Ah, well I don't want to disrupt the regularly scheduled programming.
Maybe if I look at it again I'll be able to see something artistic in
the muddled detail and color fringing.
One of my big problems with digital is exactly what this article
points out, though. When enlarge film WAY too much you get kind of a
sand mandala thingy. It's not necessarily something most people would
want hanging on their walls, but it still has an aesthetic appeal.
When you zoom in WAY too much on a digital image you get a frame
capture from an Ampex Mark IV. At some point in its continuing
development *someone* has got to address the aesthetic appeal of the
basic building blocks of the digital image. Because as it is right
now film is going to win out in any contest. The only way digital
looks good is if you have SO much more resolution than a film-based
image that you never really see any of the image's "DNA" or whatever.
On Jul 30, 2005, at 3:54 PM, AG Schnozz wrote:
> You just don't get it, do you?
>
> Digital images = good
> Film images = bad
> Canon images = very good
> All others = very bad.
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|