>> Actually, we were talking about the technical merits of one format
>> vs. the other. Things like resolution and color fidelity can absolutely
>> be measured and quantified. Aesthetic things like noise vs. grain are
>> just that... aesthetic. That means that the quality is a function every
>> individual that evaluates it. In other words, meaningless as a measure of
>> "quality" because everyone has their own opinion.
>>
>> Other things like reduced depth of field for larger formats should
>> be considered part of the composition, not the performance of the
>> technology.
>
> Actually, you are trying to talk about theoretical technical judgements,
> since you seem to lack first hand knowledge about the visual component of
> the subject.
> I'll leave you to carry on, and I'll go out and take some pictures.
>
> William Robb
>
Throwing in the, "You don't have experience with photography so
you cannot possibly know what you're talking about" card again? I do so
grow weary of that. The original comments were querying the comparison
between the different sensor sizes vs. film. The primary difference
between them all is technical (i.e. quality). Secondary effects are
artifacts of the format.
So where does all this elitism so rampant on this list come from?
Rather tiresome.
-Cory
--
*************************************************************************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
*************************************************************************
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
