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? also, they mentioned upsizing the film scans in CS2 but made a
point of mentioning that when they upsized the digi-image they used
multiple steps. Did they use multiple steps with the film scans?
And... what was the aperture? and why would you want to compare 20x30
prints when you can't even print that size? so many flaws in this
"test" (and, yes, I know that's why Mr. Robb sent us the link).
I'm no pixelpeeper or measurebator. I make pictures. my tests are as
simple as "how did the picture turn out?" or "wow that image is soft...
I wonder if it was the lens or me?" and "wow, must be the lens, time for
something else"
the sorts of "tests" that people post on websites just seem like
reassurance to the "photographer" that the purchase they made was justified.
I mean, I've seen so called "tests" that "prove" that a 17-55 crappy
canon kit lens (CCKL) is "better" than the 17-40 L lens.
whatever.
--
Christian
http://photography.skofteland.net
