Marvin wrote:
> 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.
Yes, and people also select Big Macs over a healthy meal when their aim
is merely to stuff themselves with junk they've grown up to believe is
food.
|
