that, and the shape of film MTF as well.
a lousy digicam hyperzoom easily resolves >100 lpmm *on sensor*
mishka
On 7/27/05, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thats mostly due to lens limitations than anything else.
>
> William Robb
- Original Message -
From: "Anthony Farr"
Subject: RE: "Why Bumblebees Can't Fly"
IOW: binary film is a bullshit argument.
There was an article in DCCT a couple of years or so ago, the writer was
spouting the same thing.
I think Mikey probab
> -Original Message-
> From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 July 2005 11:49 PM
>
> I believe that his binary grain clump theory is somewhat flawed rendering
the
> remainder of the argument moot.
>
I think the same, and wonder what Reichmann has been smoking or
it is a total bull. the guy was hungover or something.
mishka
On 7/26/05, Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > Offered to the PDML as basis for another discussion:
> >
> > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/clumps.shtml
>
> I read the article... What can I say?
>
> Hones
Yes.
Regards,
Bob...
-
"The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose
as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers
with the smallest possible amount of hissing."
- Jean-Baptiste Colbert,
minister of finance to Frenc
"William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>From: "Mark Roberts"
>
>> I think it's an excellent article. A bit overstated, perhaps, but it
>> certainly provides at least part of the explanation why digital images
>> look better than they *should* for a given pixel resolution - at least
>> when taki
On 26 Jul 2005 at 8:35, Mark Roberts wrote:
> I think it's an excellent article. A bit overstated, perhaps, but it
> certainly provides at least part of the explanation why digital images
> look better than they *should* for a given pixel resolution - at least
> when taking photos of subjects that
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Roberts"
Subject: Re: "Why Bumblebees Can't Fly"
I think it's an excellent article. A bit overstated, perhaps, but it
certainly provides at least part of the explanation why digital images
look better than they *should
Gee Mark, so you and I seem to be at disagreement...
> >Honestly, this is all total bull... Don't you agree?
>
> I think it's an excellent article. A bit overstated, perhaps, but it
> certainly provides at least part of the explanation why digital images
> look better than they *should* for a giv
Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi!
>
>> Offered to the PDML as basis for another discussion:
>>
>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/clumps.shtml
>
>I read the article... What can I say?
>
>Honestly, this is all total bull... Don't you agree?
I think it's an excellent article.
> > Offered to the PDML as basis for another discussion:
> >
> > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/clumps.shtml
And he mentions that old hoary chesnut about bumblebees not being able to
fly - which really P's me off :-) I am sick of laymen quoting it to me
to 'prove' how impractical sci
Hi!
Offered to the PDML as basis for another discussion:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/clumps.shtml
I read the article... What can I say?
Honestly, this is all total bull... Don't you agree?
Whatever means are the outcome is photograph... It is either good or
bad, period...
Fi
Hi,
The more I play with color, the more I appreciate conventional B&W film.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Frantisek
> That said, I simply like silver-based B&W more than any digital
> process. Especially if the prints are made by somebody as talented as
> Salgado's printer. But of cours
On 7/25/05, Doug Brewer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's pretty funny, Shel. Made me laugh.
He was being serious...
Wasn't he?
-frank
--
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Of course, it seems to me that it's pretty obvious the guy makes money
not from photography (he is quite average landscape photographer, in
my not so humble opinion), but from his courses and workshops. Which
are aimed at digital clientele. An "unbiased" source, isn't he ;-)
That said, I simply l
Monday, July 25, 2005, 8:23:33 PM, Godfrey wrote:
GD> Offered to the PDML as basis for another discussion:
GD> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/clumps.shtml
Sort of entertaining (in Ken Rockwell way). But M.R. fails by his own
examples... I would just say
"B!" to him. Mr. Reichmann,
On 25 Jul 2005 at 11:23, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> Offered to the PDML as basis for another discussion:
>
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/clumps.shtml
Thanks for that, I think it represents a great exercise in illogic, strangely
entertaining none the less.
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE A
"Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It's been well documented that true B&W is the only valid contemporary
>> method of photographic expression.
>
>> Color film is the work of the Devil.
>
>That's two more for the archives! :-)
Y'know the digital guys would agree with the second one :)
Last I heard, Kodak, Fuji, Agfa, et al. do not have some special process
whereby they place individual grains on a film - never have, never will.
Photosensitive chemicals and dyes of various thicknesses and concentrations
are mixed in a gelatin and coated onto a base. No grains, no clumps, nothi
Laughs here, too.
Lewis
From: Doug Brewer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
That's pretty funny, Shel. Made me laugh.
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Frankly, Scarlet, I don't give a rat's patoot.
It's been well documented that true B&W is the only valid contemporary
method of photographic expression. In time
Made me laugh. :-)
Godfrey
On Jul 25, 2005, at 12:08 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Frankly, Scarlet, I don't give a rat's patoot.
It's been well documented that true B&W is the only valid contemporary
method of photographic expression. In time automated cell phones
shall
take over the world an
- Original Message -
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 3:08 PM
Subject: RE: "Why Bumblebees Can't Fly"
> It's been well documented that true B&W is the only valid contemporary
> method of photograp
That's pretty funny, Shel. Made me laugh.
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Frankly, Scarlet, I don't give a rat's patoot.
It's been well documented that true B&W is the only valid contemporary
method of photographic expression. In time automated cell phones shall
take over the world and photography sh
Frankly, Scarlet, I don't give a rat's patoot.
It's been well documented that true B&W is the only valid contemporary
method of photographic expression. In time automated cell phones shall
take over the world and photography shall be little more than a dial tone
in history. Color film is the w
On Jul 25, 2005, at 11:46 AM, Lewis Matthew wrote:
Offered to the PDML as basis for another discussion:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/clumps.shtml
Perhaps interesting, but I'm sorry Godfrey. I just can't bring
myself to give a damn which is sharper.
I still print Ilfochrome and
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Offered to the PDML as basis for another discussion:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/clumps.shtml
Godfrey
Perhaps interesting, but I'm sorry Godfrey. I just can't bring myself to
give a damn which is sharper.
I still print Ilfochrome a
Offered to the PDML as basis for another discussion:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/clumps.shtml
Godfrey
27 matches
Mail list logo
