My quick read was that for very large enlargements, the C@non files
broke down quite noticeably, and the 4x5 held up well.
R. Jackson wrote:
>Is it just me? In those comparison crops between 4x5 and the C@non
>there was really no comparison at all. The digital image looked hideous.
>
>On Jul 29, 2005, at 11:13 PM, Stephen Scharf wrote:
>
>
>
>>In our continuing line of discussion regarding digital vs. film, here
>>is another article I found of a famous Landscape photographer, Alain
>>Briot, who was transitioned, for the most part from 4X5 film to a
>>1Ds. I think you will find his article quite interesting. One of the
>>most notable things I gleaned from this article was how he could
>>extract shadow detail in digital that he simply could not get in 4X5
>>film without a LOT of work in adjustment layers. Read it for
>>yourself and draw your own conclusions.
>>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/1Ds-4x5.shtml
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Stephen.
>>
>>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|