Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Point and shoot

Subject: [OM] Re: Point and shoot
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 02:15:26 -0700
Chris Crawford wrote:
> Moose,
>
> Those are great photos but the fact is you shot them with a camera that makes 
> nice 4x6 prints and that's it 
Not really:

- I have made lovely 8x10 prints from even somewhat cropped S110 pics. 
Shocked me, too, at the time. From all I had read, I was expecting maybe 
an acceptable 5x7. No, the 8x10s won't stand up to scrutiny with a 
magnifying glass, but they look great at normal viewing distances. That 
was, in fact, my introduction to the differences in non-photographer 
reactions to digital images. On the wall, along with prints from 35 mm 
film made on the same printer, but unidentified as to source, the 2 mp 
prints drew more positive attention. My theory was that it has something 
to do with the more exactly balanced color response between channels 
across the tonal range, but I don't really know. have you ever actually 
printed an image from a properly exposed and processed image from a 
decent P&S?

 - Only the minority of the linked images were taken with the 1.9 mp 
S110. The rest were taken with 6.1 mp F10 or F30, which meet your 
minimum mp criterion and are capable of printing quite large. Ask AG or 
Bob W. how big you can go with the 5 mp of the E-1. Bob just posted his 
problems really starting to kick in at a full 20x24 print. I happen to 
have seen his prints in person. They are just gorgeous. It's no secret 
why they sell.

> (although I think older digitals like your actually do better work than many 
> newer ones because the older low
> megapixel models had less noise). 
No, the F30 is essentially noiseless at iso 200, better than the S110 at 
100, which is its only iso capability.
> I'm a professional artist, I have to have more than that. 
Whoops, guess I'm trumped by professionalism. I wonder how those pro 
artists on the list have possibly been selling their 5 mp images from 
the E-1.
> I didn't even <snip perfectly good reason not to personally change equipment> 
> I probably won't buy a digital PS for a while.
>   
No argument at all. It's your art and your equipment. What bothers me is 
all the things you have to say about equipment it appears you haven't 
ever really used. Others may take your, to my way of thinking and 
experience, uninformed, word and miss a competent tool that would meet 
their needs for particular uses.

This is a full pixel sample from the preceding frame @ iso 100. 
http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Iron4/pages/IRON4025.htm

And this is a full pixel from the preceding iso 200 frame. 
http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Iron4/pages/IRON4021.htm

And this a full pixel from the preceding iso 400 frame. 
http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Iron4/pages/IRON4011.htm

All with the F10, which is noisier than the F30. Its full frame printed 
at 300 dpi is 7x9.5", 240 dpi is 9x12 and it will print to at least 
11x14 with excellent quality using FM Si Pro or Qimage.

Remember, my primary camera is a 5D, possibly the best pure IQ camera 
available at the moment. I'm not comparing my P&Ss to something crappy. 
They can simply do a few things it can't. For example, this shot and 
most of the others in this gallery were shot with the 6 mp F10. The 
person in charge gave me more than one suspicious eying, and came out to 
check me out once. Had I been using the DSLR I left in the car, I'm sure 
I wouldn't have all those shots. She assumed, like you, that all I would 
get with that tiny, silvery thingie is crap. Whether they fit your 
definition of art or not, I submit that they are technically good 
images. 
http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Monterey%20-%20June%202006/Carmel%20Valley/slides/DSCF1014.html

Moose

==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

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