Hi John ... let's just say, for the moment, that a number of people have been wrong. I don't know if there's been "much" disagreement, since a number of people never stated specifically which they thought was which.
Shel > [Original Message] > From: John Francis > Has there really been much disagreement? > > Almost every post I've noticed seemed to agree that the top > photograph was from the film camera, and the lower one was > from the digital. > > Reasons stated included the rather better white balance of > the lower picture (AWB should do better than a film being > used in lighting conditions it wasn't designed for), and > the better perceived DOF of the lower image (although this > has also been attributed to over-sharpening). > > > On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 09:45:53AM -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > A number of people have determined for themselves which photo was made with > > the digi and which was made with the film SLR. Some were wrong in their > > assessments ... > > > > I'm not saying Mishka is right or wrong ... the comment just reminded me of > > the mistaken identifications. A few people have made comments to indicate > > that they thought they knew which pic was the digi, but didn't identify the > > image, so it's unknown if they were correct in their assessment. > > > > http://home.earthlink.net/~pdml-pics/2818.html > > > > Shel > > > > > > > [Original Message] > > > From: Mishka > > > > > digital lens seems to eliminate the bystanders from the frame. > > > very cool (and useful) feature (unless you are doing street > > photography...) > > > > > > best, > > > mishka > > > > > > On 7/21/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Yep. That was predictable. Virtually the same perspective. More DOF > > from the 18 and digital. But also less edge distortion and better edge > > sharpness. Of course the lack of white balance control renders the film > > image a bit murky, so it's a little tough to compare in some respects. (Not > > to mention that they're itty-bitty web images.) > >
