Mike wrote: > Second, I'll provisionally believe someone who's actually made firsthand > comparisons with THEIR own eyes, like Michael R. and Ryan.
But Michael isn't doing that. He claim to be performing empirical test proving that digital is better than film in every respect (his own words) but this isn't true at all. He is not providing any such tests and the "empirical" data these persons claims are nowhere to be found. Michael R is really saying that he is getting better prints from digital than from film, and nobody is protesting about this, while he claims that digital is "better" than film, something thats a completely different issue. Then theres the question of hyping something the very same person is prone to. Another guy, Bj�rn R�rslett, was one of the early proponents of the original Nikon D1. Not surprisingly he also claimed that it was better than 35mm film and approaching medium format. He also provided "empirical tests" and even put them up on a web page. Funnily enough, the Norwegian association of nature photographer released a book last year with the members best works. Bj�rn R�rslett was the only photographer with digital images in this book shot with the D1. The images are easy to spot. They are significantly worse than anything else in the book in terms of image quality, even if they aren't reproduced large. They are less sharp, less saturated, less detailed than any other images in the book and it's easy to even see that they are digital. Hence, we've heard all this before and until someone actually compare film with digital, as oposed to comparing scanner quality with digital camera quality judged from a copy from both, I continue being sceptical if not downright rejective to all these claims. P�l
