Mike,
I want you to be certain that what I was saying was not meant to be even a
slight bit of criticism, I just wanted to get across that I felt the film
shots were superior, IMO, as viewed on my screen; that's certainly not to say
the digitals were bad, or anything like that. They too, were very good, I was
purposely staring at one, then the other, to see any differences. I know that
great shots are also possible from the E-10 and E-20. I understand what
you're saying about the learning curve involved as well as the time involved
in manipulating, or enhancing digital shots. I don't have the patience, the
time, or even, the desire right now to learn the ins and outs of the digital
world; mostly because I'm having too much fun with film. I do have a Oly
digital (1.3MP) that i treat as a P&S, and, for that, it's fine. I know if I
buy a 4, 5, or 6 MP camera, I'll develop serious pixel-envy when the 18 MP
camera arrives, and I'll start a new series of purchases, which I can't
afford to start.
Best,
George S.
msvphoto@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
Lastly, due mostly to laziness, I do no post processing of the digital
files from the E-10. Frankly because I'm not very good at it and don't
have the time. The digital is/was supposed to be a time saving tool
after all. I know from seeing other people's E-10 images that the files
can be enhanced to look much better. I have looked at 11x14 lab
processed prints from the E-10 and Provia F side-by-side and the quality
was *much* closer than I would have thought, so close in fact that I was
stunned. No worries though, nobody is taking away my OMs and my fridge
is stocked with Provia F. NASCAR at CA Speedway here we come next
weekend :) Thank you again George for your constructive reply.
Mike Veglia
Motor Sport Visions Photography
http://www.motorsportvisions.com
|