Simon Worby wrote:
> Winsor Crosby wrote:
>
>
>>Something to chew on:
>>
>>http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html#Res_summary
>
>
> The trouble is, they're scanning film again.
>
> Comparison of a digitalised analogue media with pure digital media is as
> absurd as the other way around.
>
> If I were to suggest getting a digital image somehow etched onto a 35mm
> slide and then projected to compare it against unaltered 35mm
> transparency, you'd think I was mad.
>
> But ultimately, comparing scanned film with pure digital is just as
> illogical and unfair.
-----------------------------------------------------------
No, it's not absurd at all. Your position makes perfect sense if you do
all of your work as slides and view it all via an analogue projector.
Most of the world, however, makes and views prints despite the fact that
the dynamic range is considerably reduced as soon as the image hits the
paper. When it comes to making prints, if you send it to a commercial
lab, there's an extremely high probability that the film will be
digitally scanned and digitally projected on the paper. Analoque
enlargement is rapidly being relegated to the role of the hobbyist.
BTW, at least part of CH Ling's business is producing slides from
digital images.
Chuck Norcutt
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|