Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> 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?
I didn't say that they are equal - whatever "equal" means.
They are different media, with different qualities. Film
and digital aren't the same, though they are used for the
same purposes by many people. Other people select one or
the other, depending on what their aim is in creating an image.
|
