OK, I've got to pipe in here again.
I'm tickled by those who claim that a 14 megapixel digital file
is equivelent, or greater than 35mm film, or that a 35mm camera
produces sharper images than a 4x5 view camera.
Both claims fly in the face of physics. Laws of nature cannot
be overturned by desire to justify our overspending on our own
selected equipment.
Digital imaging presents many advantages over film for most
applications. No question there. However, it must be
understood that digital capture presents a finite product--one
of which is limited by the technology used to capture it. With
film, I can always rescan it with newer, better technology.
Does my 2700 DPI scanner come close to capturing "most" of the
data on my slides or negatives? Get real!
Everybody compares their digital cameras to ProviaF scanned at
4000 DPI and says "hey look at all that nasty grain" and look
how much sharper the digital shot is. Ok, fine. But remember
that ProviaF is just one of a hundred different types of film
available on the market today. ProviaF has extremly fine grain,
but has a nasty film base. Same with Velvia, but the grain
pattern in Velvia is more pleasing to me. Is it possible that
ProviaF just doesn't scan as well as we'd like? I've never seen
a scan yet (even a high-res drum scan) that captured everything
I could see with a loupe or an enlargment in my darkroom.
In the darkroom, there is no substitute for film size. Compare
a 35mm negative blown up to 11x14 to a 4x5 negative blown up to
11x14. Granted the 4x5's lens might not resolve as good as our
lovely Zuikos, but the difference in the two shots will be night
and day. Anybody who says differently is dreaming and not
looking at it objectively.
AG
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
< 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 >
|