I think he disproves his own point even in the small prints. I have
looked at some of his essay pieces on photography and afraid that I
think they are pigeon poop. Not crazy about his photos, either film
or digital, at least what is posted. I would hesitate to accept
Reichmann's large format master description. I think that there is
some serious technical problem with his comparisons. Most obviously
the sun has moved enough so that there are hours between the
exposures, maybe not even the same day looking at the clouds in one
and not in the other. The pinnacle in the Canon shot is lit more from
the side casting wider shadows on the rock surface and much later in
the day since only the tip is lit.
I know my D100 with 6MP would do a better 200 X300 pixel crop than
his Canon example, it does not have the sharpest pixel acutance
around these days. Certainly it would not have the obtrusive color
fringing.
I saw this article when it was first put up and did not mention it
because it was so flawed. I don't think it advances an argument
either way.
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On Jul 30, 2005, at 1:10 PM, R. Jackson wrote:
>
> Is it just me? In those comparison crops between 4x5 and the C@non
> there was really no comparison at all. The digital image looked
> hideous.
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|