In a message dated 11/25/01 8:43:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Don't sit around and dismiss it because it's not like the old tools you have > at hand. > One of the first things I learned back in 1982 when I was first introduced to writing code for computers was the phrase: "GI=GO" (garbage in equals garbage out). Not that digital is garbage, at least not my own device(s), but when making a print from small format digital files, small format digital simply does not input as much raw data as film. Scanning a negative or slide, (and realizing most under $10,000 printers can't begin to utilize ~all~ the inputted small format film data), gives you an embarrassment of riches datawise. Not so with small format digital. Perhaps then, digital devotees ought to simply note that, beside using a Polaroid, small format digital is another quick and easy way of making images, rather than Digital's supporters seeing (promoting) small format digital as a direct competitor to small format (35mm) film, which it most certainly isn't. ***Current and future small format digital cameras hold the same unenviable position to 35mm film as small format film does to medium format film. More raw data makes better, denser prints. Scan small format digital images by whatever method or machine you choose, then drum scan 35mm negatives or slides and film wins hands down. Further, digitize a small format film drum scan, then output it digitally and the comparisons weigh even more heavily in favor of film. You can make any comparisons you want, as long as you realize you won't (can't) achieve near the same data input from small format digital what you get from 35mm film, the exact same discussion steadily raging between medium Vs. small format film supporters. Mafud [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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 .
