Mark, just curious as to what digital you are using? Ken Waller ----- Original Message ----- From: Mark Cassino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 11:59 AM Subject: Re: When "good enough" ain't: was Re: what I think of current digital cameras
> I using digital and getting excellent results. I really don't care about > the sophistry that's being bandied about: I'm doing large prints (13 x 19) > taken with digitals, and they are not just good enough, the quality is great. > > You can advance the personal insult argument and claim that I have low > standards, settle for good enough, am too stupid to know the difference, > etc. I don't care. I have exacting standards and have been quite > pleasantly surprised by the quality of digitals. > > You can also offer up theoretical 'proofs' as to why digital is > inferior. I really don't care. I've seen the results and the 'proofs' are > wrong. > > I'm reminded of a photo.net discussion some time ago where someone asked > about the Pentax 500mm f4.5. He got a slew of answers, almost entirely > from people who never used the lens, explaining why it would surely be a > sub standard piece. I've used the lens. I knew they were wrong. The same > holds true with a lot of the sophistry regarding digitals. > > My use of digitals is really quite limited, and there's a lot that cannot > be done with it now. I think people should use the formate and media that > meets their needs the best. For some that's 35mm, for some that's MF or > large format, for others that's digital. My small format digital provides > a DOF in macros that's almost impossible to get with a 35mm. But it can > hardly be used to selectively focus on one subject, with a blurred > background. It has strengths, it has weaknesses, just like any other > format. But the basic quality of the images is every bit comparable to the > best scan I can get using a 2820 dpi scanner and 35mm film. > > The only aspect about digital that I find worrisome is Pentax's lagging > adoption of it. Their failure to adopt to bayonet mounts a quarter century > ago result in them dropping from a dominant position to that a second > tier. Slow and late adaptation of autofocus has knocked them back further. > And failure to adopt to digital may be the death blow. And with them goes > my investment in Pentax 35mm gear. > > - MCC > > > > > At 02:19 AM 11/26/01 -0500, you wrote: > >In a message dated 11/25/01 8:43:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > > Don't sit around and dismiss it because it's not like the old tools you > > have > > > at hand. > > > > >One of the first things I learned back in 1982 when I was first introduced to > >writing code for computers was the phrase: > >"GI=GO" (garbage in equals garbage out). Not that digital is garbage, at > >least not my own device(s), but when making a print from small format digital > >files, small format digital simply does not input as much raw data as film. > > > >Scanning a negative or slide, (and realizing most under $10,000 printers > >can't begin to utilize ~all~ the inputted small format film data), gives you > >an embarrassment of riches datawise. Not so with small format digital. > > > >Perhaps then, digital devotees ought to simply note that, beside using a > >Polaroid, small format digital is another quick and easy way of making > >images, rather than Digital's supporters seeing (promoting) small format > >digital as a direct competitor to small format (35mm) film, which it most > >certainly isn't. > >***Current and future small format digital cameras hold the same unenviable > >position to 35mm film as small format film does to medium format film. More > >raw data makes better, denser prints. Scan small format digital images by > >whatever method or machine you choose, then drum scan 35mm negatives or > >slides and film wins hands down. Further, digitize a small format film drum > >scan, then output it digitally and the comparisons weigh even more heavily in > >favor of film. > > > >You can make any comparisons you want, as long as you realize you won't > >(can't) achieve near the same data input from small format digital what you > >get from 35mm film, the exact same discussion steadily raging between medium > >Vs. small format film supporters. > > > >Mafud > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >- > >This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > >go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > >visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > > - - - - - - - - - - > Mark Cassino > Kalamazoo, MI > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - - - - - - - - - - > Photos: > http://www.markcassino.com > - - - - - - - - - - > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
