If you're going to use poor scanning technique you will end up with bad
scans, which will bias your results in favor of pure digital capture.
My crappy scanner gives better results than I saw in that comparison.
I've become almost completely digital but mostly due to convenience not
quality. Though the quality from raw capture on both the *ist-D and Ds
are more than acceptable, if I really worked at it and used perfectly
exposed negatives or slides I could do better.
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Fri, 5 May 2006, Christian wrote:
William Robb wrote:
For your enjoyment. I'm just the messenger......
William Robb
----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Schneider" Subject: Analog
versus Digital Shootout
http://www.ales.litomisky.com/shootout/analogversusdigitalshootout.htm
At the risk of sounding more dumb than usual.... What is the point
in comparing 20x30 inch 240dpi prints and then showing crappy jpegs
on a website?
Assuming that they were all done in the same way, this does not affect
the outcome of the comparison, does it?
Kostas
--
When you're worried or in doubt,
Run in circles, (scream and shout).
