----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain
I've reread his posts. He presented detailed explanations of his opinions. Whether one disagrees with them or not is beside the point. He's not a troll, and he's not "Antonio."
I can give some pretty detailed explanations of opinions I have as well.
It doesn't alter the reality that an opinion is just that, until backed up with some factual evidence.
At the moment, all we have is:
"there is no "digital look". A photograph recorded with a digital camera looks as it ought to, as a capture of light without defects intrduced by the capture medium."
This is clearly a wrong statement, as it implies a perfect recording medium is in place, which is a technologocal impossibility.
This has been pointed out to him, with detailed explanations as to why his assertion is impossible, and he has, in rather Mafud like style, ignored the evidence presented, and repeated his incorrect assertion, expecting that it will be accepted as evidence.
Meanwhile, he seems to be treating 35mm film as the ultimate in film imaging possibilities, and assuming that the grain inherent in small format film images is the quality benchmark of the technology.
I myself have pointed out that the quality benchmark for film is larger than 35mm, and I will add to that, the quality benchmark for film imaging does not involve the use digital capture devices.
If anyone cares to trot out the tired argument that since it is hard to get good optical printing, optical printing is no longer a quality benchmark, I can tell you with absolute assuredness that Ferraris are the worlds worst cars, based on how long they would last on the street during a Regina winter.
William Robb
