----- Original Message ----- From: "Jens Bladt" Subject: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
> To me this question is not a religion - just at matter of choosing the > right > gear for the job. > Well, I know Luminous Landscape says a Canon 1Ds does better than a scan > from a Pentax 6x7. > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml > > But paper is patient. So are HTML-files. > But what can we do, really? > > Have any of you guys done group-portraits with a digital camera - APS or > Full Frame? > If you have such group portraits, showing 20-30 people, I'd love to see > one > face croped out of it. > A crop showing 5-10% of the total frame area. > Just to see if you can do this better than me. > > So, for staters I made a small comparison here: > http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/sets/72157594491741789/ The luminous landscape article does something thing I disagree with, which is to compare scanned film to a digital capture. As soon as that is done, you are no longer comparing digital to film. I don't care what sort of scanner it is, you are now making a comparison of a first generation image to a third generation image. The sad fact of life is that if you want to pull the best you can from film, you need to print it optically. For the application you are discussing, I would still use MF film and scan (Ya I know, but try to get an optical print done these days), rather than a small format digital. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
