Hi Brian,
Although I agree that a 35mm frame of fine-grained film (not to
mention larger formats)
does indeed theoretically contain more information than a typical DSLR
capture, I must say that I see
nothing wrong with your image. I think it will simply benefit from
some sharpening, and that
the camera's noise reduction settings were too aggressive - as the
other here have said, it should
simply be shot as RAW and carefully processed. It's still easier than
with film!
With my own equipment (Epson V700 scanner) digital does indeed beat
35mm film (although 6x7cm, which
I shoot more often, knocks the socks off digital, even with my amateur
scanner). Even grainy
black and white film contains far more information than the otherwise
'cleaner' DSLR shots posted,
e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mossel_Bay_Overview.jpg
So yes, the different media have different characteristics, but if we
get on to more important topics,
lets discuss your *image* itself: What did you aim to achieve with the
composition? To be honest, it
feels a bit unbalanced in my opinion, may have needed more (or less)
top space.
On 03 Aug 2009, at 11:47 AM, Brian Swale wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Sorry this is so late ...
>
> Here's an example of why I think digital doesn't cut the mustard for
> landscapes.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
