The response is overwhelming (thank you), and this being Monday it will take 
me some time to read over the responses and analyze the samples Russell sent 
me off-list.

Olin Lathrop wrote:
> Vitaliy wrote:
>> Based on the content of your email I'd say you are the one who's
>> confused, and I fail to understand why. What is the alternative to
>> the F-stop?
>
> The confusion was because you referred to "14" as a larger aperture than
> "4".  That means either these are not common F-stop values or you are
> confused, since high F-stop values actually mean a smaller arpeture.

I didn't say it was a "larger aperture", I said it was a "larger aperture 
setting" (14 being a larger value than 4). Though I can see now that I could 
have said it better.


>> It may be strange to you, but it is what it is. I can send you a RAW
>> image if you are eager to check the metadata to confirm the fact.
>
> No, f/14 is unusual, but there is nothing wrong about it.  I was trying to
> make sure you really meant this and there wasn't something else going on.
> Like when debugging a PIC program, you look for little things that just
> don't seem right.  Sometimes they are right after further investigation.
>
> However, it might be useful to show the two pictures you describe.  This 
> is
> not to verify the arpeture setting, but to see the nature of the 
> distortions
> and noise.  These are hard to describe in words, and the true problem may 
> be
> easier to diagnose when the symptoms can be carefully examined.

I'll try to upload them when I get a chance. It is not high priority for me 
right now, because as I mentioned we solved the problem on the digital side. 
Although I would like to know if there is an "optical" solution, going 
forward.


>> All of your guesses are based on the assumption that my photographer
>> and I are morons. So your suggested solutions below are useless.
>> Thank you for the effort.
>
> Not morons, but unfamiliar with some of the details and physics of
> photography.  After all, you did ask, and you demonstrated some confusion
> about arpetures or at least how they are communicated, so I think this is 
> a
> justified assumption.
>
> Instead of just dismissing my explanation and suggestions because you 
> think
> that I think you're a moron, I'd like to hear at least why specifically 
> you
> think my explanation is wrong and therefore the suggestions ineffective. 
> So
> far you have provided no facts that refute my guess as to what is going 
> on,
> only unwarrented insults.

Olin, I don't know what in my response qualifies as an "insult", but I am 
sorry that I was direct/bordering on rude. I guess I was tired and your 
"people who actually know what they're talking about" rubbed me the wrong 
way.

I mentioned in an earlier post (responding to William "Chops" Westfield) 
that the low light/higher sensitivity setting assumptions are incorrect. All 
the settings are fixed, the only variable that is changing in response to 
the changes in aperture, is the timer setting.

Vitaliy 

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist