I'm happily sloshed. Amazingly, my spelling is okay, so far.
Stills, video. Video, stills. Inseperable.
^^^
Well, that didn't last long ;-P
Morning all. Sheesh, I'm paying for it now.
Cotty Seltzer
Oh, swipe me! He
I've heard many pros say that they've switched to
digital never looked back. Who are WE going to
believe
Harumph. Believe your own eyes.
Wanna know what swayed me in one go? I went to DPReview, downloaded a
straight image, a 2.5 MB jpeg camera original. Once it was on my
computer, I
Bill wrote:
I'm not trying to be a smartass, but sounds to me like the BG-10 grip would
soon pay for itself in using AA's instead of CR-2's
If I want to use a bulky outfit using AA batteries I'll take the 645. The idea of
spoiling a compact camera with a bulky battery grip is rather
Mike wrote:
Second, I'll provisionally believe someone who's actually made firsthand
comparisons with THEIR own eyes, like Michael R. and Ryan.
But Michael isn't doing that. He claim to be performing empirical test proving that
digital is better than film in every respect (his own words) but
on 17.01.03 13:08, Pål Jensen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But Michael isn't doing that. He claim to be performing empirical test proving
that digital is better than film in every respect (his own words) but this
isn't true at all.
I agree with you Pal. There is more than costs in comparison
Just got to second Pål on this, as I have discussed the D1 with Bjørn Rørslett in
person.
I've also got the book Pål speaks about, and I have had the same thoughts about
Bjørn's images as Pål mention here.
Just for the record :-)
Jostein
=== At 2003-01-17, 13:08:00 you wrote:
Oh good lord!
1980's the stone age...
35mm took over for publication in the late 50's early 60's. Before that the
Rolleiflex was king for a few years and for decades before that the Speed
Graphic was the camera of choice. Since the 40's, at least, 35mm was
adequate in quality but required very
beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
I've heard many pros say that they've switched to
digital never looked back. Who are WE going to
believe
Harumph. Believe your own eyes.
Wanna know what swayed me in one go? I went to DPReview, downloaded a
straight image, a 2.5 MB jpeg camera original
We though out. However, on your wedding photography comment, I would point
out that digital seems to work for Monte Zucker.
Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
- Original Message -
From: Sylwester Pietrzyk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
These two technologies has their pros and
Hi!
I think I'd like to respond to one particular paragraph from
Sylwester modulo Mike's initial posting (the capitalization is mine):
SP These two technologies has their pros and cons, you can not
SP simply say digital is better!. You just buy what is BETTER
SP SUITED FOR YOUR NEEDS. As a
on 17.01.03 14:12, T Rittenhouse at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We though out. However, on your wedding photography comment, I would point
out that digital seems to work for Monte Zucker.
Yes, that's true. But the results? At least in Canadina magazine of pro
wedding photographers (Vision,
on 17.01.03 14:30, Boris Liberman at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Really, there is no need to argue here. Indeed one may take a look on
the whatever media suits one to make a decision, add to that a look to
their pocket and make ultimate decision as to what kind of camera to
choose. Then,
Pal:
until someone actually compare film with digital, as oposed to comparing
scanner quality with digital camera quality judged from a copy from both, I
continue being sceptical if not downright
rejective to all these claims.
Cotty:
Harumph. Believe your own eyes.
Wanna know what swayed
Meant Well thought out, of course.
Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
- Original Message -
From: T Rittenhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 8:12 AM
Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
We though out
There are forums that only pros participate in
(http://www.photonews.com/forums/forums.html). You can go there and draw
your only conclusion about what they really think about digital. Very,
very few pros are given equipment or sponsored by camera companies.
BR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let's
What was the misinformation about Pentax and Casio? I think I missed that.
At 08:55 AM 1/17/03, Rick Diaz claimed:
Let's be clear. Some pro-photographers want to make
you think they like digitals because they are being
paid for to say so. Much like some pros who claimed
that APS format is
- Original Message -
From: Doug Brewer
Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
What was the misinformation about Pentax and Casio? I think I missed that.
Something about Pentax calculators and holographic technology for virtual
paper printouts.
Hopefully, available
You are a Camera Purchase Consultant? What a cool job. Does it pay well?
At 09:07 AM 1/17/03, Rick Diaz claimed:
Then theres the question of hyping something the
very same person is prone to.
I have to second that..
Unfortunately in my consulting business, my people who
came to me for
three-dimensional evidence of further debt. What a novel concept. Good
thing it was misinformation.
At 09:38 AM 1/18/03, William Robb claimed:
- Original Message -
From: Doug Brewer
Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
What was the misinformation about Pentax
I didn't mention it first: Mike did. The D1 was a typical Red Herring
thrown in by Pal.
BR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Was it?
Must have missed the post you first mentioned it in, then.
The issue brought up to Pål was, if you noticed, not considering Canon D1s specifically.
Jostein
Bruce wrote:
I didn't mention it first: Mike did. The D1 was a typical Red Herring
thrown in by Pal.
It was not a red herring. It was example that every digital slr manufactured, without
any exception whtsoever, has been described in the same way as the 1Ds by self
proclaimed authorities.
Of course, you could always have threatened to buy a new video camera
instead grin.
LOL. Mercifully, my employer provides that. 20K GBP for the camera and
another 6K for the lens...
But it's gotta last about ten years!
Cotty
Oh, swipe me! He paints with
Digital is catching up, and fast but at a price, I
don't doubt that very soon 24+ mp cameras will be here
that really and truely beat 6x7 and go after 4x5, but
the price it still outrageous. The point many are
missing is that the hi end digital is for those who
can afford it, mere motrals will
: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Hi,
You all write about quality of digital vs medium format etc. and I have a
question.
What about shooting at very low temperatures ( I means -10C or lower)?
Does digital camera can still work well, since it takes plenty of power
etc.Everybody
On 17 Jan 2003 at 13:46, Brendan wrote:
Digital is catching up, and fast but at a price, I
don't doubt that very soon 24+ mp cameras will be here
that really and truely beat 6x7 and go after 4x5, but
the price it still outrageous.
I think that you'll find that the optical limits imposed on
When you proceed with an attempt to debunk someone
else's claim, you
really ought to provide evidence of some sort, don't
you think?
Instead of just saying, It ain't necessarily so!
keith whaley
One way is to get confirmation from Pentax themselves.
Pentax has always denied that they
--- Bruce Rubenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are forums that only pros participate in
(http://www.photonews.com/forums/forums.html). You
can go there and draw
your only conclusion about what they really think
about digital. Very,
very few pros are given equipment or sponsored by
I talked to a friend with Pentax this week. He confirmed Casio's involvement.
I'd guess you've been fed some misinformation.
Doug
At 9:40 PM -08001/17/03, Rick Diaz wrote, or at least typed:
One way is to get confirmation from Pentax themselves.
Pentax has always denied that they worked
On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Herb Chong wrote:
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bill has a point, think of it like this, your scan is
a 2nd generation copy, and therefore not as accurate
as the original.
as if a print isn't.
Herb
That's not the point here. Comparing a
, 2003 12:27 AM
Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
This one time, at band camp,
William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of our local pro types has sold off his 6x7 in favour of the D60. He
says he just can't justify shooting film anymore.
He is primarily a wedding
/graywolfphoto
- Original Message -
From: Chris Brogden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 3:54 AM
Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Herb Chong wrote:
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bill
At 06:12 16.1.2003 -0500, Graywolf wrote:
This is whole thread is a specious argument anyway. If you guys really cared
about quality above all, you would be shooting with a 20x24 inch camera. You
are shooting 35, or 120, in that range digital is now pretty comparable. The
real question is, can we
I believe these types of statements are really at the best based on
poor investigative techniques. Reason for using larger formats like
6x7 is that you get a much improved picture compared to 35 mm in terms
of resolution, color gradation.. simply much more information. people
who hope for a
Why do people insist on scanning film, then pretending they are somehow
making a valid comparison to a pure digital image? To me, this makes much
less sense than making a photographic print from the photographic negative.
Bill,
Well, consider a guy like Mark Roberts. As I understand his
Photographic paper is designed to print photographic negatives.
What I see is people who can't get a good wet print dismissing the entire
technology of wet prints. It's not the technology's fault that people are
incompetent.
Bill,
Michael R. was the furthest thing from an incompetent wet
I think this issue is easily resolved in this manner..
If tommorow, you had to shoot one photo, (portrait, landscape, etc),
and you were to be judged on that single photo, what body would you choose
to buy today?
Ha! That's like saying, if you had a twenty-mile hike to go on tomorrow,
which
On 16 Jan 2003 at 8:04, Collin Brendemuehl wrote:
For those who shoot a lot, digital is good enough right now.
For those who shoot a little, film is still better.
That's what the pros are telling me.
(And I can see the difference with my eyes. No math required.)
Hi Collin,
You've hit the
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is whole thread is a specious argument anyway. If you guys really
cared
about quality above all, you would be shooting with a 20x24 inch camera.
You
are shooting 35, or 120, in that range digital is now pretty comparable.
Galen Rowell said
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
About a year back I met a fine arts photographer. He showed me 30x40s that
were shot on 8x10 transparency film. He pointed out the differences between
the digital prints and the Ilfochrome prints, saying, As you can see the
chemical prints are
Read the title on your thread.
You're being purposefully provacative and you know it!
Well, no, because I don't think it's a provocative statement. I'm perfectly
willing to believe it's simply a _true_ statement.
Last summer I saw some prints from a Canon D60. They were clearly better
than
I think one loses a bit of the overall impact of a picture when viewed
with a 40x microscope. How much difference can be seen in a 8x10 print,
viewed from 18 , with 20/20 vision? People just can't see more than 6-8
lp/mm at 18. They certainly don't see much at all when they look at a
picture
But a 4000 dpi scan resolves more of the negative than an enlarger, at
least in my experience. However, there are too may variables here to
judge Reichmann's results as gospel.
Here's Michael R.'s general response (again, this was an e-mail sent to me,
repeated with permission):
The problem
Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
all I have to do is put nearly any of my Mamiya 7 slides under my 40x
microscope
That seems like a rather impractical way to display your images.
The real issue is how actual prints of a given size, from both 6 x 7 and
full-frame-11-megapixel digital,
Hi!
What a wonderful thought(speech)-provoking question(thread)...
You know, if you don't mind I'd post here an opinion of an amateur who
just recently learned of Third Party Lenses Resource Megasite and
who spent good part of past two days reading these pages and thinking
them through. In no
: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
I think one loses a bit of the overall impact of a picture when viewed
with a 40x microscope. How much difference can be seen in a 8x10 print,
viewed from 18 , with 20/20 vision? People just can't see more than 6-8
lp/mm at 18. They certainly
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, tom wrote:
I agree. A couple of years ago, the naysayers all provided faux
mathematics to prove that digital would never compete with film. Now
they're going to say digital costs too much.
-shrug- Don't care, either way.
Regardless of talent I may or may not have, I do it
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
best ones in 35mm optics. In my experience, the biggest
gains in medium format with film over 35mm with film is
grain reduction, with the increase in overall resolution
coming in second in terms overall visual improvement.
Which brings a question to
William Robb said:
Photographic paper is designed to print photographic negatives.
What I see is people who can't get a good wet print dismissing the entire
technology of wet prints. It's not the technology's fault that people are
incompetent.
From what I've read of APS, that problem is
I have issues with the pixel
math. Everytime digital vs film comes up, someone brings out their
slide rule and proceed to prove that digital is X years away from
equaling film.
The proof is in the prints, and the prints are looking pretty good.
Amen, Tom. I've been enduring the
tom said:
I wasn't disputing that it's cheaper, I have issues with the pixel
math. Everytime digital vs film comes up, someone brings out their
slide rule and proceed to prove that digital is X years away from
equaling film.
The proof is in the prints, and the prints are looking pretty
. Seems like they could do
much the same for traditional 35mm by putting a bar code on the film edge
or something.
There's already a bar code on the edge of 35mm film. It's read by mini labs
to set film brand/type and to put the frame number on the back of the print.
Bill
I think one loses a bit of the overall impact of a picture when viewed
with a 40x microscope.
g I'm glad somebody said that.
How much difference can be seen in a 8x10 print,
viewed from 18 , with 20/20 vision? People just can't see more than 6-8
lp/mm at 18. They certainly don't see much
Is it legal to enlarge squirrels?
Doug
has nothing useful to say
At 10:06 AM 1/16/03, Gregory wrote:
Film has better resolution than digital, until around 11 or 14 megapixels.
But film has grain in a small number of colors while digital has xxx bit
pixels with noise. And I think you can just
Hi,
You all write about quality of digital vs medium format etc. and I have a question.
What about shooting at very low temperatures ( I means -10C or lower)? Does digital
camera can still work well, since it takes plenty of power etc.Everybody knows how for
instance calculators/watches behave
- Original Message -
From: Herb Chong
Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why do people insist on scanning film, then pretending they are somehow
making a valid comparison to a pure digital image? To me
/graywolfphoto
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Hi,
You all write about quality of digital vs medium format etc. and I have
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
i suppose the enlarger doesn't have any effect?
Far less effect than the scanner used for digitizing the negative,
methinks.
William Robb
that contradicts the experience of mine and every other photographer i work
with.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Herb Chong
Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
i suppose the enlarger doesn't have any effect?
Far less effect than the scanner used for digitizing the negative,
methinks.
William
Mike wrote:
Amen, Tom. I've been enduring the calculations for ten years now. They're
always all over the place, they're always assuming premises unproved, and
the conclusions have a very poor historical track record.
But the argument you are using is like stating that 35mm is as good as
Mike wrote:
At the time I said that the D30 was superior to scanned [35mm] film in print
sizes up to about A4 or slight larger. I was vilified for this, yet now
no one disputes this.
Huh? Almost everyone dispute this...
When I reviewed the D60 in early 2002 I said that
it bested 35mm film
Tom wrote:
The camera should work even better at low tempuratures. The batteries are
the problem. If you can get them separated from the camera by a cord and
keep the batteries in an inside pocket a digital camera should be great for
cold weather photography.
The problem for digital for me
Bill wrote:
For once I agree with Bruce. After all, how many people view photos under a
40X microscope? Make your comparisons at a reasonable viewing distance.
That was not the issue. If you want find out the amount of information in an original,
yoiu'll have to find a practical way of
Hi,
Thursday, January 16, 2003, 3:13:56 PM, you wrote:
The purpose of the exercise was to prove to them how quickly we assume that
we get all the contents of pictures, without really _looking_.
there's a well-known photograph by HCB of a landscape in Brie, showing
an avenue of trees curving
Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm happily sloshed. Amazingly, my spelling is okay, so far.
Stills, video. Video, stills. Inseperable.
^^^
Well, that didn't last long ;-P
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
of the MZ-S last about 30 rolls at the most.
Hence, batteries are a constant hassle to me.
Pål
- Original Message -
From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 8:18 PM
Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
I'm not trying to be a smartass, but sounds to me like the BG-10 grip would
soon pay for itself in using AA's instead of CR-2's
Bill
- Original Message -
From: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 6:42 PM
Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7
-
From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 8:18 PM
Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to
be yes
Pål,
I am hearing from both D100 and D60 owners that
they are very
pleasantly surprised out how good the battery
Pål Wrote:
I've read posts from owners all over the place who
says the D60
isn't as good as film but thay use it for other
reasons. Some are even
so dissapointed that they switch back to film! Who are
we going to
believe?
I've heard many pros say that they've switched to
digital never
Pål Wrote:
The problem, however, starts when this type of
comparion is used to say
something about the original. To take an example. If I
compare a
high-end turntable playing vinyl records with, say, a
low resolution digital
recording like minidisc, by taping both to a cassette
tape and then
On Thursday, January 16, 2003, at 01:36 PM, T Rittenhouse wrote:
The camera should work even better at low tempuratures. The batteries
are
the problem. If you can get them separated from the camera by a cord
and
keep the batteries in an inside pocket a digital camera should be
great for
cold
Hi,
I think it was Pal that pointed out, that alot of these comparisons between
digital cameras and film are actualy comparing digital cameras vs a scanner.
I very much doubt that a 1Ds can resolve as much infomation as 6x7 film.
Regards,
Paul
- Original Message -
From: Mike Johnston
Mike,
I think there is one aspect where 67 beats digital. That is in cost
for amateurs (meaning not making a living from their photography).
Until your shooting quantity goes up quite a bit, cost will probably
be one of the last strongholds of the film world for awhile.
Not only that, we live
Paul Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it was Pal that pointed out, that alot of these comparisons between
digital cameras and film are actualy comparing digital cameras vs a scanner.
What I like about Michael Reichmann's approach is that he *doesn't* do this:
He judges by the final results
There's a reason why there has been all those good deals on MF gear on
ebay starting last year.
The empiricists don't give a hoot about what the theorists think on the
subject of.
BR
Mike wrote:
By the way, when Michael says every test I did, including side by side
shoots, he really means it--he actually runs the tests and looks at the
results. In my experience of him, he truly has no particular axe to grind.
He has been saying this about every digital slr since the
Paul wrote:
I think it was Pal that pointed out, that alot of these comparisons between
digital cameras and film are actualy comparing digital cameras vs a scanner.
He does.
I very much doubt that a 1Ds can resolve as much infomation as 6x7 film.
It can't.
The person in question is also
--- Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I have Michael's permission to quote from his
private
e-mails:
I'm using a Canon 1Ds. The most remarkable
photographic product I've
ever owned. Almost large format image quality from
35mm. It's hard not
to sound too enthusiastic about it.
beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Mike Johnston quoted Michael Reichmanm who wrote:
I'm using a Canon 1Ds. The most remarkable photographic product I've
ever owned. Almost large format image quality from 35mm.
snip
I have hung on to the Pentax 67 for the past couple of months
-Original Message-
From: Mark D. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
I seem to recall tv saying something about switching
to digital when he'd be able to shoot in low light
with no noise. Time to pay the piper Tom! ; )
I'd do it right now if I didn't have to pony up $10k to switch
- Original Message -
From: Mark Roberts
Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Paul Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it was Pal that pointed out, that alot of these comparisons
between
digital cameras and film are actualy comparing digital cameras vs
- Original Message -
From: Paul Jones
Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
The Flextight photo that the luminous landscape guy uses is actualy a
lower
end Imacon scanner and only 3200dpi, which is not the great.
I think scanning on one of the high end Imacon
Mike Johnston wrote:
Fact is, MR's the guy with the $10,000 Imacon scanner, the $9,000 EOS 1Ds,
the state-of-the-art Mac and PC on his desk, and the full P67 system. He can
create results with the actual equipment and look at the actual results.
Have you done that?
Of course not. But
- Original Message -
From: Bruce Rubenstein
Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
There's a reason why there has been all those good deals on MF gear on
ebay starting last year.
The empiricists don't give a hoot about what the theorists think on the
subject
--- William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How is he making his prints from negative? If he
isn't using a darkroom, he
is testing his film scanner's sensor to his digital
camera's sensor.
He shoots mainly slide film, Provia 100F I believe.
And I'm pretty sure the prints are made on an Epson
I do know however that if Michael Reichmann has that much money
invested in
digital equipment ($9,000 is the USD price - up here that EOS 1Ds is going
for $13,000 CDN) it's easy for people to think that his viewpoint may be a
bit skewed.
It's a bit akin to stating that SUV's are the best
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think scanning on one of the high end Imacon scanners would be a fair
comparison, as I doubt all the infomation is extracted from a 6x7 neg or
slide at 3200dpi.
The Flextight Photo Ithink is currently around $5000us.
Regards,
Paul
i think
Mike,
Read the title on your thread.
You're being purposefully provacative and you know it!
Regards, Bob S.
In a message dated 1/15/03 7:12:04 PM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You are beginning to sound like Chicken Little.
The sky is falling! The Sky is Falling!
**
Tech weenie responses interspersed.
**
]Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 19:43:42 -0500
]From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
]
]About a week ago I was pondering 35mm digital
]vs medium format
William Robb wrote:
I think getting the neg printed by a professional high end custom lab is the
only fair comparison. It keeps the photographic process photographic.
But a 4000 dpi scan resolves more of the negative than an enlarger, at
least in my experience. However, there are too may
yawn
More dubious math
tv
-Original Message-
From: Collin Brendemuehl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 9:23 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
- Original Message -
From: Paul Stenquist
Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
William Robb wrote:
I think getting the neg printed by a professional high end custom lab is
the
only fair comparison. It keeps the photographic process photographic
I do know however that if Michael Reichmann has that much money invested in
digital equipment ($9,000 is the USD price - up here that EOS 1Ds is going
for $13,000 CDN) it's easy for people to think that his viewpoint may be a
bit skewed.
He's what you might call a dot-com millionaire. He
William Robb wrote:
Some things just can't be quantified with mere numbers. Scanning film is a
bastard technology at best.
Comparing a digitized negative to a digitized digital is flawed from the
start.
True. But comparing a wet print to a digitized digital is perhaps even
, 6:42:10 PM, you wrote:
t yawn
t More dubious math
t tv
-Original Message-
From: Collin Brendemuehl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 9:23 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Sorry. I got interrupted. The missing word is resolution.
In general, the photographers who have been using the digital cameras
are a lot more impressed with what they are seeing than the view of
things that theorists are coming up with based on numbers.
Something that many here forget is that
I think this issue is easily resolved in this manner..
If tommorow, you had to shoot one photo, (portrait, landscape, etc),
and you were to be judged on that single photo, what body would you choose
to buy today?
Leica M6 with 35mm lense.
Mark D. wrote:
He shoots mainly slide film, Provia 100F I believe.
And I'm pretty sure the prints are made on an Epson
2200 now.
So yes, there are some generational issues.
hmmm - perhaps he should get a digital projector and a
6x7 projector and compare the two projected
- Original Message -
From: Bill D. Casselberry
Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
hmmm - perhaps he should get a digital projector and a
6x7 projector and compare the two projected images, then.
Digitizing the analog film may well be detrimental
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why do people insist on scanning film, then pretending they are somehow
making a valid comparison to a pure digital image? To me, this makes much
less sense than making a photographic print from the photographic negative.
William Robb
i suppose
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bill has a point, think of it like this, your scan is
a 2nd generation copy, and therefore not as accurate
as the original.
as if a print isn't.
Herb
100 matches
Mail list logo
