Henning Wulff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote/replied to: > >If you make a 20x30" print from a fine grain film image with lots of >fine detail shot with a top quality lens and not degraded by camera >shake, etc, and compare it with a 1Ds image of the same thing shot >with equally good glass, the differences will become apparent. The >print from film will show significantly more detail, but will lack >the smooth tonality of the digital image. Seen from close up, the >print from film might well look better. Seen from further away, the >gigital will probably look better. > >This shows that we often really don't need all the resolution our >equipment can produce.
Good points. Do we really take photos to examine minute details up close with loupes? I know I don't. Or do we take photos that create an impact and a pleasing image at proper viewing distance? If the first, stick to film. If the second, digital's much better at that pleasing image. I've said it before, I'll say it again. If I want to make murals or very large photos that do require fine details, I'll use large format, or medium format 6 by 9 at the very least. Anyone who says 100 speed film is better than digital should come out to the bird hide just after dawn some dull morning, load up the 100 speed film and try out the 400/5.6 at f8. Jim Davis Nature Photography http://www.kjsl.com/~jbdavis/ Reply in plain text only please! * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
