Marvin wrote:
> Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>
>> Marvin wrote:
>>
>>> Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>>>
>>>> jimkramer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Joel" <Joel@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>> news:6fldu3lkuci82h12jhv6f5i61jaeach9nt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>
>>>>>> "jimkramer" <Newsreader1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If quality of image is not a consideration go strictly digital.
>>>>>>>> It is
>>>>>>>> more convenient and less costly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unless the OP is shooting MF, a 6MP DSLR is going to produce
>>>>>>> equal or better
>>>>>>> images then most commonly available (consumer) 35mm films. Where
>>>>>>> this is
>>>>>>> not the case is very fine grained slow silver B&W print films and
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> better, i.e. more expensive, slide films. At 10-12 MP It's
>>>>>>> pretty much a
>>>>>>> dead heat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't pay much attention to the name to remember the name(s),
>>>>>> but I read
>>>>>> someone here comparing film to 30MP digital camera. Of course I
>>>>>> have no
>>>>>> idea where s/he get the idea but it's pretty interesting to find
>>>>>> someone has
>>>>>> more knowledge than suppose to <bg>
>>>>>>
>>>>> For the very finest grain slowest B&W film with the very best lens
>>>>> maybe you could scratch out 30 MP of real image data on a drum
>>>>> scanner. But after spending all that for the image I'd wonder why
>>>>> it wasn't done in medium or large format.> The real issues with
>>>>> people who claim to be able to get large MP out of film is that
>>>>> they have special equipment and the very finest of emulsions to
>>>>> work with. The average consumer grade film is basically garbage to
>>>>> generate 4x6" prints. A 1MP camera will make an acceptable 4x6
>>>>> print and a 3MP will make a great 4x6 print.> Roger N. Clark posted
>>>>> some nice comparisons between digital and film "MegaPixels"
>>>>> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.1.html
>>>>> and
>>>>>
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html>
>>>>> And of course you need to consider the people that think you should
>>>>> only compare prints. Prints made with the finest optical system
>>>>> mind you. :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The differences is like that between LPs and CDs, oils and inks,
>>>> film and tape.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Since we are talking about images,I prefer to compare film vs.
>>> digital to oil paint vs. watercolors.
>>
>>
>> Your point?
>
>
> I use the analogy with folks who obsess about whether film is better or
> digital is better. I hope that answers your question.
You think watercolor is equal to oil, in what respect?
|
