> If there was ever anyone who drank the digital Kool-aid early on, it was MR.
> I think he needed his eyes examined. but there are others out there as
> misguided. But he certainly had the background to make the statement.
Sadly, I think he single-handedly influenced the early demise of film
with his website. Had he processed the film scans to the same extent
as the digital imaging system was doing, he would have realized just
how much better the film was at that time. That said, he wasn't off by
far, but his declaring the D30 to be superior really was a bridge too
far for those of us who actually took the time to improve our scanning
and processing techniques.
> I don't think there is a clear winner in the film vs. digital fight. Eash
> media has its own good news and bad.
I'm not sure I agree. I think digital has passed film by in such an
extreme way that there is no contest. However, that's in technical
terms. In artistic terms, it's whatever tool best fits the vision of
the artist.
I was really impressed with Kodak's final effort in film technology.
The 2010/2011 versions of Portra 160 and 400 are simply incredible
films. They scan better than anything else I've used. They may seem
like an incremental upgrade to the previous Provia films, but these
are designed for the digitization process from the base up. I can
dream of the "what could have been" had Kodak and Fuji continued to
develop film with the same rigor as they did before.
AG Schnozz
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|