Sorry Walt, I have to agree with you. Many of the reviews of digital
cameras, admittedly more the compacts than the SLRs, mention the
inability of the camera to resolve out of focus detail; "mush" was an
adjective used I think.
Chris
p.s. "sorry" because I am showing you up as failing in your duties of
carmudgeon... ;-) cb
On 25 Jun 2004, at 16:29, Walt Wayman wrote:
> I used to think of digital photos as being sort of the equivalent of a
> Playboy centerfold: smooth and slick, but airbrushed and ultimately
> kind of squishy-looking. The photo editor of Sports Illustrated has a
> better analogy, which I have adopted now as my own. He, who has
> probably seen more photographs than everybody on this list combined,
> puts it this way:
>
> "Sometimes [digital] looks like it's underwater, a little bit too
> smooth. A strobed basketball game on a Hasselblad has a sharp line and
> a punch that digital doesn't have. [...] Now a softer feel image [is
> considered good], and when noise becomes apparent, it's a negative
> thing, where it wasn't with film."
>
> To the dismay of some, I will here again invoke another one of my
> hobbies. With audio, people LIKE analog distortion, within limits.
> Nobody likes digital distortion.
>
> Walt, trying to keep up with the doubled curmudgeon duties
>
<|_:-)_|>
C M I Barker
Cambridgeshire, Great Britain.
+44 (0)7092 251126
ftog at threeshoes.co.uk
http://www.threeshoes.co.uk
http://homepage.mac.com/zuiko
... a nascent photo library.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|