"Michael" <adunc79617@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:2008031201143816807-adunc79617@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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
Clark goes into this in some detail.
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/index.html
r.
|
