----- Original Message -----
From: aimcompute <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Pentax Discuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 3:45 AM
Subject: Re: what I think of current digital cameras
> I'm STILL going to go down, belly on the ground, pounding my fists and
> kicking my feet.
>
> Tom C.
I've heard this sentiment many times, and I've never understood it. As
soon as digital cameras can do what I want at a price I like, I'll dump film
in a heartbeat. As long as my images look the way I want to, that is the
important thing. If I can do it more conviently and possibly less
expensivly, I'm all for it. I'd never dream of putting plegding allegience
to a certain process just because its all I've ever used, or even just
because all of my current equipment uses it. Images first, then the
process...
Isaac>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "aimcompute" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 12:50 AM
> Subject: Re: what I think of current digital cameras
>
>
> > Hi Mike,
> >
> > It seems you may be talking about the printing process where I'm talking
> > about the imaging process (the ability to record and capture the image).
> > Not sure.
> >
> > I agree that quality, may sometimes be subjective depending on the
desired
> > results or intended use. In that case quality is perceived versus
> measured,
> > and is very much in the eye of the beholder. I may like Monet, you may
> like
> > Picasso.
> >
> > But is that always the case (that quality is subjective)? Let's compare
> > theoretical lenses A and B. We run them through the same set of tests
and
> > have measured results. Lets say lens B comes out on top. We claim lems
B
> > is better, while lens A is inferior. We don't simply say they have
> > different qualities. We say one is of lesser or higher quality than the
> > other. Lens A may very well not be able to produce as sharp, as clear,
as
> > distortion-free, as "robust" an image as lens B (in vernacular terms).
Of
> > course there may be some qualities that cannot be measured.
> >
> > The point I'm making (or attempting to make <g>) probably boils down to
> > this. Correct me if I'm wrong. A 35mm film frame has the ability to
> record
> > more information than the same size CCD, given that one exists . The
> "data
> > density" is higher, among other things. This means that we are able to
> make
> > a larger image with the film, than with the CCD before we see
degradation
> > (fuzziness, grain, lack of definition, etc.)
> >
> > As a general consumer item, as used by most consumers, digital cameras
may
> > produce images that are just as good as film, in the eye of the one
taking
> > the photos. But try to do those things that most consumers don't do,
and
> > that I believe is where film wins out.
> >
> > Same argument can be made for 35mm vs. MF vs. LF. The reason for using
> the
> > larger format is to record more information, to produce a better image
at
> a
> > given print size. That's mostly what I was meaning by the word quality.
> >
> >
> > Sorry, I'm not intending to argue or belabor the point.
> >
> > Tom C.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2001 10:38 PM
> > Subject: Re: what I think of current digital cameras
> >
> >
> > > Tom C. wrote:
> > >
> > > > Digital photography is not yet about QUALITY
> > >
> > > Well, I'm repeating myself, but I respectfully disagree. I was a hard
> sell
> > > on quality for many years. Photographs, however, do not have
"quality";
> > they
> > > have qualitieS.
> > >
> > > That is, the results of different films, cameras, formats, printing
> > methods
> > > and materials, alternate processes, and so forth and so on, each have
> > their
> > > own qualities. If you like one, you may not like another; but it's
safe
> to
> > > say that no one universal definition of "quality" can be agreed upon.
> > > Sharpness? But gum dichromate isn't sharp. Good color reproduction?
> > > Obviously not! High contrast? Many platinum prints don't have that.
> > >
> > > We all like some things and not others. John Szarkowski, the famous
> author
> > > of photographic books and longtime Director of the Department of
> > Photography
> > > at the Museum of Modern Art, hates carbro prints. Personally, I think
> > carbro
> > > color perfectly suits the work of the process's most famous
> practitioner,
> > > Paul Outerbridge, but I loathe Cibachrome prints--can't stand 'em. I
> > > personally really love the look of 35mm Tri-X, actually preferring it
to
> > > medium format black and white. Most would lean towards the other way
> > around.
> > > Many large-format devotees can't look at anything that's not made with
> > sheet
> > > film--they're just not interested. I like round prints, like early
Kodak
> > > pictures, or Emmett Gowin's or Sam Wang's. People have different
> opinions
> > > about the square. Some people love grain, some hate it.
> > >
> > > Etc.
> > >
> > > The only agreed-upon lack of "quality" is when something looks
> technically
> > > inadequate to the task it was designed to serve, and for many years,
> > digital
> > > prints met that definition of low quality. However, I think now that
> > digital
> > > printing is ready to be judged and appreciated on its own terms for
its
> > own
> > > qualities.
> > >
> > > Digital inkjet has a "look." I personally like its qualities. Not
more
> > than
> > > anything else; maybe not in my top five; but I like it.
> > >
> > > --Mike
> > > -
> > -
> > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
