I've seen many digital photographs, but "amazed" isn't a word I would use to
describe my feelings regarding any of them. "Amused" maybe, because so many of
them look like they were shot under water. Or "bemused" sometimes, because
most I have seen lack the really fine detail I expect and demand, but instead,
like the work of a skillful painter, upon close examination show a mere
suggestion of detail, an illusion, some sleight of hand, rather than the real
thing. I call it prestidigitaltation.
But, like the punch line in the old moose turd pie story, "But it ain't bad!"
Walt
--
"Anything more than 500 yards from
the car just isn't photogenic." --
Edward Weston
-------------- Original message from Winsor Crosby : --------------
>
> But there are pixels and there are pixels. Any one who has scanned with
> a good scanner is amazed at the number of pixels. And then they are
> amazed at the wealth of detail of many fewer pixels from a digital
> camera.
>
>
>
> Winsor
> Long Beach, California
> USA
> On Jul 28, 2004, at 8:24 AM, Chris Barker wrote:
>
> > Interesting Moose, but surely Walt's original has many, many more
> > pixels from which to take a fraction of 1/225th? That is surely one of
> > the main points: that you have much more picture material to use with
> > film, scanned with a suitable scanner.
> >
> > Chris
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|