You could do that and it would be accurate, but many highly respected
photographers use scanned film as the best source for their prints. One
could certainly argue that scanned color film and mechanically printed
images have replaced chemical printing and that it is a fair
comparison.
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On May 9, 2005, at 4:36 PM, John A. Lind wrote:
> At 05:41 AM 5/9/2005, Moose wrote:
> [snip]
>
>> This time, I both compared downsampled film to 300D and upsampled
>> 300D to
>> full size film scan.
>
> Moose,
> Scanning the film makes any comparison of the digital file that results
> with a pure digital photograph seriously flawed. It's no longer what
> the
> film recorded. It's a digital copy of it entirely at the mercy of the
> scanning method used. It cannot be used to characterize what film
> versus
> digital is capable of producing.
>
> This should be (as a proper characterization of the evaluation):
> "My personal Film _Digital_Scanning_ vs. Digital Tests - II"
>
> -- John Lind
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|