A lot of his rationale for going digital was convenience. He needs to
get new images to his website quickly. Film processing (chemical),
scanning, PS work, etc., was taking him a couple of weeks at the least.
In another article on Luminous Landscape published in 2001, he defended
4x5 as the ideal format. Granted four years have passed, which is an
eon in digital terms. But I wonder what his next "perfect" camera will
be. He makes a living at it, I don't, so he can afford to change
platforms far more rapidly than I. I don't think I've gotten the most
out of my 35mm gear, much less my 4x5.
R. Jackson wrote:
>The rationale seems to be that digital is "good enough" to get the
>job done, as long as the job isn't held up to very intense scrutiny.
>I'm sure Ansel Adams would be proud... ;-)
>
>On Jul 30, 2005, at 1:14 PM, Earl Dunbar wrote:
>
>
>
>>My quick read was that for very large enlargements, the C@non files
>>broke down quite noticeably, and the 4x5 held up well.
>>
>>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|