Viewing distance makes all the difference as well. I rarely use a loupe
on my monitor to check out my photos like I might with a print. I think
we sometimes forget in these digital days what is important. For some
it is resolution and detail, others a Pen F will capture the spirit
just as well. If you have to make a certain kind of photo, then you are
going to need a specific piece of equipment. I personally don't think
digital will ever fully capture an image the way film will. There is a
certain randomness and uncertainty in the process. I think my E-1 is
just noisy enough that it has some randomness to it that I like. Even
though I have an E-1, I still use my C-5050, especially when I don't
want to be sticking a big fat lens in someone's face.
The photographer is always a part of the equation when taking a
photograph. If I have an E-1 in my hands, yeah I can convert it to B&W
later, but as Walt says, it won't quite have the same character. But if
I have B&W film loaded in the camera, it totally changes the way I
shoot. And If I took the exact same photo with digital, I would have to
shoot the B&W shot first just to see it, then I can repeat it with
digital. I feel different when different film is loaded. And if I can't
remember if I loaded Velvia or Provia in the camera, it totally messes
me up. I usually just waste the rest of the roll.
But as one photographer said, Oliver Gagliani, something like: "5% of
photography is creative the remaining 95% is just illustration." If all
we are interested in is illustration, then we want the best camera,
film or digital, to do the job. That we can argue. The remaining 5% of
photography requires art. You can't argue art on a technical basis.
Even if you reduce it to 1/225th.
Wayne
At 12:14 PM 7/29/2004, Walt wrote:
>Didn't say it would be a good print. Just said that's how big it would be.
>Just trying to put it all in perspective, you know. No print 8 feet wide is
>going to be "good" unless it's made from at least a 6x9cm tranny or negative.
>Of course, 4x5 in. would be even better. But I'm sure something digital would
>be, oh, so much better.
>
>Walt
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|