Yes, I've thought about the view that Reichmann is testing a 35mm digital
camera vs. MF film + scanner, and you're right.
But the real-world fact is that a large percentage of the high-end color
printing that occurs today is via scanning and subsequent digital printing.
Would you have had Reichmann print the digital files and compare them agains
enlarger-printed prints? Then you are comparing digital-camera + printer +
paper/ink vs. film + enlarging lens + paper/chemistry + technician skill.
And I don't belive for a minute that he was trying to do a be-all-end-all test.
I believe that this is a very valid test of two typical workflows for working
professionals with two very different camera & output systems. It's not
perfect, but what he did is the way that most of the professionals and advanced
amatuers actually use these systems.
And isn't that really the point? It's not that the process is perfect, but
that it's comparable to reality.
And I'm sure that he is biased, but if you were in his position, and you were
using the same equipment and having his results, wouldn't you want to tell the
world? That's the way of the internet, isn't it? To be a self-publisher and
self-proclaimed expert?
Skip
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Please reply to [skipwilliams at pobox.com]
Direct responses to the email address on the header may get lost
----------------------------------------------------------------->
>Subject: [OM] the debate
> From: "Bill Pearce" <bspearce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 09:11:57 -0600
> To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>"Luminous Landscape presents empirical tests that are quite compelling."
>
>Although I respect Reichmann's committment to actual testing, I must, again,
>comment on his methodology. I don't consider the test scientifically valid.
>He hasn't compared film vs. digital. What he has tested compares a digital
>capture against a scanned film image. This is a flawed methodology that is
>repeated again and again. Reichmann and others are testing cameras against
>cameras and scanners.
>
>I don't have a horse in this race, so I really don't care about the outcome,
>but I also must comment on observations made on other lists. He is using a
>film camera with a longer lens, that has a reputation for mirror slap
>something like a drop hammer, at a slower shutter speed. It is mounted in a
>less than advantageous way (see Gary Reese's lens tests for the results of
>different mountings).
>
>I'm still not convinced that one is better than the other, just different.
>I'm not even convinced that one should ever be better than the other for all
>uses. I do think that Reichmann has an evangalistic need to promote digital
>and Canon products, and is very good at spreading the word.
>
>Bill Pearce
>
>
>< 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 >
< 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 >
|