Brian,
Your challenge is that you have nothing to compare it with and you're
looking at a small, 275kb JPG.
I have more equipment than I need :), but the difference between 4000dpi (18
megapixels) on the film scanner and 5 megapixels on the E-20 is still HUGE.
Not when you display it on the web -- honestly, it doesn't matter for that,
but when you print it.
I just cut (what a pain) and mounted (more pain) a 24x36 print from my Epson
1270 (printed in 4 pieces). It looks great.
I never could have done that in digital -- even with the E-20.
Tom
> Hi Zuiks,
>
> A person in Thailand I am getting to know recently sent me a photo of
> himself and his two kids.
>
> I was amazed at the quality of what he sent, and mentally pictured me
trying
> to do the job with my OM gear.
>
> I asked him what camera he used for it and he said his lab has just got a
> digital camera for research purposes and he is using it as much as
possible
> to get to know it. I'm pretty sure he doesn't use any software to modify
the
> image. So what you see is what the camera took.
>
> The shot can be seen at the link below. Be warned; it is a 275kb download
> about.
>
> http://homepages.caverock.net.nz/~bj/images/TB-family.jpg
>
> Ignoring for the moment that there is no modelling sidelight etc; it's all
front-
> on lighting, the things that stand out to my mind are
>
> 1) fine detail (in Opera browser I can set the screen magnification to
2000r
> 300% and it still looks pretty good)
> 2) good colour
> 3) no extra tweaking required
> 4) very good depth of field.
> 5) Probably very quick.
>
> When you consider the problems *everybody* seems to have with scanning -
> I'm a lurker in the ScanWit group, and the pain that I see people there go
> through to get a decent scan - to get the darned scanner to work even, is
> quite unreasonable.
>
> Here he gets a pretty good result with NONE of that BS.
>
> Consider also how important electronic transmission and display of images
> has already become and can only get more so. So trouble-free
digitalisation
> of images becomes very important.
>
> Regarding the photo above, many of us would struggle mightily to get the
> same detail, DOF and colour in a scan of this subject with a film camera.
> Many / most would not get there, I suggest. Me included.
>
> I've noticed too the DOF and good colour of many of the better advertising
> shots on eBay, and once or twice I have asked the vendor what they used.
> Invariably, digital.
>
> I'm not sure where this train of thought is leading; it's only half
developed. I
> guess my subject title says it all.
>
> Brian
> >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|
