongous print size, do not resample your image at all in post-processing. Let the print driver take care of that. </li>

<li>Disable sharpening in the camera, opting instead to control it yourself in post-processing. There is a lot of good information on this site regarding judicious use of sharpening. Is your print driver also contributing to the sharpening? If so, this should also be considered. </li>

<li>Finally, experiment by making smaller prints of these crucial high-contrast areas. That way you won't spend a fortune remaking prints. Stock up on yellow and magenta and black ink <grin>. </li>

</ul>

<p>MEMORY, MORE MEMORY, EVEN MORE MEMORY. I need a workstation with a processor and physical (not virtual!) memory to accommodate in a real-time fashion so I can load multiple images, create massive multi-image composites (panoramas?) and not have to wait for my swap file to load and unload from the hard drive.</p>

<p>Using CS3's RAW processing, the blown out clouds (impossible to detect in the original location) can be corrected and the colors brought up to better represent what I remember.</p><div></div>

<p>If you shoot JPEG, the camera makes the post-processing decisions for you. Only a human being, not a software algorithm, can make those decisions. So you should always shoot RAW. Therefore your post-processing software must be capable of properly handling RAW files. To be sure, PS has decent RAW handling capabilities. But there are alternatives, including those offered by your camera manufacturer.</p><div></div>

<p>I am new to the DSLR arena, so take my answer with the appropriate grain of salt.<br>

A friend of mine who has a lot of professional photography experience steered me to the Pentax K10D. My faith in his recommendation along with some research led me to take his advice. But rather than write about my satisfaction with this choice, you should take the time and do the research yourself.<br>

To be sure, there are a lot of reviews of DSLRs out there. But too many go on and on about the features, etc. But from what I've read, as time goes on, there is less and less differentiation between DSLR technology in general. But that's not to say that it doesn't matter.<br>

The performance of the sensors and lenses does make a difference. However, that performance doesn't always correlate with what you pay. Go to http://www.dxomark.com/ and take the time to read what they have to say about the various DSLRs and lenses they've tested. It's a new site and very educational.<br>

Finally, I agree with a lot of the advice from previous answers. It's the pilot, not the plane that matters most. No matter what camera you end up with:</p>

<ul>

<li> Always shoot in RAW mode.</li>

<li>Use high speed, high capacity flash cards.</li>

<li>Use quality software from more than one vendor (not just from your camera's manufacturer's) to post-process your images.</li>

</ul>

<p>Good luck!</p>