Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: More on digital vs. film by one of the Landscape masters

Subject: [OM] Re: More on digital vs. film by one of the Landscape masters
From: "Jeff Keller" <jeff-keller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 17:21:37 -0700
17mm at f22 ? Sounds like he thinks "large format". It's hard to imagine
stopping down that much but maybe he wanted to be very close to the monument
valley flower.

I hope his real prints make a better case. I tried comparing the detail of
some medium format pictures that I have on the wall printed at 16x20 to the
1DsII he has posted. I see more detail in a 3/4" slice of the print than in
his crops sized to 3/4" on my computer screen.

I agree, his article doesn't add any understanding for me.

-jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Winsor Crosby
> 
> 
> I think he disproves his own point even in the small prints. 
> 
snip

>   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
==============================================

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