A few years ago I attended one of the PhotoVision seminars given by Ed
Pierce & Co. The primary lab at that show was Burrell and they
advertised their wares by displays a couple dozen 24x30 inch prints
made by the cameras that were state of the art at that time -- Canon
1D/D60 and Nikon D1. I was suitably impressed and vowed to replace my
D30 with a D60 ASAP. Of course all of the pix were wedding/portrait
-- not landscape.
FWIW/ScottGee1
On 8/22/05, Winsor Crosby <wincros@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I don't know, Chuck. I did not go back to reread it since he first
> wrote it, but my memory is that each time he made those assertions in
> an essay he was careful to say somewhere that it was true at the
> sizes that he normally prints. I know with my own testing that even
> my 5MP Coolpix with a 9 to one zoom was substantially better than my
> OM4T with an OM 2 to 1 zoom, up to 100 percent in the digital image.
> Above that things deteriorated quickly and at 300 percent the film
> was better. I think all Reichmann is saying that in the sizes less
> than 100 percent digital is better which is really the argument for
> more pixels.
>
> The problem with these assertions is that they just generate
> arguments because better is subjective and there are so many
> variables, including the most important one of commitment to one's
> own equipment whether old or new. You can even find people who
> purport to prove one or another point of view with mathematics based
> on questionable assumptions.
>
> I basically agree with you since before digital came along people
> tended to agree that you could only get a decent print out of 35mm up
> to about 11x14 unless you were treating grain as an art medium.
> Larger prints needed medium or large format film. It was earthshaking
> when National Geographic settled on 35mm even for the small photos in
> their magazine. Now people ignore the superiority of digital at the
> old upper limit for 35mm film and argue that 35mm prints are superior
> to digital at huge sizes that are ugly and inappropriate for both.
>
> I kind of disagree on that drum scan. I did not think it looked much
> better than his own scan. I kind of think drum scans acquired their
> rep before there were 4000 and 5600 dpi home scans to compete with
> them. Lots of these old technologies like commercial Iris printers
> modified into art printers a few years ago to produce "Giclee" prints
> have long been surpassed by any of the better home printers available
> to anyone.
>
>
>
> Winsor
> Long Beach, California, USA
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 22, 2005, at 4:02 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>
> >
> > The images are there for you to see. Either he lied or the 1Ds at
> > 11 MP
> > is the equal of a 6x7 negative at far less cost. It took the high
> > cost
> > drum scan to equal (not beat) the digital image.
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|