Once again, I say the issue is moot. For a pro the only requirement is the customer happy with the results. Actually, come to think of it, it is exactly the same for the amateur, only he is his own customer.
This is whole thread is a specious argument anyway. If you guys really cared about quality above all, you would be shooting with a 20x24 inch camera. You are shooting 35, or 120, in that range digital is now pretty comparable. The real question is, can we still have fun with our film cameras? I think the answer to that is a resounding YES! Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Brogden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 3:54 AM Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes > On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Herb Chong wrote: > > > Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >Bill has a point, think of it like this, your scan is > > a 2nd generation copy, and therefore not as accurate > > as the original.< > > > > as if a print isn't. > > > > Herb.... > > That's not the point here. Comparing a print made from a digital scan of > a negative with a print made from a digital file captured by a digital > camera is comparing a 2nd generation copy with a first generation one, > which is hardly a valid process. You have negative-->digital file-->print > versus digital file-->print. If you compare prints from the digital > camera file and from a negative, you're at least comparing the same > generation of copies: digital file-->print versus negative-->print. > Sure, an enlarger will affect the print in some way, but that's the whole > point of this comparison... to see how a traditionally produced wet print > compares to a digitally produced print. > > chris >
