I think most of the people here who have a mid-end consumer DC (~3MP)
will found the color, tone and contrast of his DC out perform the 35mm
film system. Especially the one who shoot negative and rely on the
commercial lab. To get the same quality of DC you need an experience
photographer with good quality slides.
On the other hand there is a learning curve for using DC, most mid to
low end consumer DC is default for "good" print result but it may not
suit the high demanding photo enthuses. If you have spent some time in
rec.photo.digital (I were there for a few months two years ago before
I bought the E-10) you will know most people will suggest you to use
no in-camera sharpening and low contrast setting for the DC in order
to have a file that is best for post processing. Ok, you need some
knowledge in Photoshop's level, curve and color adjustment and how to
match with your printer.
For the output I will not choose inkjet no matter people say how long
it can last, it just don't feel right to me. I like Fuji Frontier
output, a 4x6" print here is just US$0.15 and 8x10 is $2, I would say
it is cheaper than ink and the resolution is much higher. Inkjet may
be ok for large print but not for the small one, it will lost a lot of
details.
The current problem of digital camera is:
- the camera cost is still high.
- many people still don't use a computer or know little about computer
image processing. It is important for creating a high quality print.
- there is no good wide angle lens supply at this moment (besides the
0.5x or something add on lens).
- the CCD size is too small, it does not provide the DOF feel like
35mm not to mention the MF.
- the resolution is still low, not suitable for landscapes.
- it does not have the wide latitude of negative. Ok, you can use
large amount of bracketing without involving film cost.
- the time lag of most mid-end DC is still very slow.
C.H.Ling
dreammoose wrote:
> >
> I think you are confabulating two issues here; the ability of regular
> digicams to make prints that meet or exceed the quality of regular
> consumer prints from 35mm without computer manipulation and the
> adventures of digiholics. Is your observation based on actual experience
> or the maunderings of lost souls on the internet? All digicams have
> sharpening and other image enhancement algorithms built in. Some high
> end ones allow adjusting them and/or skipping all in-camera processing
> altogether with a 'RAW" image.However, when you can't or don't disable
> them, they provide print ready images that can be of excellent quality
> with no further adjustment.
>
> You may recall a list member providing a direct comparison between a
> digicam (E-10?) and an unadjusted scanned image from an OM and remarking
> how much better the digicam image looked. Another member (C.H.?)
> correctly pointed out that the digicam image already had been optimized
> in the camera for viewing at the resolution presented, while the scan
> had not.
>
> I have a Can*n S110, 2.1mp camera. I print 8x10 images direct from the
> JPEG files it produces (nope, no TIFF, or RAW options) that are just
> plain excellent. The only thing I usually do to them in the computer is
> cropping. In fact, there is something about them that seems to draw
> people's attention in a way regular 8x10s don't.
>
> I think the real barrier is in needing a computer to get the image from
> the camera to the printer. That's the reason for all the printers coming
> out that can print direct from the camera, or even from the memory card
> without camera or computer. Remember too, that digicam images don't have
> the dust spots that account for a lot of the time spent in photo editing
> programs.
> I had a BA in economics once, but I think I lost it decades ago ;-)
>
> Moose
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|