Here, here! Right on!
(or, I guess, that's probably why we own 5D's)
Chuck Norcutt
Moose wrote:
> AG Schnozz wrote:
>
>>>Oh, I didn't mean *digital/pseudo* B&W. I meant, *real* B&W,
>>>the kind
>>>that comes from film developed and printed in a darkroom.
>>>
>>
>>Oh, the kind where "grain" isn't a defect?
>>
>
> I'm of the opinion that grain is a defect, and always has been, in the
> sense that it is an artifact of the image capture process that is not a
> part of the subject. You rail about digital artifacts in DSLR images,
> but accept artifacts in film
>
> That is perfectly natural. We have been looking at grain for our whole
> lives and tend to see it as part of the image. And like selective
> focus/blurring, petroleum jelly smeared on filters, cross processing and
> other intentional artifacts, grain may well add to the artistic quality
> of the resultant image.
>
> It is nonetheless, a defect in the image creation system in that it
> arbitrarily alters the image projected by the lens onto the film in ways
> that have nothing inherent to do with the subject. Similarly, the lens
> introduces artifacts, aberrations, as we commonly call them, that are
> inherent in the lens, not in the subject.
>
> Moose on his high horse.
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|