"Sinner" <sinner@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:_jBBj.16098$Er2.5197@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Michael" <adunc79617@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:2008031115281616807-adunc79617@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On 2008-03-11 15:01:00 -0400, "Sinner" <sinner@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said:
>>
>>>
>>> "jime" <jimeiffe@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>> news:nfmdnX-2gJNQTkvanZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> Has anyone gone from film to digital and back to film? If so why?
>>>>
>>>> Jim
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> What format film? The only real advantages digital holds over film,
is
>>> its
>>> relative inexpensiveness, and its convenience. All other things,
camera
>>> and
>>> lens quality, being equal, fill will always provide the sharper image.
>>> I
>>> don't think sensors will ever achieve the density levels of film
>>> emulsion.
>>
>> Thank you sinner. I agree with you. But we will now have to face 736
>> posts about "sharpness." Any attempt to explain the information storage
>> of film vs "megapixels" will fall on deaf ears.
>
>
> All one need do is look at a couple of Ansel Adams prints and the
> comparison becomes moot.
>
Are you kidding me?!! You get much better resolution with digitial!!
I've
got a 12.4 pixel ... I'm sorry, I can't go on ... laughing to hard ...
You're absolutely correct, of course. Got me to thinking ... if Ansel
Adams
had used a digital camera and photoshop, I wonder what his legacy would
be.
No doubt he was a great photographer. And a lot of his darkroom
activities
can be duplicated with Photoshop. But without the richness that only film
provides, I think he would have been known as an excellent photographer
during his day, but perhaps not earned the same place historically as he
has.
|
