it is less grainy than Provia 100F in my scans.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: Brendan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 11:23 PM
Subject: Re: Digital versus film
yes Velvia is rather grainy for a 50 iso film, but the
colour saturation
- Original Message -
From: tom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 3:45 PM
Subject: RE: Digital versus film
Since I've started shooting digital, I've had about 30 or 40 meetings
with prospective clients, and only one turned me down due to the fact
On 13/9/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
It's not which technology is better it's
the application of the technology that
makes the difference.
I just thought we should see that again. As often as possible, actually.
How true! Just look at Apple and M$
While the MAC OS is leaps and
That's because they crash and go down so bloody often, it has spawned
an entire industry! How many tech head are making their living doing
Mac support?
C.
JCO posted:
It's not which technology is better it's
the application of the technology that
makes the difference.
I just thought we
Well, what strikes me is the lack of detail in the digital print. On the
second site I only got as far as noticing that they were showing
images of newsprint. If your are going to do that why not compare a
copier image to a copy film image. However the contrast in the film
images is better.
-Original Message-
From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am getting real tired of digital vs. film arguments by
people who have
no idea what they are comparing. Digital has reached the
point where it
is professionally acceptable (ask TV if his customers have
any complaints).
Ah! I thought TV was...
Very nice photo's TV, just the way I like 'm.
:-)
Paul Delcour
From: tom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 14:53:48 -0400
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Digital versus film
Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Resent-Date: Fri, 12
TV,
just for the record: why do people prefer digital 95% of the time? Any
striking reason?
:-)
Paul Delcour
From: tom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 14:53:48 -0400
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Digital versus film
Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED
-Original Message-
From: Paul Delcour [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
TV,
just for the record: why do people prefer digital 95% of
the time? Any
striking reason?
They look sharper and they enlarge better. When you enlarge negs,
there's a point at which the print starts falling apart. I
graywolf,
All I can say, is that I am more than pleased with my 67 stuff -
plenty of details (way more than 35mm or 6mp DSLR). I have my little
Optio S for quick snaps. At some point I'm sure that I will get a
DSLR, but for the time being, I'll stick with film and what it has to
offer me (when
The most recent DCCT has an article on one of the New Fuji print films by
Ctein.
He makes an interesting observation about scanning negatives.
I put the interesting bit on my website at:
http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/Ctein_art.html
William Robb
- Original Message -
From: Brendan
Subject: Re: Digital versus film
I have a 4000 dpi scanner, and not even 800 iso film
looks that grainy! yes digital capture is cleaner but
if you shoot 100 iso slide film like provia, or astia
you'll not see any grain at 4000 dpi, I love
12 matches
Mail list logo
