Sorry. Sending that last was an accident. I understand you do not
want to post process. If you are happy with the machine prints from
the film there is no reason at all to do digital.
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On Oct 30, 2006, at 6:11 PM, Winsor Crosby wrote:
>
> Brian,
>
> I did not see your original post, but I wonder why the artificial
> limitations you place on a digital camera image. Certainly a scanned
> film image is gigantically larger than 3.3 MB. The dynamic range of a
> digital camera is considerably wider than a slide and there are
> techniques to deal with a wider dynamic range. So there is no need to
> confine shooting to non-contrasty subjects.
>
>
>
> Winsor
> Long Beach, California, USA
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 30, 2006, at 5:29 PM, Brian Swale wrote:
>
>> In my opinion it is not unreasonable to expect that 3.3 MB jpeg
>> files should
>> be usable straight out of the camera, and the point I was trying to
>> make is
>> that in contrasty situations this is not the case. Digital shooters
>> therefore
>> must needs confine their shooting to non-contrasty subjects. It is
>> not
>> reasonable to expect a photographer to have to spend a long time
>> doing post-
>> exposure processing on a computer to make an image usable.
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|