This time I agree with Shel (assuming that he's thinking of b&w).
For colour, I suspect grain would give the game away on a large print.
I'm not sure that scanning a negative and viewing the result on screen is
fair. Both should be printed using the best technique available.
John
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 21:51:40 -0000, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It was intended to be a VERY broad brush. I simply disbelieve that by
the time a given image makes it to print form, given the manipulations
involved (including sharpening in the digital world), scanning and
printing, exposing and printing, that it would be possible to draw a
consistently accurate conclusion.
I'm sure at some size one will be able to detect a digital print vs. a
wet darkroom variety, but that would only be identifying the process
used, not the camera or the lens. I'm absolutely positive it would be
impossible to tell which camera was used to take an image when it comes
to viewing a digitized version of the image. If I went and shot a roll
of film and scanned it, displayed the image, and stated that it was
taken with the *ist D, you/anybody would have no recourse but to believe
me.
Tom C.
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally.
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 13:34:50 -0800
That's a statement painted with a very broad brush ...and I disagree
with
it.
Shel
"You meet the nicest people with a Pentax"
> [Original Message]
> From: Tom C
> I would venture to say that no one could see the difference between a
print
> resulting from the *ist D and one taken with the K1000...
>
>
> Tom C.
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
