Graywolf wrote: >We would hate the lack of tonality in digital prints. We would hate the over sharpened look of digital prints. Funny thing is most of us on this list think all those things I just listed are positive rather than negative features. Well they do say beauty (quality) is in the eye of the beholder.
Actually, the lack of tonality bothers me. But I am not totally trusting my eyes on that one, yet. Because most of the digital "prints" (from DSLRs) I've seen have been online. There is a slightly tonality/hue loss when I scan slides then print with my home printer. I think if I had a more expensive Epson it would be less, however. If a picture was really important to me, or I wanted it blown up bigger than 8X10, I'd have the lab do it the "old fashioned way." ;-) The loss isn't that great. Some digital stuff I have seen on the Net also seems to lack tonality or hue -- to me I think of this as the depth and range of color -- color by individual color. Bright or clear, yes, but subtle, sometimes, no. But, as I said, I am not totally trusting my eyes on that one, yet. However, it is why I am holding off for now on a DSLR (among other reasons, like price, upgrades, et all). Marnie aka Doe
