On 2008-03-11 15:46:06 -0400, "Sinner" <sinner@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said:
>
> "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.
The digital group will likely point out that Ansel Adams used large
format which even they admit is well beyond the reach of digital "at
this time" as they would say. So I would put up against digital the
photos of W. Eugene Smith, who was the very great photojournalist
working during WW II and the decades after it, whose 35mm prints far
surpass anything digital.
--
Michael
|
