If you believe that you weren't printing them right.
Shawn K. wrote:
I used to work in my schools digital Photo lab when I was in college and I ran a little side business scanning people negatives in. I scanned plenty of medium format, and medium format slide film as well. Most of the kids used really high quality films. Yeah they look nice on a light table, but they don't look any better printed out and that what matters most.
-Shawn
-----Original Message----- From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 5:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Future Practicality of Film
Smile, compares crops of 2nd generation digitalized slides to corps of 1st generation digital. Kodak said 14mp was comparable to 35mm color negatives back when 2mp was the best anyone (them) had done so far. I have seen nothing that contradicts that yet. That would mean you would need about twice that 14mp to match the best slide film. And 10x to match Techpan.
I wonder sometimes if any of these folks who say digital is so good have ever even seen an original 8x10 tranny on the light table.
--
Shawn K. wrote:
*Shakes head* This is the hootenany I was speaking of. You know a couple years ago people were claiming 30-40 Mega pixels to outdo 35mm film, that number keeps dropping, but people still claim you need such and such ludicrous amount of pixels to out do the resolution of film. well, I have been a witness to a test on the net, that compares, side to side, crops of Fuji provia 35mm film and a 6MP DSLR, and the two are almost exactly the same with the digital getting slightly better color response IMO.
http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm#links
There is the link to it.
Besides if you think 8mp is some kind of insurance for film, its not, digital is just going to keep getting bigger and better.
-Shawn
-- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
