I used to think of digital photos as being sort of the equivalent of a Playboy
centerfold: smooth and slick, but airbrushed and ultimately kind of
squishy-looking. The photo editor of Sports Illustrated has a better analogy,
which I have adopted now as my own. He, who has probably seen more photographs
than everybody on this list combined, puts it this way:
"Sometimes [digital] looks like it's underwater, a little bit too smooth. A
strobed basketball game on a Hasselblad has a sharp line and a punch that
digital doesn't have. [...] Now a softer feel image [is considered good], and
when noise becomes apparent, it's a negative thing, where it wasn't with film."
To the dismay of some, I will here again invoke another one of my hobbies. With
audio, people LIKE analog distortion, within limits. Nobody likes digital
distortion.
Walt, trying to keep up with the doubled curmudgeon duties
-------------- Original message from AG Schnozz : --------------
> Last night I finally got around to processing the B&W film from
> our trip up north. There were several shots that I took with
> 4x5 (HP5), 35mm (PanF), and digital (A1). It will be very
> interesting to see how they all compare when printed. But in my
> initial glimpses I can see things in the negatives with the
> naked eye that simply are not there in the digital pictures.
>
[snip]
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|