http://amandaonwriting.tumblr.com/post/40345013930
--
-bmw
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
On 17/4/09, Nuno Miguel dos Santos Baeta, discombobulated, unleashed:
>Hello!
>
>Three short and funny videos on film vs. digital.
>
><http://motion.kodak.com/US/en/motion/Hub/PixelGrain/pixelgrain.htm>
Stick with it and you'll find it quite comical. Not laugh out lou
On Apr 17, 2009, at 14:58, Nuno Miguel dos Santos Baeta wrote:
Hello!
Three short and funny videos on film vs. digital.
<http://motion.kodak.com/US/en/motion/Hub/PixelGrain/pixelgrain.htm>
That was really really cute.
-Charles
--
Charles Robinson - charl...@visi.com
Minneapolis, M
Hello!
Three short and funny videos on film vs. digital.
<http://motion.kodak.com/US/en/motion/Hub/PixelGrain/pixelgrain.htm>
--
Nuno Miguel dos Santos Baeta
ille nihil dubitat quem nulla scientia dictat
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/li
One of my favorite racing web sites is re-running an article from 2004
about the transition from film to digital. Quite interesting to see what
opinions of professional sports shooters were at the time. What would be
*really* interesting would be for him to talk to the same photographers
again
Oops. Thanks, Ken. The two correct links are:
http://www.westerickson.net/brickwork/
http://www.westerickson.net/lithportals/
Incidentally, I just realized that I still have the original color scans and
digital images archived. I have near-duplicates of the library door, shot
from about th
On 1/22/07 4:36 PM, "Mark Erickson", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.westerickson/brickwork/
You omitted .net
It should be;
http://www.westerickson.net/brickwork/
BTW, I see the difference. Interesting.
Ken
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/li
In my opinion, Film vs. Digital IS a religion, but that's another argument.
I do have some experience to share shooting and post-processing similar
subjects with two different workflows:
1) Web Gallery: http://www.westerickson.net/lithportals/
-->Rolleiflex 3.5E (6x6 mediu
(you get
grain instead) on
the shadow end you do with digital
but if you go to larger film formats,
this grain becomes invisible which
further increase the useful dynamic
range of film vs digital.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Godfrey
On Jan 22, 2007, at 9:18 AM, Bruce Dayton wrote:
> If you are shooting digital, many have said to underexpose to save the
> highlights. You are correct to expose accurately for both ends of the
> spectrum. The issue with digital, I think, is that the shadow areas
> tend to show noise more - so it
2007 4:33 PM
MM> To: pdml@pdml.net
MM> Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
MM> In a message dated 1/21/2007 8:56:27 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
MM> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
MM> Ok, here is a K10D shot of a group of 12. K10D, DA 16-45/4, ISO 200,
MM> 1/125 sec @ f/13, s
ECTED] On Behalf Of
JCOC> Paul Stenquist
JCOC> Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 3:06 PM
JCOC> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
JCOC> Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
JCOC> No, not really. That's a digital myth. Underexposure is the enemy of
JCOC> good digital photograph
at this point.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Paul Stenquist
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 3:06 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
No, not really. That's a digital myth. Underexposu
f Of
Gasha
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 3:31 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
It is true,
all labs now print on some Noritsu machine.
And they do 3072x2048 scanning during process.
This weekend i sent 6x4.5 scanned Provia 100F to lab, and resized it
lf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 4:33 PM
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
In a message dated 1/21/2007 8:56:27 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ok, here is a K10D shot of a group of 12. K10D, DA 16-45/4, ISO 200,
1/125 sec @
In a message dated 1/21/2007 8:56:27 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ok, here is a K10D shot of a group of 12. K10D, DA 16-45/4, ISO 200,
1/125 sec @ f/13, studio strobes.
Reference photo:
http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/shaeffer_009.htm
100% view of a single person:
h
It is true,
all labs now print on some Noritsu machine.
And they do 3072x2048 scanning during process.
This weekend i sent 6x4.5 scanned Provia 100F to lab, and resized it to
that size to get A4 (20x30cm) image. Print was good, much better than
most of other pics, and i managed to get 1st plac
This seems to be more of a scanner test.(?)
My experience has been the complete opposite. Obviously, personal
impressions, also, play a roll.
Jack
--- Patrick Genovese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't care what sort of scanner it is, you are now making a
> comparison of
> > a first generati
> I don't care what sort of scanner it is, you are now making a comparison of
> a first generation image to a third generation image.
> The sad fact of life is that if you want to pull the best you can from film,
> you need to print it optically.
That is so true. I recently had some prints done f
: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
My point is if you know what your doing and & the subject lends itself
to
the process, an APS sensor can be used to create very high resolution
images.
BTW, That shot was 3 images captured with the K10D & stitched together.
I
could just as easily used
it's NOT.
JCO
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Paul Stenquist
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 12:04 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
Very good. You certainly don't need any more detail
en if there were they would
>be lens limited compared to larger film or digital
>formats...
>jco
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
>David Savage
>Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 10:37 PM
>To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Very good. You certainly don't need any more detail than that. You
can get it, but you don't need it for a group photo.
Paul
On Jan 21, 2007, at 11:55 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote:
> Ok, here is a K10D shot of a group of 12. K10D, DA 16-45/4, ISO 200,
> 1/125 sec @ f/13, studio strobes.
>
> Reference
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
John Francis
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 10:26 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
My conclusion is that in the hands of someone who knows what they are
doing even a small-frame 6MP DSLR is
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
Absolutely. The need for detailing and tonal resolution by such high
frequency scenes demands big pixel numbers, and currently that means
Phase One backs on medium format cameras or film. It's not the same
: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
Excellent, Bruce. That illustrates exactly what I meant.
G
On Jan 21, 2007, at 5:50 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote:
> Hello Jens,
>
> Sorry this is more like 40 people shot on the *istD, with DA 16-45
> lens
>
> ISO 400, 1/90 sec @ f/11
>
> Here
Of
David Savage
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 10:37 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: RE: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
At 10:50 AM 22/01/2007, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
>I dont agree that the higher resolution that
>medium and large format photography provides
>is moot or
HAR!
It's a tiny web image:-). You're obviously pulling our legs.
Paul
On Jan 21, 2007, at 9:14 PM, William Robb wrote:
>> http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_3214a.htm
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Ok, here is a K10D shot of a group of 12. K10D, DA 16-45/4, ISO 200,
1/125 sec @ f/13, studio strobes.
Reference photo:
http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/shaeffer_009.htm
100% view of a single person:
http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/shaeffer_009a.htm
--
Bruce
Sunday, January 21, 2007, 7:47:22 PM
- Original Message -
From: "Bruce Dayton" Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
> http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_3214a.htm
>
> I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions.
For myself, that's not good enough.
William Robb
--
PDML Pentax-Di
Absolutely. The need for detailing and tonal resolution by such high
frequency scenes demands big pixel numbers, and currently that means
Phase One backs on medium format cameras or film. It's not the same
as producing a group photo for the web.
The right tool for the job is essential. For w
At 10:50 AM 22/01/2007, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
>I dont agree that the higher resolution that
>medium and large format photography provides
>is moot or unnecessary in typical photography
>unless you never print anything bigger than
>4x6" or never make a web image display larger
>than 1200x800 (both
Excellent, Bruce. That illustrates exactly what I meant.
G
On Jan 21, 2007, at 5:50 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote:
> Hello Jens,
>
> Sorry this is more like 40 people shot on the *istD, with DA 16-45
> lens
>
> ISO 400, 1/90 sec @ f/11
>
> Here is the full shot to give you some perspective:
> http://w
ns Bladt
> JB> Nytarkort / Greeting Card:
> JB> http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html
>
> JB> http://www.jensbladt.dk
> JB> +45 56 63 77 11
> JB> +45 23 43 85 77
> JB> Skype: jensbladt248
>
> JB> -Oprindelig meddelelse-
>
PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Bruce Dayton
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 10:04 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
I'm not particularly defending small frame digital, but your example is
a much smaller group. I have shots of sm
how that old Chicago
JCOC> Bears team shot I mentioned earlier impressed me as looking
JCOC> jco
JCOC> -Original Message-
JCOC> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
JCOC> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
JCOC> Bruce Dayton
JCOC> Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 8:50 PM
JCOC> To
nuary 21, 2007 8:50 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
Hello Jens,
Sorry this is more like 40 people shot on the *istD, with DA 16-45 lens
ISO 400, 1/90 sec @ f/11
Here is the full shot to give you some perspective:
http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_
k
JB> +45 56 63 77 11
JB> +45 23 43 85 77
JB> Skype: jensbladt248
JB> -Oprindelig meddelelse-
JB> Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Godfrey
JB> DiGiorgi
JB> Sendt: 21. januar 2007 23:13
JB> Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
JB> Emne: Re: Film
ssage-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Mark Cassino
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 5:48 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
I spent a lot of time trying to sort out the whole film vs digital
thing. A lot of the things I w
most likely was done on 8x10 based on the quality.
Group people shots are extreme resolution hogs
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Godfrey DiGiorgi
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 5:13 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Film vs
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Mark Roberts
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 5:35 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
Evan Hanson wrote:
>My experience is more in line with what WR said. A great optical
>print
As always Mark, you make a great point.
On Jan 21, 2007, at 5:47 PM, Mark Cassino wrote:
> I spent a lot of time trying to sort out the whole film vs digital
> thing. A lot of the things I worked through are on my blog, but this
> link sums up where I finally wound up:
I spent a lot of time trying to sort out the whole film vs digital
thing. A lot of the things I worked through are on my blog, but this
link sums up where I finally wound up:
http://www.markcassino.com/b2evolution/index.php?title=stuff_per_pixel&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
Medium form
5 56 63 77 11
+45 23 43 85 77
Skype: jensbladt248
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Godfrey
DiGiorgi
Sendt: 21. januar 2007 23:13
Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Emne: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
You've stated you are producing a
Evan Hanson wrote:
>My experience is more in line with what WR said. A great optical
>print beats even a drum scan.
I have found just the opposite to be true: I've rarely seen an optical
print that can compare to a well-done scan and print. Oh, certainly the
*resolution* and fine detail will
- Original Message -
From: "Jens Bladt" Subject: RE: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
> In stead of arguing this and that; show me your digital group images.
> Crop out one face covering 5-10% of the frame.
> Lets see and judging for ourselves.
I wouldn't c
You've stated you are producing a group shot for the web, not for
printing. You put a bunch of unexposed, crappily rendered JPEG clips
up as comparison to your scanned and sharpened 6x7 clips, at double
the size they'll appear compared to the illustration here:
>> This one wasn done with a P
On 22/01/07, Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To me this question is not a religion - just at matter of choosing the right
> gear for the job.
> Well, I know Luminous Landscape says a Canon 1Ds does better than a scan
> from a Pentax 6x7.
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.
My experience is more in line with what WR said. A great optical
print beats even a drum scan.
Evan
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
e-
> Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne
> af Paul
> Stenquist
> Sendt: 21. januar 2007 20:07
> Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Emne: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
>
>
> Half of your examples are grossly underexposed. I'm guessing those
23 43 85 77
Skype: jensbladt248
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Paul
Stenquist
Sendt: 21. januar 2007 20:07
Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Emne: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
Half of your examples are grossly underexposed. I&#
43 85 77
Skype: jensbladt248
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af P. J.
Alling
Sendt: 21. januar 2007 20:41
Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Emne: Re: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
To start with, he's comparing the scanners capabiliti
ourse most scans are not superb, and
> most optical prints are not perfectly executed. This, of course,
> makes the comparison difficult.
> Paul
> On Jan 21, 2007, at 2:09 PM, William Robb wrote:
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -
> > From: "Jens Bladt&qu
To start with, he's comparing the scanners capabilities to the direct
digital capture more than the actual image on the film. I think I could
easily skew a test into the 6x7 column by shooting a nice fine ISO 100
B&W film and printing in a darkroom say an 11x14 print on a good paper
with a nic
rison difficult.
Paul
On Jan 21, 2007, at 2:09 PM, William Robb wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Jens Bladt" Subject: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
>
>
>> To me this question is not a religion - just at matter of choosing
>> the
>> rig
- Original Message -
From: "Jens Bladt" Subject: Film vs. Digital - not a religion
> To me this question is not a religion - just at matter of choosing the
> right
> gear for the job.
> Well, I know Luminous Landscape says a Canon 1Ds does better than a sc
Half of your examples are grossly underexposed. I'm guessing those
are the digital samples. That makes the comparison irrelevant,
because underexposure causes image degradation.
Paul
On Jan 21, 2007, at 1:54 PM, Jens Bladt wrote:
> To me this question is not a religion - just at matter of choo
To me this question is not a religion - just at matter of choosing the right
gear for the job.
Well, I know Luminous Landscape says a Canon 1Ds does better than a scan
from a Pentax 6x7.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml
But paper is patient. So are HTML-files.
But what can
I gave up (sold) my 85 1.4 to help finance my purchase of the first 3
Limiteds. Also let go my K 85 1.8. I've been tempted to try and
reacquire a 1.8 when one was FS here on the list, but couldn't really
justify it. If an 85 1.4 were available, I would be far more tempted. I
miss that lens. But
On 25/09/06, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have the 77 and A85/1.4.
> If I had to choose, I would keep the 85, but it wouldn't be a happy
> day
Right there with you Bill, I'd rather not loose either.
--
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
At 03:54 AM 25/09/2006, Gonz wrote:
Here is my enablement calculation:
New lens/body/accessory = Happy
It's good for 98% of all purchases.
Dave
>I like that kind of thinking! :)
>
>I'm going to do my own calculation, so I can enable myself with a black
>77 limited. Hehe
>
>rg
>
>
>[EMAIL PRO
- Original Message -
From: "John Forbes"
Subject: Re: Film vs Digital cost comparison
> Does anybody have both the 77 and the 85 1.4? It would be interesting
> to
> hear which they would keep if only allowed one.
I have the 77 and A85/1.4.
If I had to choose,
Personally, I find it hard to imagine a better lens than the 77mm Ltd. I
have the other two (FA) Ltds, and whilst they are both great, the 77
somehow seems to be in a different league.
Does anybody have both the 77 and the 85 1.4? It would be interesting to
hear which they would keep if on
On 25/09/06, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, I don't have it. But I was thinking of buying one and selling my
> K 85/1.8. But I wonder if the new 70 might be better on digital.
Better optically? Not on the 6MP cameras, the 10MP sensor may show
differences but the 77LTD is a pretty
No, I don't have it. But I was thinking of buying one and selling my
K 85/1.8. But I wonder if the new 70 might be better on digital.
Paul
On Sep 24, 2006, at 5:30 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote:
> On 25/09/06, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I was thinking the same thing, but I hav
I had a tussle between waiting for the DA70 Limited vs buying the
FA77 Limited a few months ago. The FA77 Limited won, I'm not
disappointed with it at all although I would have preferred the DA
series QuickShift focusing mount.
Given the superb performance of the FA77, I just hope that the D
On 25/09/06, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was thinking the same thing, but I have to wonder if the new 70mm
> will yield better results on a digital camera.
Do you have the 77mm Paul? It would be very difficult to improve upon
IQ wise (it far out-resolves the 6MP sensor).
--
Rob
I was thinking the same thing, but I have to wonder if the new 70mm
will yield better results on a digital camera.
On Sep 24, 2006, at 3:54 PM, Gonz wrote:
> I like that kind of thinking! :)
>
> I'm going to do my own calculation, so I can enable myself with a
> black
> 77 limited. Hehe
>
> r
I like that kind of thinking! :)
I'm going to do my own calculation, so I can enable myself with a black
77 limited. Hehe
rg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Now that my istD is on its last few weeks as my main camera, I was
> thinking about costs per picture. I came up with the following:
>
> I p
Excellent job, Juan. ;-)
Godfrey
On Sep 24, 2006, at 11:08 AM, Juan Buhler wrote:
> ...
> BTW, it turns out to be just a little bit less than the cost of the
> new 21mm Limited lens, so I think I'm ordering one :) How's that for
> self-enablement?
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.
Now that my istD is on its last few weeks as my main camera, I was
thinking about costs per picture. I came up with the following:
I paid about $1200 for the istD in 2004. Plus, say, $200 in memory
cards (I think it was a bit more). I'm not going to count any of the
lenses I bought during this tim
:-) oops.
On Nov 27, 2004, at 2:19 AM, Peter J. Alling wrote:
Actually I did understand...
--
-Jon Glass
Krakow, Poland
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Actually I did understand...
Jon Glass wrote:
Actually, that was an Apple-insider's joke. As in Apple computers.
When the Apple iBook first came out, one of their colors was
Tangerine... it wasn't allowed to call them "orange" only "Tangerine"
as in a "Tangerine iBook," _not_ and "orange iBook."
Actually, that was an Apple-insider's joke. As in Apple computers. When
the Apple iBook first came out, one of their colors was Tangerine... it
wasn't allowed to call them "orange" only "Tangerine" as in a
"Tangerine iBook," _not_ and "orange iBook." :-D Sorry, OT...
On Nov 26, 2004, at 5:12 PM,
Orange, tangerine, they look the same...
Jon Glass wrote:
On Nov 26, 2004, at 2:02 AM, Peter J. Alling wrote:
What if it's an orange Apple.
There were only Tangerine Apples... ;-)
--
I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war.
During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildin
Especially now that the Egremont Russets are out.
Mishka wrote:
i second: an apple.
mishka
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 23:16:08 +, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 24/11/04, Graywolf, discombobulated, unleashed:
Which is better, and apple or and orange.
An Apple :-)
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
||
On Nov 26, 2004, at 2:02 AM, Peter J. Alling wrote:
What if it's an orange Apple.
There were only Tangerine Apples... ;-)
--
-Jon Glass
Krakow, Poland
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
What if it's an orange Apple.
Cotty wrote:
On 24/11/04, Graywolf, discombobulated, unleashed:
Which is better, and apple or and orange.
An Apple :-)
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
--
An addendum to my previous post:
What your test has succeeded in demonstrating is that a a full frame
(36x24mm) sensor with about the same resolution as the sensor in the *ist-d
(~6mp @ 15.7*23mm) would have resolution that can compete with (or beat)
35mm provia 100f in terms of resolution and n
I agree with Graywolf's post. It simply doesn't make sense to enlarge both
images so that the magnifications are equivalent. If that were the case,
then one could use the same lens on 35mm and 4x5 film and then claim that
there is no difference between the two. The same comparison could also be
et (or Lambda) process is, however, expensive
and not generally available. Still, a comparison to a
digital print produced by an experienced, talented PS
geek would be interesting.
Jack
--- William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> - Original Message -----
> From:
> Subje
- Original Message -
From: "Shel Belinkoff"
Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - A necessary test
The lab I use has tweaked their system to allow for finer
gradations
between settings, or so I've been told by the Photoshop guy (not
the
printer guy). I can't explain
- Original Message -
From:
Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - A necessary test
Hi Shel,
I think you have it exactly right. My only reservation might be
number 4. Perhaps it would be better to have a top pro lab produce
the best possible print from each format. That might very well be a
An apple on an Apple.
i second: an apple.
mishka
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 23:16:08 +, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 24/11/04, Graywolf, discombobulated, unleashed:
>Which is better, and apple or and orange.
An Apple :-)
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
i second: an apple.
mishka
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 23:16:08 +, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 24/11/04, Graywolf, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
> >Which is better, and apple or and orange.
>
> An Apple :-)
>
> Cheers,
> Cotty
>
> ___/\__
> || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
>
On 24/11/04, Graywolf, discombobulated, unleashed:
>Which is better, and apple or and orange.
An Apple :-)
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
strange, but i do agree with Shel here.
basically, taking the same logic to extreme, one can take a picture on 4x5 film
and on a "3/2" digital camera (6.6x8.8mm) -- say, 35mm lens on both.
now, how much sense would make the images of same magnification from both?
best,
mishka
On Wed, 24 Nov
On 24 Nov 2004 at 7:44, Gianfranco Irlanda wrote:
> What do you think?
Personally I think that if I were making a similar print comparison I would use
print film for one and lenses for each format that produced the same final AOV
on the same sized paper. It seems to me that you partially succee
Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If you were to use a zoom lens and carefully capture
> the same scene dimensions and enlarge the two images
> to the same print size, the lens magnification
> preferences would then be the only variable. If you
> did this, I wasn't astute enough to pick it up.
Jack
le-three brands and speeds would be the
best
choice.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 11/24/2004 10:18:15 AM
Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - A necessary test
Hi Shel,
I think you have it exactly right. My only reservation might be
num
ck it up.
Jack
--- Gianfranco Irlanda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - A necessary test (to
> Ciao)
> > Ciao,
> > If you were to enlarge the digital to the same
> size as
> > the film, what
riginal Message]
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 11/24/2004 10:18:15 AM
> Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - A necessary test
>
> Hi Shel,
> I think you have it exactly right. My only reservation might be number 4.
Perhaps it would be better
Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Your desire to use the same magnification for each image is
understandable,
> but perhaps it would have been a better test to use the same
size prints
> for the test. Most people ask for a print of a certain size,
not of a
> certain magnification, and th
Joseph Tainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's a revealing test, Gianfranco. Thanks.
>
> Was the print from Provia 100F an Ilfochrome print?
Hi Joe,
Yup, an Ilfochrome Classic print, made by a pro lab (specialist
for slide processing and printing).
Gianfranco
=
_
___
Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - A necessary test (to Ciao)
> Ciao,
> If you were to enlarge the digital to the same size as
> the film, what would the comparison look like?
Hi Jack,
'Ciao' means 'Hi' in Italian, my name
Hi Shel,
I think you have it exactly right. My only reservation might be number 4.
Perhaps it would be better to have a top pro lab produce the best possible
print from each format. That might very well be a wet print from the negative
and an inkjet print from the digital file. But I'm not sure.
Not being a "testing maven" I respect all comments and positions. They all
seem to have merit. As noted, I may do a similar test at some point. What
suggestions are there from the list as to the most useful testing
parameters? Here's what I was thinking:
1) Using lenses that provide about the
the EF50/1.7 and the SMCP 105/2.4 for
his test.
And he should have gotten a high end optical print made from
the
film, rather than a scan.
Hi everybody,
About this topic, I performed a film vs. digital test while in
Prague.
I shot the same scene with both the LX and the *istD, using the
M 20
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Your desire to use the same magnification for each image is understandable,
but perhaps it would have been a better test to use the same size prints
for the test. Most people ask for a print of a certain size, not of a
certain magnification, and the results may have been true
o Irlanda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 11/24/2004 7:46:20 AM
> Subject: Film vs. Digital - A necessary test
>
> William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Subject: Re: P67 vs D1s -- photo.net
> > He should have chosen the EF50/1.7
1 - 100 of 189 matches
Mail list logo
