On June 3, 2003 11:53 pm, Rob Studdert wrote:
>
> A good image shouldn't look like a film or digital it should stand on it's
Why not? All the people doing alt processes must want the look.
> own, I would guess that was the original gist of the comment. Also the
> reference was to "flatness" which I read as subdued contrast/gamma. Under
> the visual grain threshold it is hard if not impossible to determine a good
> digital or film print these days and in any case the biggest virtue of
> digital imaging processes is their inherent and relative neutrality. Given
> that you can apply filters to digital images to make of them anything that
> you want after the fact.
How big is a pixel? How big is a grain? Isn't digital interpolated? Won't it
always be? Digital won't over come that.
Nick
