Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Re: Hyperbull

Subject: Re: [OM] Re: Hyperbull
From: "Richard F. Man" <richard-lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 22:28:05 -0800
I hate to get dragged into a film vs. digital debate, there's already few too many. However, objectively speaking, some generalizations - - The world is moving to digital. No doubt about it. However, just like there is a revival of sort for analog recording, film does have its uses and places, and may never quite go away completely.
- Digital have better and more accurate color rendition already
- Digital enlargements look better and sharper because there is no grain and because of the larger DOF factor due to smaller sensor size for all except the Kodak 14n and the Canon 1Ds. - Digital 5/6MPs do not have the details as compared to the some of the finer grain films

So personally, I can see why most people would prefer enlargements from a digital camera. For me though, I will use my film cameras for a while longer yet, for my own reasons, which may or may not be applicable to any other person....

FWIW

At 09:24 PM 12/4/2003 -0800, you wrote:

Exactly my "hyperbull" point I made the other day. If I were to show you side by side prints taken with my D60 or 1D from my little Epson 820 or from an Epson 2200, compared to the same photo taken with 35 mm print film, or made from a slide as an Ilfochrome, the digital print would look better. I'm not just blowing smoke here. They *do* look better. It's not just me that says this, Mike Veglia made the same exact point earlier this week and someone else posted last weekend that they saw an 11X14 print shot from a 5 megapixel wonderbrick with no sharpening or postprocessing and printed from an Epson 2200 that was so sharp and detailed it made him want to throw his OM gear in the trash and give up photography. I've got shots printed on my Epson 820 that have so much depth, sharpness and clarity that they give the impression of slide film; shots were you can see the pinholes in the leathers of a motorcycle racer who is going 85 mph in the shot. Today I was reading an article in Digital Photo Pro about Jody Dole, a long-time NY pro who was been using digital since 1990, and still uses both media (film and digital) as the needs arise. He recently shot a job both digitally and with film, and handed both to his client in a "blind taste test"...the client chose digital. "The quality I can get out of the Nikon D1X is, in most cases, better than film. So, there's very little reason for me to use 35 mm film. If I'm going to film, I'm going to medium format film." Moreover, you would be surprised how large you can make a print these days and still have the print look crisp and sharp from a camera with a 4 megapixel camera. Anyone who doubts that, go down to Pictopia in Emeryville, CA and see what they produce on a daily basis. I know many of you are still skeptical about these claims, but if you were to work with these cameras as much as Mike and I have, you would be a believer, but you would still be amazed at the quality.
-Stephen.

// richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly, please use richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)

< 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 >




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz