MJ> Finally, you should go take a look at this page if you think digital cannot MJ> compete with film. BTW, Michael Reichmann is a friend, and publishes some of MJ> my old articles on his site; I know what kind of photographer he is and what MJ> his standards are. In both senses he is to be reckoned with--he is no mere MJ> booster.
MJ> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/d30_vs_film.htm MJ> Be sure to read the updates as well. MJ> --Mike I have an opinion about this article, and without any disrespect, it seems to me a bit biased. That's nothing wrong, though - it's hard to not get biased when comparing prints. Some people like more no grain of the D30, some like much more the much higher sharpness and _detail_ of the Provia F or Velvia or whatever. The most interesting point in the discussion is not the article itself (not much value IMHO without comparing the prints), but the resulting forum, on which is posted a pair of photos of the prints (details with macro lens). On the D30 print, a lack of grain is remarkable (work of genuine fractals I guess). But compare the fine lettering in the billboard - D30 is cleary LACKING DETAIL by a magnitude. The film print is more grainy (could be less, if going through Genuine fractals I think), but shows MUCH MORE DETAIL in the billboard lettering. Now again, some pictures IMO just _require_ small detail. _Most_ (but not all) landscapes, FOR ME, fall into this category. So that is IMHO meaningless. One cannot compare (as you, Mike, frequently wrote <G>) effectively prints. I have seen a very good exhibition of landscapes which were blurred so much that it was hard to see any details at all. Art. But very beatuful! So, articles like that one are meaningless IMO. Good light, Frantisek Vlcek - 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 .
