Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Feeding the rumor mill

Subject: Re: [OM] Feeding the rumor mill
From: "Bill Pearce" <bs.pearce@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 12:51:15 -0500
My friend that owns a lab showed a print he made from a file from a 6mp
canon several years ago. It was a good four feet tall, and looked quite
good. It was printed to photo paper with his Durst system, and absolutely no
GF, just upresed in Durst's software. Looked quite good, even at a foot or
so.

Bill Pearce

-----Original Message-----
From: Jan Steinman [mailto:Jan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 12:20 PM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [OM] Feeding the rumor mill

> From: Bob Whitmire <bwhitmire@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> I've seen some very large prints done from 5D and 5D Mk II files.  
> Talking 40x60 here. Maybe larger. (I didn't have a tape on me. <g>) 
> With proper post-processing discipline, they look good, even from 
> length-of-nose viewing distance.

Haven't touched it in years, but in the early naughties (2000-2003) I was
making 24"x36" prints from ~5 megapixel images (using Genuine Fractals and
other techniques) that people thought came from large format film.

<rant>Not pointing fingers at anyone in particular, but sometimes I think
the "golden eyes" folk like to spend money more than create art.

For a long time, it was "digital needs to catch up to 35mm film," which most
experts pegged at between 10 and 12 megapixels. Now that we have that, it
seems 20 Mpx isn't even good enough, and people are talking about ditching
cameras because of *perceived* inability to keep up with *future*
developments in other cameras!

"Equipment thrash" seriously gets in the way of art. Do good art until the
equipment really is in the way -- I haven't seen many arguments that 4/3rds
is actually in the way of too many things, and in some areas (sensor
cleaning, image stabilization), it appears to still have an edge.

For example, when I read on this list of all the shenanigans it takes to
keep a Canon sensor clean, I'm reminded of PC weenies figuring out how to
set their DIP switches while the Mac users were figuring out how to
HDR-stack images in Photoshop. Not having to worry about dirty sensors and
not having to carry a tripod does me a lot more good than a 20 megapixel
sensor!

Personally, I can't afford to change systems the moment some competitor
comes out with some desired feature or indulges in some other specification
one-upmanship. I'll be sticking with 4/3rds until long after it's been
officially pronounced dead by those who prefer tech to art!

In the meantime, if someone is willing to pay me to do a 40"x60" print, I'll
accomplish it with my E-3 and software. I'll wager that 99% of the images
taken by those on this list never end up being viewed at more than screen
resolution -- if so, than 20 megapixels is a horrible misuse of resources in
most cases!</rant>

----------------
Maybe this world is another planet's hell. -- Aldous Huxley
:::: Jan Steinman, EcoReality Co-op ::::

--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

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