On 11/30/2004 at 8:50 PM Moose wrote:
>You are covering a lot of ground here. A DSLR at 100-200 iso, and even
>higher for some will look much better than film of 200+ iso, unless you
>want grain in the particular subject. Even at equal isos, DSLRs have a
>smoother image with less graininess. Some people like this and some
>don't. Assuming equal lens quality, technique, etc. apparent detail
>resolution at reasonable viewing distances will be about the same, I
>think. It's so hard to tell without true side by side comparisons of the
>same subjects with the prints adjusted to comparable brightness and
>contrast.
So, simple question... Given the conditions above (" Assuming equal lens
quality, technique, etc. apparent detail
resolution at reasonable viewing distances will be about the same), which image
do you PREFER?
In other words, what is the =subjective= difference, if any? And if you have a
preference, do you know WHY you have that preference?
Here is my problem: I guess I don't get out much (well, I KNOW I don't), and
don't have a really good digital print to use as a yardstick or comparison to a
really good (read: Ansel quality) film/optical print. The latter I know. The
former I don't. Ultimately, I will make my own judgement, that is the real
issue for anyone. But I'm just interested in your impression, and the
impressions of others. All this viewing on a monitor or even by slide
projection is really immaterial to me. I put prints on my wall to enjoy as a
work of art, to grace my life.
Earl
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|