:-) 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
A 12x18 v an 8x12? Yep that levels the playing field don't it? How about you put
them both up on the wall, stand on the other side of the room, and tell us which
looks better (grin)?
Back when the high-res digitals first came out I downloaded one of the images
and printed it 8x10. I took that a
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
Gianfranco Irlanda wrote:
What do you think?
My reading: the *istD wins hands down in terms of noise/grain. In terms
of resolved detail, it's less clear-cut due to sharpening issues etc,
although the digital image certainly doesn't look any worse in that
respect. The digital image looks like i
Ciao,
If you were to enlarge the digital to the same size as
the film, what would the comparison look like?
This would, of course, be useful in evaluating
equivalent enlargements.
That is my primary interest.
Jack
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On the web, the *istD image appears to be far
>
why wasn't a fine grain color PRINT film used?
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Peter J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 11:46 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - A necessary test
Still not entirely honest though you made a b
The *ist-d image is smoother and shows no die clouds. The extra detail
is due to contrast and brightness of that particular image and has been
slightly sharpened. Still the *ist-D image speaks very well for the
camera and eloquently makes the case for digital image capture.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Still not entirely honest though you made a better effort than most of
the Digital vs Film
testers who get published. I think the additional fine detail you see
is an artifact of the
sharpening process. Still the difference in cost per. print, and the
rough equivalence of
output is a powerful
That's a revealing test, Gianfranco. Thanks.
Was the print from Provia 100F an Ilfochrome print?
Joe
On the web, the *istD image appears to be far superior. There is considerably
more detail, and it looks sharper.
Paul
> William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Subject: Re: P67 vs D1s -- photo.net
> > He should have chosen the EF50/1.7 and the SMCP 105/2.4 for
> his test.
> > And he should ha
William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Subject: Re: P67 vs D1s -- photo.net
> He should have chosen 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 v
37 matches
Mail list logo
