I don't know, Chuck. I did not go back to reread it since he first
wrote it, but my memory is that each time he made those assertions in
an essay he was careful to say somewhere that it was true at the
sizes that he normally prints. I know with my own testing that even
my 5MP Coolpix with a 9 to one zoom was substantially better than my
OM4T with an OM 2 to 1 zoom, up to 100 percent in the digital image.
Above that things deteriorated quickly and at 300 percent the film
was better. I think all Reichmann is saying that in the sizes less
than 100 percent digital is better which is really the argument for
more pixels.
The problem with these assertions is that they just generate
arguments because better is subjective and there are so many
variables, including the most important one of commitment to one's
own equipment whether old or new. You can even find people who
purport to prove one or another point of view with mathematics based
on questionable assumptions.
I basically agree with you since before digital came along people
tended to agree that you could only get a decent print out of 35mm up
to about 11x14 unless you were treating grain as an art medium.
Larger prints needed medium or large format film. It was earthshaking
when National Geographic settled on 35mm even for the small photos in
their magazine. Now people ignore the superiority of digital at the
old upper limit for 35mm film and argue that 35mm prints are superior
to digital at huge sizes that are ugly and inappropriate for both.
I kind of disagree on that drum scan. I did not think it looked much
better than his own scan. I kind of think drum scans acquired their
rep before there were 4000 and 5600 dpi home scans to compete with
them. Lots of these old technologies like commercial Iris printers
modified into art printers a few years ago to produce "Giclee" prints
have long been surpassed by any of the better home printers available
to anyone.
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On Aug 22, 2005, at 4:02 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>
> The images are there for you to see. Either he lied or the 1Ds at
> 11 MP
> is the equal of a 6x7 negative at far less cost. It took the high
> cost
> drum scan to equal (not beat) the digital image.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|