Bill Pearce wrote:
Normally, I would defer to brother Scharf on matters digital, but I must
comment.
Digital scan-and-print do look good
An interesting and thought provoking essay. And if you didn't preface it
as a response to Stephen's recent posts, I would have simply enjoyed it.
However, it doesn't really respond to the issue that Stephen is
discussing. Scan and print is not his issue. He contends that digital
capture directly in the camera is different, and in his and some other's
opinions, better, than image capture on film, no matter how handled
thereafter. He further defines his point by referring specifically to
the results in the form of prints, not projection or 'on-screen'. I tend
to agree with him in some respects with my much more limited experience.
If you recall my recent post on the subject, I speculated that part of
the reason was due to color linearity in the electronic sensor vs. film.
Non linearity of film in capturing light is not undone by scanning the
film. Another other issue, the perceptual difference between film grain
clumps and the much more regular minimum components of a digital image
are also quite different between direct digital capture, scanned film
grain and a pure photographic print.
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 >
|