Bruce wrote: >Further, if prints are the final product then it is > perfectly valid to look at the prints, because in the end, they are all > that count.
As I've said previously, this is a valid view from a pragmatic point of view. The problem start when someone is using this to say that the original, not the end product, is better or worse. However, I do not agree that the print is all that counts in the end. If if it was, it would be meaningless subject for tests as the printing and scanning quality is in a state of flux and constantly improving. >Tests aren't invalid because parameters can't be quantified > at every step in the process. Thats not the issue. The test is invalid because the testers don't claim to test print quality or end result but to test the quality of the original film and digital capture. >It would be perfectly valid to take > pictures of the same scene with different format cameras and then look > at nothing but the final prints to determine which, if either was > better. No. This test only tell what print was the better. Not what format although this is usually self evident. If what you say were true I could claim that medium format was no better than 35mm because I can't see the difference in small prints. Pål
