Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: OT but Photo related

Subject: [OM] Re: OT but Photo related
From: John Morton <loncayeway@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 01:06:23 -0700 (PDT)
I know what you mean, Doug;
   
  I first noticed this happening about 8 years ago, when the little "Kodak 
Photo Kiosks" in some photography stores (which one could feed a negative into, 
and print actual 8X10 negatives from) started disappearing... to be replaced by 
dye sublimation printers, if at all. 
   
  It was a noticeable drop in image clarity and resolution; but it was more 
convenient for retailers to operate kiosks based upon the newer technology: so, 
this 'newer' was promoted as 'better' for consumers even though it wasn't an 
advance in image clarity - it was just more convenient for retailers.   
   
  I am new to this list but, I am going to go way out on a limb and say what 
I've been thinking for years: the primary factor weighing in favor of digital 
photography is its convenience, and this has outweighed all other 
considerations. This isn't just a general consumer preference, but a trend 
started by busy professionals who are seeing their images printed through 85 
lpi screens on a daily basis anyway - and who very much like not having to 
develop/dry/scan negatives to get a working digital image.
   
  I was a member of a Yahoo "Digital Darkroom" group for a while, but quit 
because it was becoming apparent that one of the main posters was an Epson 
shill who was there to impress digital newbies with his skill - and recommend 
Epson products with every second breath. One of his mantras was "Well you can 
only see a difference if you are looking at it through a magnifying glass - at 
normal viewing distances there is no difference".
   
  Myself, I always look at photos from a few inches away, regardless of their 
size. I have a very nice color laser printer that I greatly prefer to any 
inkjet output I've ever seen: I always look at my output from a few inches 
away. But of course, there is always that "Easy is good enough" thing going on 
in general: inkjetting onto watercolor paper, for instance, so that a lack of 
clarity and resolution in display prints can be attributed to 'artistic 
interpretation'.
   
  Still, it looks like digital is catching up to film: I use a Minolta DiMAGE 
5400 digital film scanner, and it produces beautiful images; but the 
interference patterns which form from the way that any scanners' chip interacts 
with film, and that appear as pseudo-grain in the scans, most definitely limits 
the degree of practical enlargement... and does so in a way that does not 
affect the grainless pixel-based direct capture of digital images. 
   
  I do wonder sometimes, though, if the inherent shortcomings of inkjet 
printers made it easier for camera manufacturers to promote products that 
created less-than-stellar digital imaging... and if all of our standards of 
image quality were (hopefully, temporarily) lowered during the early days of 
digital imaging - and lowered just for the sake of 'convenience'.  
   
  John M.
   
                                                     >>>><<<<
   
  
From: Doug Smith <dhsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [OM] OT but Photo related
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 08:04:42 -0400


I was in the Subway sub shop on Transit road in Williansville 
NY(Amherst, 
Lancaster or what ever the address really is there, a Buffalo suburb 
any way) 
on Tuesday. On the wall they had this group of four photos of 
vegetables 
which were about 2 by 4 foot. This is standard type of stuff for a 
chain food 
place except for the fact that when I first saw them I couldn't decide 
if 
they were some poor attempt at an impressionistic type painting or a 
photo 
with really bad JPEG artifacts. If you looked at them closely you could 
see 
the jagged curves that result from blowing a low resolution photo up 
too much 
and poorly. I never did decide if the producer and buyer of these 
images; a) 
had done it on purpose and thought that this was artistic, or B) didn't 
know 
any different. If B, has the public's standards gone down so much that 
something that wouldn't have passed as a snap shot 5 years ago is now 
considered good?

   
   


John Morton 
http://OriginOfWriting.com

==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz