Me thinks thou dost protest too much.
And take too seriously that which is spoken tongue in cheek. You never manipulate your words to try to incite humor?
<obligatory smiley> :-) </obligatory smiley>
Godfrey
On May 18, 2005, at 11:46 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
If you can't tell Tri-X or HP5 from digi when looking at a web image, or
Neopan 1600 from digital, or Fuji Press 400 or 800 from digi, then I'd
suggest getting your eyes checked. It's really a pisser how so many
digital photogs, including many on this list, complain about the obvious
grain that shows in film-based images, even on the web, and now we have you
saying that the difference can't be discerned. Gimme a break!
Further, I did not say ANY low rez web image. I said "In many cases it's
quite obvious." That's a far cry from ANY ... if you're gonna use my words
to make a point, use them accurately and don't manipulate them.
I'll put some of my film scans next to some of Rob's digital output, and
the difference in the look between the two is substantial and obvious as to
which is digi and which is film.
When using scanned film images that have been run through Noise Ninja or
Neat Image, it may be more difficult to tell the difference, but it's not
too hard when making straight scans without heavy manipulation.
Shel
[Original Message] From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
Well said, UncaMikey. And 100% correct, aside from Shel's amazing eyes that can tell film from digital capture on any low rez web image.
