----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Veglia" <msvphoto@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> While I respect your opinion very highly C.H., I respectfully disagree.
> First off, I am not sure I agree there are different requirements for
> motorsports work vs. landscape.
Sorry, may be it is just my guess, I expected a pan shoot can't be "very"
sharp, due to the low shutter speed and moving object. I know you took a lot
of excellent car racing shots but I doubt they will be as sharp as a
stationary shot.
> Secondly, were I doing landscape work
> seriously I would likely be using medium or large format cameras. That
> aside...the high end of digital printing far exceeds the capabilities
today
> of traditional enlarging. For example:
Whenever I compare digial with 35mm, people will say if they need better
things they will use MF or LF. Unfortunately I have never planned to do
serious MF considering I will not do a lot of enlargement, projecting 35mm
is the best I will do.
> Visit these two web sites. Examine their processes (they both only do
their
> high end gallery quality enlarging via digital processes now--Calypso was
a
> Cibachrome/Ilfochrome lab for many years by the way). Look at their client
> lists (a who's who of renowned nature and landscape photographers). Either
> one of these labs can and will extract more from your original slide and
get
> it onto larger paper than any traditional optical lab can do. In the case
of
> Calypso, they gave up the optical process with Ilfochrome because they are
> able to offer even higher quality at larger print sizes this way. On the
> printing side of things the future (digital) is now.
>
I'm sure digital is better than optical in the professional field so I'm
scanning my slide to digital output, they are much better than optical
prints. But we were jsut talking about a 3 or 4MP DC compare to film when
printed 4x6 size and not about the capability of current digital printing
process.
> Where I do agree somewhat is the comparison of an E-10 vs.
> OM/Zuiko/Film..somewhat. For a comparable focal length the E-10 is very
> close in good light with the aperture in the "sweet spot" but that is very
> limiting. Go wide angle or long telephoto and there's no comparison for
> me--I'll keep shooting film, thanks.
I think many of you have seen my comparision made with Zuiko
35-70/3.6+Velvia and E-10, even at 2700dpi the Velvia shoot are much
sharper, now I have made it with the 4000ED, it is just light year better.
http://www.accura.com.hk/digicam/E10V35.htm
http://www.accura.com.hk/velvia.jpg (4000dpi - 170K)
C.H.Ling
< 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 >
|
