>From: Stephen Scharf <scharfsj@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>What was compared were two shots made by a respected working pro in a studio
>for a 2 page catalog spread.
>
> >I don't believe it. I have not read the article, but I'm certain there is
> >some caveat or condition in there...
Okay, I stand by my statement! I was being a bit facetious in my conditions,
but it appears the caveat was "for a 2 page catalog spread." I have no problem
with that. I DO have a problem with folks saying it's unconditionally better. I
guarantee that if you blow both of them up to 50"x70" and look at them from six
inches, there will be a BIG difference!
I don't know why all the digital advocates are so defensive! There is simply
more information present in a quality 4x5 than there is in ANY digicam image!
I'm NOT saying you can't do good work with a digicam! I'm NOT saying you can't
make money with a digicam! I'm NOT saying that, for a particular application, a
digicam isn't as good as 4x5! I'm not even saying that digital won't catch up
in a few years! So please stop saying the two are equal today, which they are
NOT!
--
: Jan Steinman -- nature Transography(TM): <http://www.Bytesmiths.com>
: Bytesmiths -- artists' services: <http://www.Bytesmiths.com/Services>
: HTML email goes right in the trash! Turn off HTML if you want to email me.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|