My portfolio is about half digital, half film or somewhere in that
neighborhood, seventy of eighty 11 x 27 prints in all. All printed on
an Epson 2200. The film shots are from 6x7 scanned at 3200 dpi. Art
directors and photo reps can't tell which is which without a loupe.
Even with a loupe, the fine grain is difficult to distinguish from fine
digital noise. I'll bring it to GFM, and we'll see if the PDML can sort
them out..
On Mar 28, 2006, at 11:04 PM, Aaron Reynolds wrote:
Speaking of this, I'm sure I could get some prints to Dave Brooks
before he goes to GFM if the assembled masses want to play.
I haven't shot a lot with the DS2 that's not boring commercial crap,
pictures of my son or baseball, so I guess I'd have to shoot something
new.
-Aaron
-----Original Message-----
From: "Aaron Reynolds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subj: Re: Workflow
Date: Tue Mar 28, 2006 9:47 pm
Size: 2K
To: [email protected]
It all depends on the quality of the original, the skill of the person
making the prints/scans, and the quality of the printer and scanner.
There is no absolute answer here, though personally my best results
are from scanned medium format transparencies. I don't have a 20+ MP
camera to compare, though, so it's not a fair fight -- $3000 worth of
camera/lens and $4000 worth of scanner should trounce $1000 worth of
camera/lens every time.
-Aaron
-----Original Message-----
From: graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subj: Re: Workflow
Date: Tue Mar 28, 2006 8:27 pm
Size: 1K
To: [email protected]
Year before last Cotty brought a batch of photos to GFM with the
challenge to tell which were shot with film and which were shot
digitally. To make it harder the film images were scanned and printed
digitally so they were all digital prints. Now most of the folks I saw
look at them could tell mostly which were which. So much for the idea
you can't tell the difference.
And BTW all web images are small and digital it would be hard to see
the
difference in them.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
-----------------------------------
Don Williams wrote:
Aaron Reynolds wrote:
On Mar 28, 2006, at 8:19 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
Actually, Aaron gets it completely. As do the others who've done
enough darkroom work to realize that , like processing pics on the
computer, it's just work. Both can be rewarding, both can be
difficult and tedious.
Yes, thank you.
-Aaron
If you think digital photography and Photoshop manipulation is not
'art'
take a look at the gallery of crystal 'prints' I offer on my website.
I've had some very flattering messages about them; one from a
professional photographer (he uses both film and digital) who really
knows what he's doing. He suggested some of the images resemble Miro
paintings. Personally I think most are 'run-of-the-mill' -- but one or
two are interesting. There are about half a dozen that were made on
film
amongst them -- I dare anyone to say which.
Don
