Well, you know I like a challenge. And I am curious, too. I've put up a
small site <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/WaltChall/index.htm>.
I've put 6 of my images and the one Walt posted on it. In each case, the
whole original image has an inset of about 1/225 of the original. The
1/225 is calculated from original pixels. However, I have upsized the
insets to 200% of original pixel size, so they won't be too small to
evaluate. So the sample I took had an area of about 28,000 pixels, but
the inset on the site is about 4 times that in size. I know that puts
the digital images at a little disadvantage, but so be it. And, of
course, the origianl images have been downsampled, duh!
I've included images shot at 100, 200, 400 and 800 iso and shot with 2
different Can*n consumer zooms, not the really cheap ones, but not "L"
lenses either, a Zuiko and a Kiron OM mount macro lens. Most of the
digital images were shot in RAW and converted in PS. I did some USM
sharpening and/or local contrast enhancement to at least most of the
digital images. I don't remember the detaila, as I was just messing
around to satisfy my curiousity about the question Walt raised, then I
though it would be useful to show what I found.
The first one is interesting to me, as it is the 12th. shot I took right
after getting the camera. By including the window, I threw the rest of
the image exposure off, the little drawing is distorted because of the
angle it ws shot at and it's a black and white pencil drawing shot in
color at 800 iso. So the inset is crop from a shape corrected image of
the drawing, desaturated. and it still looks amazingly good.
Absolute, unassailable proof of anything? Naw. An indication that the
cheapest DSLR is pretty competitive with 35mm film? Yes, I think so. An
intimation that an $8,000, full frame DSLR will eat up an old 35mm neg?
Yeah, I think so. So what does it all mean? To me it means that
photography is a lot of fun, whether practiced with film and darkroom,
film and scanner and PS or digital and PS. As long as I have fun and
make images that please me, it's all good.
Moose
Walt Wayman wrote:
>I have also posted from the cropped scan a small section comprising
>approximately 1/225th of the whole. (I think that would be .025%, but I'm a
>math retard, so maybe not.) This, I felt, would show just how really poor the
>materials were we had to work with back then and illustrate with great clarity
>the progress we've made and allow for definite, unassailable proof of the
>superiority of digital photography.
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|