Well, from that point of view you're right. But then you're not comparing digital with film, but the results of 2 different workflows. Hmmm... look who's talking... I have absolutely no ideea what a really good print looks like.
Alex Sarbu On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:48:24 +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not trying to determine whether film or digital is better. I'm trying to > determine if experts can distinguish between MY prints from digital and MY > prints from film. Obviously, if half of the film prints are optical and the > digital prints are inkjet, anyone could tell at a glance. > Paul > > > "But for the purpose of comparing digitally recorded images and images > > recorded on film, everything else has to be as equal as possible". I > > don't think that's true. > > If you really want to compare digitally recorded images with film > > recorded images, you'll have to use the method which will minimize the > > information loss (it could be different in the 2 cases). > > > > Alex Sarbu > > > > > > On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 08:28:23 -0500, Paul Stenquist > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hmm, I created some jibberish here. I started out to say, "I see > > > thousands of prints a month. I haven't seen an optical color print in > > > years." But I meant to delete that, because it's beside the point. A > > > second experiment comparing a color optical print and a color inkjet > > > print would add more information. But for the purpose of comparing > > > digitally recorded images and images recorded on film, everything else > > > has to be as equal as possible. Of course this still isn't a valid > > > scientific experiment. But I know it will demonstrate that, at least in > > > terms of the way I work, there is so little difference between film and > > > digital, that even experts are unable to determine which is which. For > > > the way others work, that might not be true. > > > > > > >
