I went out shooting today and a made a 12 x 18 print of a scene shot with the *ist D.

I have mixed impressions, but must admit that I shot a scene that I knew would challenge the digital format.

Here's a small image of the shot:


If it looks familiar, that's because I shot the same location just about a year ago:


http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/landscapes/0308land05.htm

I don't think one can really compare images taken almost a year apart, even if they are of the same place. I did a lot of work on the first image and printed several copies, and today did a quick touch up on the digital image and ran off one quick 12 x 18 print.

Nonetheless, I am disappointed with the large print from the *ist-D. The tree trunks have a plastic look to them - they do not have the rich detail that they have in the film version of this shot. Also, there are several places in the digital image where the distant patchwork of leafless twigs just melts into a gray haze, while in the film version the branches retain their integrity. Lastly, the acutance of the branches against the sky is exaggerated in the digital print, and looks weird when you look closely at the large print.

So, my first impression of a large print from the *ist-D is not so great. I suspect that in the case of close up shots - where edge definition is more improtant that resolution - things will flip the other way.

FWIW - I shot several shots side by side with the *ist-D and Mz-S loaded with velvia today. Hope to do a more thorough (and valid) comparison next week 9when I get the vevlia back from the lab.)

- MCC




-----


Mark Cassino Photography

Kalamazoo, MI

http://www.markcassino.com

-----

Reply via email to