On Friday, December 13, 2002, at 12:35 PM, Jochen Schiffler wrote:
Hi,
to add some additional ammo to the 'film vs. digital' debate I
recommend a
visit to the website of 'Max Lyons'.
For quite some time now I'm planning to buy an EOS 30 film camera and
never
thought of digital. After I accidently found Max' website while
looking for
Can*n lens reviews my decision for the EOS 30 lost some of it's power
and I
wish I could afford an additional D 60 (or G3 to start with) ;-)
Dunno whether some of you already know his website
http://www.tawbaware.com/
or http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/index.html for the galleries but
it's
worth a deep dive.
This guy shoots exclusively digital and besides his 'normal' pictures
he
creates breathtaking panoramic images by stitching and stacking
multiple
high-resolution shots together (resulting in 6-40! megapixel images).
When I
saw them for the first time I was (usually I hate to say this) blown
away.
You may argue about the changes color and parallax error correction
tools do
to the original images but for me the results matter and Max' results
are
truely awesome. In fact the blended images (one set of images for the
highlights combinded with a set for optimised shadow detail) show more
detail due to a higher dynamic range and IMHO they look more like the
human
eye would see the scene.
I was intrigued by his 'Digital Scotland" gallery and this is one of my
favourites (if the link is split in two or more lines, you may have to
copy/paste both parts to the address field of your browser):
http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/cgi-bin/
image.pl?showFileName=SCO_0369-SCO
_0372_Eilean_Donan_Castle_Pano.jpg&gallery=9
Besides the panoramic images Max Lyons simply takes great photographs
and I
really don't care if they're digital or not.
A shame there's no digital SLR that eats Zuikos (or did I miss
something
important).
Nonetheless I'll always keep my film camera(s).
'digital' regards
Jochen
An interesting site with nice images although I might question some of
the math being an idiot myself. He notes Kodak's web site explanation
that a 3072 x 2048 scan captures all the information on a 35mm slide,
but anyone will tell you who has used one that a 4000dpi scanner
captures more than a 2000dpi scanner. A drum scanner will get more. It
might explain the poor quality of Kodak Photo CDs. Kodak kind of then
contradicts itself by bringing out a 14 megapixel camera.
I also get very confused when people start talking about comparisons
between scanners which I understand gives you dpi which can be any
combination of RGB and photo CCD which are mapped and only R, G, or B
which reduces the megapixel count to about a 1/3 of the stated.
I agree. His Scotland pictures are very nice.
< 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 >
|