Yah, and Velvia has accurate color rendition.
Digital is good enough for most uses, very convenient, and a money maker for professionals. Why can you guys not leave it at that? But, no, it has to be "DIGITAL UBERALL!".
For most of us photography is a hobby, not a religion. In the end digital is no more true to reality than film, just differently different.
graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" -----------------------------------
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 24 Jan 2005 at 21:08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your fixating on one thing he said that was perhaps a bit over the top. Much of his argument was valid and well supported. As I said, it matters not whether one agrees with him. To label him as a troll is grossly unfair.
I must be a troll, I can understand exactly what Godfrey is arguing and I'm right with him, Antonio he's not. I just can't understand why others here can't get their heads around the concepts, it's not difficult, film's had a good run, it's been surpassed, simple.
I have the same problem with vinyl audiophiles, with my digital gear I can faithfully record and reproduce audible differences between turn-tables and pre-
amps, most audiophiles can't understand the significance of that feat either.
If anyone has only ever seen "cartoon" like rendering from a digital camera then they've never seen a well post processed digital image.
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
