This has nothing to do with a film v digital debate. My comment was in response to Bob's and pointed out something I find rather odd which deals, not with digital, but with film. Lighten up, Godfrey ... ;-)) Doesn't it seem odd to you that someone would take a perfectly good negative and reduce its quality by running it through a scanner and photo editing software when a perfectly fine print could be made directly from the original negative? Or are you so enmeshed in the digital workflow that the concept of working directly with a negative is little more than a vague memory?
Sure, there are any number of reasons why someone may want to convert a neg to a digital file in order to make a print (damaged neg, need for digital file for professional reasons, making major adjustments that can't or which would be very difficult to do otherwise), but there are those that just do such a conversion of perfectly good negs as a matter of course, and for the life of me I cannot figure out why that may be in some circumstances. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Date: 5/15/2005 9:15:42 AM > Subject: Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware > > Is there some reason that you are trying to draw out yet another > idiotic "film versus digital" debate? > > Godfrey > > > On May 15, 2005, at 8:59 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > A couple of days ago a friend and I were talking about the rather > > convoluted workflow some of us go through at times. We buy good > > quality > > cameras, the highest quality lenses we can afford, test and retest film > > looking for that which gives the finest grain and highest resolution > > and > > detail, and then scan the film using, at best, mediocre scanners > > (sometimes > > at rather low resolution), run the mess through photo editing software > > to > > correct and enhance lost color and sharpness, destroying even more of > > the > > original negative, and then print the mess on an inkjet printer > > (sometimes > > purchased with low price paramount to highest quality) or send it to a > > lab > > somewhere that'll make a print cheaply - sometimes even via FTP or > > email - > > where the techs have no idea what the final result is supposed to look > > like, and, bada-bing, we have the modern photograph. What's wrong with > > this picture? <LOL> > > > > > > Shel > > > > > >> [Original Message] > >> From: Bob Blakely > > > >> Ain't film wonderful! the grain is entirely random! No anti-aliasing > > filter > >> required! FYI, anti-aliasing filters are not like the ubiquitous UV > > filter. > >> By their nature, they must add minor, shall we say, distortions to > > perform > >> their function. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Bob... > >> ------------------------------------------------ > >> "A picture is worth a thousand words, > >> but it uses up three thousand times the memory." > >> > >> From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > >>> On 14 May 2005 at 8:21, Bob W wrote: > >>> > >>>> AA filter? Does that prevent Leica photographers taking photos like > > Ansel > >>>> Adams? > >>>> > >>>> If not, what actually is an AA filter? > >>> > >>> Anti-Aliasing > >>> > >>> http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/a/an/anti-aliasing.htm > > > >
