Chris Crawford wrote:
> Moose,
>
> Those are great photos but the fact is you shot them with a camera that makes
> nice 4x6 prints and that's it
Not really:
- I have made lovely 8x10 prints from even somewhat cropped S110 pics.
Shocked me, too, at the time. From all I had read, I was expecting maybe
an acceptable 5x7. No, the 8x10s won't stand up to scrutiny with a
magnifying glass, but they look great at normal viewing distances. That
was, in fact, my introduction to the differences in non-photographer
reactions to digital images. On the wall, along with prints from 35 mm
film made on the same printer, but unidentified as to source, the 2 mp
prints drew more positive attention. My theory was that it has something
to do with the more exactly balanced color response between channels
across the tonal range, but I don't really know. have you ever actually
printed an image from a properly exposed and processed image from a
decent P&S?
- Only the minority of the linked images were taken with the 1.9 mp
S110. The rest were taken with 6.1 mp F10 or F30, which meet your
minimum mp criterion and are capable of printing quite large. Ask AG or
Bob W. how big you can go with the 5 mp of the E-1. Bob just posted his
problems really starting to kick in at a full 20x24 print. I happen to
have seen his prints in person. They are just gorgeous. It's no secret
why they sell.
> (although I think older digitals like your actually do better work than many
> newer ones because the older low
> megapixel models had less noise).
No, the F30 is essentially noiseless at iso 200, better than the S110 at
100, which is its only iso capability.
> I'm a professional artist, I have to have more than that.
Whoops, guess I'm trumped by professionalism. I wonder how those pro
artists on the list have possibly been selling their 5 mp images from
the E-1.
> I didn't even <snip perfectly good reason not to personally change equipment>
> I probably won't buy a digital PS for a while.
>
No argument at all. It's your art and your equipment. What bothers me is
all the things you have to say about equipment it appears you haven't
ever really used. Others may take your, to my way of thinking and
experience, uninformed, word and miss a competent tool that would meet
their needs for particular uses.
This is a full pixel sample from the preceding frame @ iso 100.
http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Iron4/pages/IRON4025.htm
And this is a full pixel from the preceding iso 200 frame.
http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Iron4/pages/IRON4021.htm
And this a full pixel from the preceding iso 400 frame.
http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Iron4/pages/IRON4011.htm
All with the F10, which is noisier than the F30. Its full frame printed
at 300 dpi is 7x9.5", 240 dpi is 9x12 and it will print to at least
11x14 with excellent quality using FM Si Pro or Qimage.
Remember, my primary camera is a 5D, possibly the best pure IQ camera
available at the moment. I'm not comparing my P&Ss to something crappy.
They can simply do a few things it can't. For example, this shot and
most of the others in this gallery were shot with the 6 mp F10. The
person in charge gave me more than one suspicious eying, and came out to
check me out once. Had I been using the DSLR I left in the car, I'm sure
I wouldn't have all those shots. She assumed, like you, that all I would
get with that tiny, silvery thingie is crap. Whether they fit your
definition of art or not, I submit that they are technically good
images.
http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Monterey%20-%20June%202006/Carmel%20Valley/slides/DSCF1014.html
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|