You may be right Winsor, but that would be a purely subjective
assessment of which is "better" or "worse". I have not been amazed by
any digital shots that I have taken; but.... I will keep an open mind
;-)
Chris
On 28 Jul 2004, at 17:00, Winsor Crosby wrote:
>
> But there are pixels and there are pixels. Any one who has scanned with
> a good scanner is amazed at the number of pixels. And then they are
> amazed at the wealth of detail of many fewer pixels from a digital
> camera.
>
>
>
> Winsor
> Long Beach, California
> USA
> On Jul 28, 2004, at 8:24 AM, Chris Barker wrote:
>
>> Interesting Moose, but surely Walt's original has many, many more
>> pixels from which to take a fraction of 1/225th? That is surely one
>> of
>> the main points: that you have much more picture material to use with
>> film, scanned with a suitable scanner.
>>
>> Chris
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
<|_:-)_|>
C M I Barker
Cambridgeshire, Great Britain.
+44 (0)7092 251126
ftog at threeshoes.co.uk
http://www.threeshoes.co.uk
http://homepage.mac.com/zuiko
... a nascent photo library.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|