> > From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2006/03/29 Wed AM 11:07:41 GMT > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: GFM Digital Challenge? was Re: Workflow > > 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.
That's because they are all digital..... 8-))) > 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 > >> > > > > ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
