I think there's a big mistake in assumptions here. I don't think Brian
has any intention of mimicing "optically-enlarged 6x17 film". He
intends to "make small panorama shots". Your statement essentially says
that it's impossible for digital to compare with film since the
"sophisticated buyers will know the difference easily". Who says
Brian's intended customers are "sophisticated buyers" of film only
images? I think those buying small prints in an outdoor park are just
looking for a pretty picture to hang on the wall. I think Bob Whitmire
would be surprised to know that he and his Nikon can't compete with
film. I think Brian's E3 can make beautiful images as well. And
constructed panoramas are fine in order to to produce a moderately large
image without stretching the limits of the small sensor.
Chuck Norcutt
On 2/3/2014 10:19 AM, Sawyer, Edward wrote:
>>> I think that in the short term at least I will create 6 x 17
>>> >>images using my E3 and tripod, and use Hugin to make small panorama
>>> >>shots, and crop to the desired dimensions using the crop feature of
>>> >>Faststone.
> I see a few issues here with this train of thought. WIthout seeing the
> images to compare with, it's hard to say for sure. (E.g. Maybe his images
> are much better photography? That could be possible.) Assuming your
> photography is of equal artistic and technical merit:
>
> 1. Trying to mimic optically-enlarged 6x17 film (or contact prints?) with
> ANY digital (particularly cropped shots from an E3) is just not going to
> be comparable. Sophisticated buyers will know the difference easily.
> Unless you get a 6x17 camera, master it, and do your own optical printing,
> don't bother trying to compete on this point.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|