Today I came upon an article explaining how ISO is determined and measured. It is the best article I have ever read on the subject.

http://dpanswers.com/content/tech_iso.php

For me, this explains why, with a few of the newest sensors, "auto-ISO" is so much more effective and reliable than the "auto-ISO" setting on older cameras.

I use an Epson V600, and the results have been excellent.

Photography has been my hobby since 1953. I've shot a variety of film and digital formats. In the last few years, I've been doing more HDR work with landscape photography. I simply cannot imagine doing 3-9 exposures at changing apertures for HDR work. If you have done so, I'd like to know how you did it. For me, to be successful, I have found that for such work it means either doing varying shutter speeds or varying ISO.

Photography is more than a mere passion to preserve our presence, and some here have alluded to it: There will always be those who want to use optical sensor technology to make "art" images. Despite the trend towards the smaller sensors in cell phones, there will continue to be an interest in using larger sensors for both pixels and perspective. Despite the greater and greater expense of their cameras, those selling medium-format cameras are doing a good business. Those making scanning backs for 4x5 are also doing business, though the same number of pixels are available in full-frame sensors. The reason: Large-format imaging provides a richer perspective, regardless of the number of megapixels. The human eye, by itself, has a much smaller sensor/retina, yet millions of people still appreciate images that are made with large- or medium-format cameras.

The future of photography seems to be headed in two parallel directions - towards keeping records, and towards creating art.

As I recall, my first digital camera was a Canon G7. I had very limited income while living and working in Yosemite, and while I loved using my Pentax 6x7, the cost of processing and scanning of film was more than I could handle.

Last Spring, I rented a Sony RX1r ii, and I used auto-ISO while everything else was manual. I learned the hard way that I should take care to set the maximum ISO where I wanted it.

I agree -- proofing is essential! For text proofing, even if you use a superior proofer like "WhiteSmoke," nothing can replace having someone other than yourself proof your work. It's expensive to hire a professional to do it, so try to find a friend who is good at it who will do it for lower cost or free. Proofing the format almost always needs the involves the author of the book, and for picture books, the author absolutely MUST examine a proof carefully. Otherwise, you have no one to blame but yourself for disasters big and small.

There are a number of printing companies out there, including Walgreens and WalMart, but if you're wanting a print-on-demand publisher, Lulu.com prints both paperbacks and hardbacks. They print large format books routinely. Although CreateSpace.com, a subsidiary of Amazon, does color printing of paperbacks, I've not been impressed by their color output quality except for their paperback covers, which are not bad at all. If you decide to use CreateSpace, I recommend that you publish the book as color, even if your images are in black and white, because the output quality appears better on the "color" paper. CreateSpace does not print larger than 8.5x11.

When I shoot at night, I do not want the stars to streak, and I don't want the moon to overexpose. The creator of this chart does not seem to care about these issues. Nightscapes are good for HDR efforts.

It appears that your original question is not being answered. Noiseware by Imagenomic does have plug-ins. Go to Noiseware.com. Noiseware Pro is an outstanding program for dealing with noise. It has both presets and sliders, and it does a better job at retaining detail while removing noise than most of the programs out there. There are trial versions available.

If you're going to Zion and Bryce canyons, it would be sad if you did not take advantage of the opportunity to explore further that side of the "big ditch." (1) Seeing the Grand Canyon from the North Rim is very different from seeing it from the other side. It is higher, and you are not in desert -- you're in forest. Seeing sunsets and sunrises from the north side are experiences you will not soon forget. (2) There's a tiny little attraction called Pipe Spring National Monument. People sign up to spend time there, working a little farm using 18th and 19th century technology. Even if you do not sign up to work there, it is an interesting stop, and it is not too far off the beaten path.

After reading a number of posts regarding Topaz DeNoise, I'm wondering if it is better than Noiseware. I've relied on it for quite a while. Has anyone used both and compared them?

I have been using Photomatix Pro for a long time. The engine is top notch, and the interface is user friendly. I'm not critical of other programs. I'm simply and completely satisfied with what I can accomplish with Photomatix Pro. As a bonus, I like the fact that I can take older JPG and TIFF files and use Photomatix Pro to improve the images to my greater satisfaction.

Both images were made in Yosemite, with one being made at the area called "Happy Isles," (at the east end) and the other made at "Valley View," (at the west end).

I've been into photography since 1953, so my approach was old-fashioned. My camera was on a tripod, and I framed the shot the way I wanted it. Then I set the aperture to f/22, and I put the infinity mark on the 22 adjacent to the lens barrel. That meant that everything between infinity and the distance adjacent to the other 22 was in focus. That's what I was taught many years ago. Once in awhile, I put too much of the infinity mark outside of the 22, and the result was infinity focus that was soft. With a digital camera, that simply means to do it again and adjust accordingly.