It was intended to be a VERY broad brush. I simply disbelieve that by the
time a given image makes it to print form, given the manipulations involved
(including sharpening in the digital world), scanning and printing, exposing
and printing, that it would be possible to draw a consistently accurate
conclusion.
I'm sure at some size one will be able to detect a digital print vs. a wet
darkroom variety, but that would only be identifying the process used, not
the camera or the lens. I'm absolutely positive it would be impossible to
tell which camera was used to take an image when it comes to viewing a
digitized version of the image. If I went and shot a roll of film and
scanned it, displayed the image, and stated that it was taken with the *ist
D, you/anybody would have no recourse but to believe me.
Tom C.
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally.
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 13:34:50 -0800
That's a statement painted with a very broad brush ...and I disagree with
it.
Shel
"You meet the nicest people with a Pentax"
> [Original Message]
> From: Tom C
> I would venture to say that no one could see the difference between a
print
> resulting from the *ist D and one taken with the K1000...
>
>
> Tom C.
