Well said, Chris...
I'm not only a low volume print user, but I wouldn't have a need for even an 8x10" print except once in a blue moon!
11x14"? 16x20" Forget it! Those are for salon displays... Maybe make a couple of those per year!
So, chances are 5x7" is the largest print I'd usually want, and my 5 MP camera with it's fine f/1.8 lens will do very well with that, thank you!
If one is a pro photog, all bets are off, but most of us aren't. By far most of us aren't...
So, a 6 MP and especially an 8 or 10 MP camera is only for bragging rights, not for increased excellence in my photographic output...
Not to be construed in any way as putting any of this down. It's very good to know what one's camera will do, if called upon to really perform.
keith whaley <== still has plenty of film bodies, if needed for increased excellence <g>
Chris Brogden wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 21:47:24 -0500, Don Sanderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Out of those several hundred I have only 7 or 8 that I would say could rival my favorite Reala film.
My answer is that film and digital are different media. You may as
well be comparing oil painting with watercolours. My experience with
seeing enlargements from 6MP DSLRS, 35mm, and 6x7 negs has been that
all film, even 35mm, does a better job at capturing fine details. Everything looks good at smaller sizes, but when you start making
16x20 and larger prints, the digital prints do not look as good close
up. You can see digital artifacts, and the extremely fine detail that
film can capture just isn't there.
OTOH, when you move your nose away from the photo and look at it from a normal viewing distance, the difference in visible detail disappears, and I prefer the digital prints for their smooth colours and lack of grain.
It's hard to say that digital is better or worse than film; it's different, which means it's better in some ways and worse in others.
Chris
