Hallo Boz,
but than your real world digital camera cannot be more expensive than 1000
and not 1
regards
Rüdiger
>Pål Jensen wrote:
>>
>> So putting the image through a scanner that cannot do justice to
>> the film is considered "real world". With such test procedures you
>> can prove any
Pål Jensen wrote:
Bruce wrote:
So there is
something deep inside that really wants my 67 to be much better than
the digital world to help justify my use of it.
Don't you think those who have recently spent $8000 on a DSLR may be prone to similar justifications directed towards digital?
Pål
Bruce wrote:
>So there is
> something deep inside that really wants my 67 to be much better than
> the digital world to help justify my use of it.
Don't you think those who have recently spent $8000 on a DSLR may be prone to similar
justifications directed towards digital?
Pål
On 26 Jan 2003 at 21:24, John Mustarde wrote:
> Negative on that need for film, ol' buddy, since the DSLR wound it's
> way to my little spot of heaven here in the Valley of the Sun. But
> I've still got a few rolls of that expensive stuff safely stored, just
> in case my meds kick in and these del
At this stage I suspect that many of us are clinging to the
(hope/feeling) that all of our old beloved gear and way of doing
things is not threatened. So even though the trends and capabilities
of digital benefit us, it also starts to make me question the monetary
value of all my hard earned equip
Dead wrong. The best way to judge a picture is to subject your
eyeballs to it.
I could care less about how it looks sto an electron microscope. I
ignore that aspect of it entirely.
A photograph is most usually to be LOOKED at. Not dissected.
I do not "scientifically" judge a photograph. Why would o
aja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Päivä: 26. tammikuuta 2003 3:46
Aihe: Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
>
>One thing we must readily admit--the EOS 1Ds surpasses 35mm film.
>
>So I think we must at least admit that "digital has surpassed film."
&g
The following is a post on dpreview.com, which I reproduce here FYI. It was
written by Melvin Sokolsky, not me. Thought some of you might be interested.
--Mike
>
> Danny Cardenas wrote:
>
> > He compares his 1Ds images to his Pentax 67 images and ends the
> > article with "Goodbye film.
Bruce R.wrote:
>Everyone is right, everybody is wrong, no one really knows what
> is being talked about and it's another pissing contest.
Yup. That's the PDML in a nutshell.
And part of what I like about it.
(Although it means all hell of a lot of time consuming "deletion
sessions".)
Lasse
> -Original Message-
> From: Mike Johnston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >
>
>
> Look, I'm still shooting 35mm B&W. I'm going to keep doing
> so. But EOS 1Ds
> color prints are better than 35mm color prints by every
> single conceivable
> qualitative measure except the cost of the camer
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>A friend of mine is using the Coolscan 8000ED. He has activated ICE3
always as the advantages are obvious. He doesn't complain about
sharpness or contrast problems. But I will have a closer look next time
I visit him...;-)
Regards, Heiko<
Hi Bojidar,
on 25 Jan 03 you wrote in pentax.list:
>Keep in mind, and he says it a few times, he is comparing real-world
>results.
Yes, but he determines the rules of this real-world. I believe that
everything is true for his own work. But I think his test setup is not
objective enough. Jus
Yes, but if someone comes back with an unreferenced, "this film does 160
lp/mm". Everyone is right, everybody is wrong, no one really knows what
is being talked about and it's another pissing contest.
BR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1.6:1 is regarded as the TOC to reference to for general picture
;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
> This is a sloppy, unspecified, over simplified generalization. The
> target chart contrast has to be specified for the lp/mm figure. For Fuji
> Superia 100 (CN) th
One of the better pro photographers in Detroit, Tom Roche, had a
portfolio show at my place of work last week. I had visited his studio
last year to watch him shoot 4x5 digital, with computer tiling, and at
that time he had told me that most of his work was digital. After
looking through his late
- Original Message -
From: "Bruce Rubenstein"
Subject: Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
> This is a sloppy, unspecified, over simplified generalization. The
> target chart contrast has to be specified for the lp/mm figure. For Fuji
> Superia 100 (CN
://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
- Original Message -
From: "Keith Whaley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
> If that's what you get out of my comments, pe
I have a feeling that this group of people on the list
seemed intent to discuss the technical aspect of
photography, when photography itself is not a science.
It never was.. Photography has also been an art.
Whenever I meet people out there with an APS camera,
they seemed to have the technical e
Rob Studdert wrote:
>
> On 26 Jan 2003 at 5:10, Keith Whaley wrote:
>
> > Folks are starting to seriously take sides, instead of just having
> > casual opinions...
>
> The apparent polarization is a function of inappropriate comparison methods.
That may VERY well be, sir.
I am prepared to al
This is a sloppy, unspecified, over simplified generalization. The
target chart contrast has to be specified for the lp/mm figure. For Fuji
Superia 100 (CN) the resolution is 63 for a 1.6:1 chart contrast and 125
for 1000:1 chart contrast. (Fuji 2001, Professional Data Guide).
Numbers without a
Au contraire! I don't think most anyone with any brains is saying it's
going to "replace" film. Just that the days of it's being able to
_equal_ film have just about if not actually arrived.
keith
Rob Studdert wrote:
>
> On 25 Jan 2003 at 22:45, T Rittenhouse wrote:
>
> > In many ways those few
ROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 8:10 AM
> Subject: Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
>
> > Well said, J.C.
> >
> > I wasn't going to jump into this fray, but your first paragraph sets
> > it up for me.
> > I am not an expert
AIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 8:36 AM
Subject: Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
> I do not see, how a digital picture taken with a 14Mpixel sensor can
> beat 35mm film at f=8, i.e. at a total resolution of lens and film of 70
On 26 Jan 2003 at 5:10, Keith Whaley wrote:
> Folks are starting to seriously take sides, instead of just having
> casual opinions...
The apparent polarization is a function of inappropriate comparison methods.
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
[EMAIL PRO
.
Geeze!
Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 2:40 AM
Subject: RE: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
> Based
Arnold wrore:
> I do not see, how a digital picture taken with a 14Mpixel sensor can
> beat 35mm film at f=8, i.e. at a total resolution of lens and film of 70
> or more line PAIRS/mm
It is because "they" put it through various filters that removes most of the "lines
pr/mm" before "they" com
Subject: Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
> Well said, J.C.
>
> I wasn't going to jump into this fray, but your first paragraph sets
> it up for me.
> I am not an expert in any of the fields, but I can trust my own eyes.
> I must qualify what I consider "bes
I do not see, how a digital picture taken with a 14Mpixel sensor can
beat 35mm film at f=8, i.e. at a total resolution of lens and film of 70
or more line PAIRS/mm
(values that one can easily produce with most Pentax lenses)
36mm*140lines/mm = 5040 lines horizontally
24mm*140lines/mm = 3360 lines
Once 35mm DSLRs equal medium format in quality,
the WAR is overAnd I think that time may have already
arrived.
Would that be the end of Pentax since they would lose both 135 & 120
systems?
regards,
Alan Chan
_
STOP MORE SPAM w
Based on the JPEG ( not even a tiff ) from kodaks
14Mpixel SLR, it CERTAINLY beats even the best
35mm film image, and to my eye, equals or even exceeds
my best P67 images.
Even if it just equals P67, that gives the 35mm DSLR
a huge enuff advantage to be the winner. Why?
Think about the variety, si
> We don't have to admit that at all.
>
> If you compare a high quality photographic print from film to a
> digital print from a digital image the photographic print is still better.
> And if you compare a large format photographic print to a digital print it
> is quite a lot better.
I hate to be
om: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 11:02 PM
Subject: Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
> Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >If you compare a high quality photographic pri
> I'm not at all willing to say EOS 1D surpasses 35mm.
I said a 1Ds, not a 1D.
--Mike
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>If you compare a high quality photographic print from film to a
digital print from a digital image the photographic print is still better.
And if you compare a large format photographic print to a digital print it
is quite a lot better.<
a couple
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>I'm not at all willing to say EOS 1D surpasses 35mm.<
have you personally done a comparison yet?
Herb
We don't have to admit that at all.
In some ways I get very tired of this argument. High end digital is good
enough for most commercial use now. That is not the same thing as it is
better than film. First comparing a digitalised film image to digital
imaging is kind of stupid unless you need a dig
Sorry, check out the comparison in Pop Photography this month. I can't say
that
the detail comparison is more flattering but print from the ISO 100 color
print
film obviously carries more information than the print from the 9 megapixel
dslr
(see Digital Directions, Got Enough Pixel Power? Popul
More actually.
At 05:56 PM 1/25/2003 -0600, you wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
> > You missed the fact that he didn't compare the originals.
>
> Har, maybe he should output the
Pål Jensen wrote:
>
> Keith wrote:
>
> > > But a test whose parameters are in constant flux...
> >
> > What does THAT mean? Oh, I know what a 'constant state of flux' means,
> > but I don't know what YOU mean by the statement.
>
> I mean that when you are making a test that most people interpr
Illogical and incorrectly presented supposition, just this side of irrational.
keith
Pål Jensen wrote:
>
> Bruce wrote:
>
> > Of course it's different from person to person. They are tools used for
> > different purposes. You want to test how good a screwdriver is for
> > hammering n
No, no, Bruce lad...
I said I prefer the results of one over the other, AS PRESENTED by Michael.
I did NOT say one IS better than the other. How would I know?
Mucho difference.
keith whaley
Bruce Rubenstein wrote:
>
> Of course it's different from person to person. They are tools used for
> dif
- Original Message -
From: "Rüdiger Neumann"
Subject: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
> Hallo
> here an interesting test
>
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml
Mr Reichmann seems to be making a career out of proving that di
Bruce wrote:
> Of course it's different from person to person. They are tools used for
> different purposes. You want to test how good a screwdriver is for
> hammering nails. This is why it is as stupid saying that one is better
> as the other, as blue is better than red. There are reasons wh
Keith wrote:
> > But a test whose parameters are in constant flux...
>
> What does THAT mean? Oh, I know what a 'constant state of flux' means,
> but I don't know what YOU mean by the statement.
I mean that when you are making a test that most people interpret as what is "better"
of camera "A
Of course it's different from person to person. They are tools used for
different purposes. You want to test how good a screwdriver is for
hammering nails. This is why it is as stupid saying that one is better
as the other, as blue is better than red. There are reasons why there
are more than
Uh huh... Well, his was a test: I liked the 1Ds much better than the
Pentax 67, for a lot of reasons, and as far as I'm concerned, I'd much
rather have the Canon. Period!
Pål Jensen wrote:
>
> But a test whose parameters are in constant flux...
What does THAT mean? Oh, I know what a 'constant s
Pretty much matches my experience of owning both cameras. I've been
trying to convince myself that the 67II should be kept just for those
situations that need film, but it's getting harder. I do wish that the
Canon 50/1.4 "felt" better- it's a bit cheap in construction.
I still stand by my asse
y, January 25, 2003 9:32 PM
Subject: Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
> Pål Jensen wrote:
> >
> > So putting the image through a scanner that cannot do justice to
> > the film is considered "real world". With such test procedures you
> > c
Y'all can also jump in on this topic here:
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004QKe
Them thar Hatfields and McCoys is everywhere.
BR
Pål Jensen wrote:
>
> So putting the image through a scanner that cannot do justice to
> the film is considered "real world". With such test procedures you
> can prove anything by simply putting up test procedures that fits
> your preconceived ideas on how things should be.
If the only possibilit
Boz wrote:
> Keep in mind, and he says it a few times, he is comparing real-world
> results.
So putting the image through a scanner that cannot do justice to the film is
considered "real world". With such test procedures you can prove anything by simply
putting up test procedures that fits you
Mike wrote:
> Yes and no. He starts out by saying that he's comparing the film he actually
> uses. For instance, he may need the speed or the color reproduction of the
> film he choses. From there, it's reasonable to talk about the grain.
Well, I wonder why someone who obviously is a fan of high
> - he chooses not the finest grained film but complains about grain
Yes and no. He starts out by saying that he's comparing the film he actually
uses. For instance, he may need the speed or the color reproduction of the
film he choses. From there, it's reasonable to talk about the grain.
If he w
Indeed it is!
However, just as my juices start really flowing, I remind myself that
Canon 1Ds costs $8000!
An absolutely amazing machine.
keith whaley
Rüdiger Neumann wrote:
>
> Hallo
> here an interesting test
>
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml
>
> regards
> Rüdiger
diger Neumann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 5:35 AM
Subject: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67
> Hallo
> here an interesting test
>
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml
>
> regards
> Rüdiger
>
>
>
Hi Heiko,
Just a few quick notes...
> I've just read it.
I just read all of it too.
> I think, that Michael is right, when he says that the digital
> workflow is better for him. It is faster and the results are
> perfect to a certain paper size.
These are my thoughts too.
> BUT - this compari
56 matches
Mail list logo
