«

In article <c99v71$2kj$>,
says...
> You're biased, too!

Maybe it is YOU who are biased!

I accused you, it must be true.

Well made points Brian!

Why should anyone seek to impose a restriction on what and how consumers
choose to spend their dosh?

It beats me!

On the other hand it is good to see someone's view and opinion but in the
context that it is as valid as anyother contributors view

FWIW I rate digital imagery - the few shots and prints I have taken convince
me I could not achieve the same quality at similar price using any other
media (in fact, digital is marginally less expensive in terms of
out-of-pocket dosh



bagal


ps - i suppose i did make a comparison but what else could i compare it to?
A bunch of grapes?

B


"Brian C. Baird" <> wrote in message
news:.. .
> In article <7YVtc.7701$IB.6825@attbi_s04>, says...
> > This is true....Once you have passed your work through a digitization
> > process, it's resolution will be reduced to digital from that time on.
This
>
> How can resolution be "reduced to digital"? Digitizing a slide or
> negative doesn't "reduce" anything, it merely converts it to a fixed
> size determined by the user. When you scan at a high enough resolution
> to reproduce film grain, you've basically maxed out whatever usable
> detail the film had.
>
> > is why discussing the difference on Usenet is such a waste of time. The
only
> > way to compare prints on the net is by digitizing them and sending them
thru
> > cyberspace, and so all resolutions from that time on are digital. The
only
> > way to really compare is to bring your work down to the local camera
store
> > or camera club meeting, where you can show others the film product
> > completely un-digitized.
>
> And it won't make a difference! A good print is a good print, and top-
> end digital SLRs like the 1Ds make prints every bit as good as film
> prints! Of course, they have better color accuracy and are easier to
> manipulate, but hey, if you want to be a Luddite, I'm not going to stop
> you!

In article <c99v4v$21m$>,
says...
> Just because these comparisons are biased!Everybody thinks that digital
> *must* be better.

I think it's safe to say no one here thinks that.

Digital has certain advantages over film, most notably color accuracy.
It is already more versatile and convenient to use than film. However,
it should be noted you need to drop about $5,000-7,000 to match 35mm
film in terms of raw resolution.

If these high-end digital SLRs truly didn't deliver the goods, you
wouldn't see professional photographers adopting them so readily.

Kibo informs me that "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios"
<> stated that:

>Just because these comparisons are biased!Everybody thinks that digital
>*must* be better.

<grin> That depends on who you ask. In RPD, people assume that digital
will be better, in RPE.35mm, people will assume that film is better.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

MXP wrote:

> I have always asked the same question myself.
> My pure analog prints have more information than my scanned and printed
> prints.
Then I would say your scans are not very good. Get a drum scan.
My experience is that good scans get more information than
you get from traditional professional enlarger printing. See:
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/d...advantage.html

Roger Clark

>
> I noticed some "color noise" on the 1Ds image ...........
>
> Max
>
> "Mike Henley" <> skrev i en meddelelse
> news: om...
>
>>I don't mean to start a flame war, but I have seen this very often,
>>and to be honest it strikes me as a less-than-entirely-meaningful
>>comparison. This is an example...
>>
>>http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm
>>"My opinion after doing these comparisons is that the Canon 1Ds 11mp
>>DSLR exceeds 4000dpi 35mm film scan quality by a considerable amount.
>>In fact, in most photographic situations 1Ds image quality is
>>competitive with *medium format film scan output. 4X5 film, when
>>properly scanned, makes significantly more detailed images than any of
>>the DSLR cameras"
>>
>>I mean, seriously, what's the point of comparing digital to digitized
>>film? What's the point of comparing a digital camera output to a 35mm
>>film *scan*?
>>
>>Why *not* compare a digital camera print to a *purely analog* 35mm
>>film print? you know, not a 35mm film that is *scanned* and then
>>printed, but one printed the regular way 35mm had been printed for
>>decades.
>
>
>

In article <>, Lionel
<> writes
>Kibo informs me that "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios"
><> stated that:
>
>>Just because these comparisons are biased!Everybody thinks that digital
>>*must* be better.
>
><grin> That depends on who you ask. In RPD, people assume that digital
>will be better, in RPE.35mm, people will assume that film is better.
>
And those of us who inhabit both......?

As for me, well, I think the one that is better is the one of which I am
trying to justify a forthcoming purchase to my wife.
--
David Littlewood

Kibo informs me that David Littlewood <> stated
that:

>In article <>, Lionel
><> writes
>>Kibo informs me that "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios"
>><> stated that:
>>
>>>Just because these comparisons are biased!Everybody thinks that digital
>>>*must* be better.
>>
>><grin> That depends on who you ask. In RPD, people assume that digital
>>will be better, in RPE.35mm, people will assume that film is better.
>>
>And those of us who inhabit both......?

Which includes me, too. Personally, I think it depends on what you're
trying to do, & with which equipment you're doing it.

>As for me, well, I think the one that is better is the one of which I am
>trying to justify a forthcoming purchase to my wife.

You think /you've/ got it bad? - I have to justify my spending to my
*accountant*!

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Mike Henley wrote:
> I don't mean to start a flame war, but I have seen this very often,
> and to be honest it strikes me as a less-than-entirely-meaningful
> comparison. This is an example...
>
> http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm
> "My opinion after doing these comparisons is that the Canon 1Ds 11mp
> DSLR exceeds 4000dpi 35mm film scan quality by a considerable amount.
> In fact, in most photographic situations 1Ds image quality is
> competitive with *medium format film scan output. 4X5 film, when
> properly scanned, makes significantly more detailed images than any of
> the DSLR cameras"
>
> I mean, seriously, what's the point of comparing digital to digitized
> film? What's the point of comparing a digital camera output to a 35mm
> film *scan*?
>
> Why *not* compare a digital camera print to a *purely analog* 35mm
> film print? you know, not a 35mm film that is *scanned* and then
> printed, but one printed the regular way 35mm had been printed for
> decades.

This is not new. As prev. mentioned by another poster, the
tendancy of film-scanners is to compare their scanned digital
images against digital images from digital cameras... case of
convenience. Where it really counts is in a print of a given
size. And BTW, prints from a good film scan are very, very good
indeed.


--
--e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

(Mike Henley) writes:

>I mean, seriously, what's the point of comparing digital to digitized
>film? What's the point of comparing a digital camera output to a 35mm
>film *scan*?

It's the right comparison if you want to end up with a digital image,
for whatever reason (e.g. to do digital manipulation, to put it in a
document, put it on a web page).

>Why *not* compare a digital camera print to a *purely analog* 35mm
>film print? you know, not a 35mm film that is *scanned* and then
>printed, but one printed the regular way 35mm had been printed for
>decades.

That's the right comparison if what you care about is a photographic
print to hang on your wall.

Not everyone wants the same final result.

Dave

The Analog prints I do is Ilfochrome and the Scanned are done with a Epson
3200 and
printed using a Epson 2100 printer. From 6x6 it gives very good quality and
much faster than
doing homemade Ilfochromes. A well made Ilfochrome is hard to beat.

Max


"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <> skrev i
en meddelelse news:...
> MXP wrote:
>
> > I have always asked the same question myself.
> > My pure analog prints have more information than my scanned and printed
> > prints.
> Then I would say your scans are not very good. Get a drum scan.
> My experience is that good scans get more information than
> you get from traditional professional enlarger printing. See:
> http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/d...advantage.html
>
> Roger Clark
>
> >
> > I noticed some "color noise" on the 1Ds image ...........
> >
> > Max
> >
> > "Mike Henley" <> skrev i en meddelelse
> > news: om...
> >
> >>I don't mean to start a flame war, but I have seen this very often,
> >>and to be honest it strikes me as a less-than-entirely-meaningful
> >>comparison. This is an example...
> >>
> >>http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm
> >>"My opinion after doing these comparisons is that the Canon 1Ds 11mp
> >>DSLR exceeds 4000dpi 35mm film scan quality by a considerable amount.
> >>In fact, in most photographic situations 1Ds image quality is
> >>competitive with *medium format film scan output. 4X5 film, when
> >>properly scanned, makes significantly more detailed images than any of
> >>the DSLR cameras"
> >>
> >>I mean, seriously, what's the point of comparing digital to digitized
> >>film? What's the point of comparing a digital camera output to a 35mm
> >>film *scan*?
> >>
> >>Why *not* compare a digital camera print to a *purely analog* 35mm
> >>film print? you know, not a 35mm film that is *scanned* and then
> >>printed, but one printed the regular way 35mm had been printed for
> >>decades.
> >
> >
> >
>