I am sure that it does Moose. My point is still that you are comparing
different picture sizes. However, if you are happy with your image
(and if your viewers are) that is surely all that matters. I am not
happy with the digital pictures that I take when I go back and look at
what is possible with my film.
Chris
On 29 Jul 2004, at 01:36, Moose wrote:
> Yup, in that sense, it's an 'unfair' comparison, unfair to the digital.
> But I wanted to make it anyway. That's partly because I don't believe,
> from experience, that pixel to pixel comparisons work in comparing film
> to digital. Good digital gives the effect of the same quality with
> fewer
> pixels on screen and in print for many viewers. I've heard and
> participated in specualtion about why that would be so, but whatever
> the
> cause(s), it seems to be true.
>
> And my conclusion from my quick and dirty examples is that a 6mp DSLR
> is
> different from, but pretty competitive in detail visible, to an old
> film
> SLR with fine grain film. I think, for example, that the gladiola bud
> detail shows subtle graduations of tone/texture (in this admittedly
> limited world of 8 bits) that considerably exceed those of the B&W
> sample, with its apparently larger and very sharp edged grain.
>
> Moose
>
> Chris Barker wrote:
>
>> Interesting Moose, but surely Walt's original has many, many more
>> pixels from which to take a fraction of 1/225th? That is surely one
>> of
>> the main points: that you have much more picture material to use with
>> film, scanned with a suitable scanner.
>>
>
<|_:-)_|>
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
==============================================
|