Ah! Now I'm sure we all agree. Ain't that something?
John
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 22:49:40 -0000, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Clarification...
the difference in images taken between the D variants and the difference
in images taken with various Nikon bodies.
Tom C.
From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally.
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 15:43:03 -0700
I thought I pretty much said that. :-) I agree that if one goes out of
the way to blow up the image in a large print, to the point where one
can see a difference, they will find it.
I was talking more generally... take the same photo in all the same
conditions, view it at a common hand-held size, and try to tell the
difference.
Yes, it was a broad brush. I was more or less expanding on Godfrey's
post that one cannot see the difference in images taken between the D
variants and various Nikon bodies. I went a step futher. Even if a
difference was cosnsistently evident, the quality of the image is
subjective.
Tom C.
From: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally.
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 22:24:21 -0000
This time I agree with Shel (assuming that he's thinking of b&w).
For colour, I suspect grain would give the game away on a large
print. I'm not sure that scanning a negative and viewing the result
on screen is fair. Both should be printed using the best technique
available.
John
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 21:51:40 -0000, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
