> I think if you form your opinions about digital still photography by
> watching television your research method may be flawed.
>
I'm trying to make a comparison to something that everyone can examine for
themselves. I'm not suggesting that digital vs film is the same, just
similar. Obviously, digital photography can have dramatically higher
resolution that any digital video or motion picture medium. The same can be
said for the film equivelents.
There is a photographer in my area that shoots (and sells at quite high
prices) large B&W fine art prints in a Ansel Adams vein. He packs up his
8x10 on a trusted mule and goes where few men have gone, stops down to f64
or more, and shoots. When he returns home, he applies unsharp masking (the
film kind) to his printing. The results are blindingly sharp. One could
shave with some of his prints. Many find the results pleasing. Others find
that there's something "not quite right" about the results. I've heard more
than one photographer make a comment like, "There's something about this I
don't like. (head slap) There's a s***load of USM here, that's it!" What's
missing is the three-dimensionality mentioned by someone else.
It really is unfair to compare today's digital to film that has over a
century to be honed and refined. I certainly believe that the day will come
when there is no difference. I don't think that day is today.
There are people that are quite happy with the digital results they are
getting. Just look at the people here with the E1, a camera that in
undeniably years out of date. Thanks to the Kodak sensor (remember how good
the kodak slr's were, light years ahead of the Canon and Nikon cameras of
their day? They still have a reputation for exceptional color, but don't do
well at high ISO's. Sound familiar?) and some good circuits, they can make a
lot of good photos with just 5mp. For many uses, the results are better than
some newer, faster, bigger cameras.
It's all about subject. Remember our discussions about the requirements of
Steve Troy's brother? He was doing catalog shots of shirts, where the image
had to include a good redition of the individual threads and their texture.
The top of the line Canon wonderbrick just couldn't get that level of
detail. He had to go to a digital back for a MF camera.
There's no doubt that there are a lot of really good digital cameras out
there. To say that they are the equal of film can only be based on subject
matter.
Bill Pearce
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|