graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" -----------------------------------
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 23 Jan 2005 at 19:41, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
That's just about the most absurd comment I've read here recently ... there is a
definite look to digital images when they come out of the camera. Then, after
you muck around with them in Photoshop and whatever, they may take on a
different look. Show me a digital camera that will produce Tri-X tonality and
grain structure right out of the box. Perhaps you meant to say that a digital
image can BE MADE to look like anything ...
Direct digital captured images don't look like anything, they are as close to neutral as we can currently achieve if processed by someone with an understanding of limitations of the media. Without getting into a pissing match or speaking for Godfrey I expect the point that was being made is that digital imaging should not impose its own noise/transfer fingerprint on the image unlike film. (And I'm not referring to in camera image processing either, just like you aren't referring to an instant film process.)
Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.2 - Release Date: 1/21/2005
