Recently, you wrote: > Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 09:05:28 -0400 > Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Digital printing v. Analog > From: Eric Goldstein <egoldste@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Neil Gould (snipped): > >> I completely >> agree, and find this discussion to be generally absurd because so >> far, it has omitted the critical factor that can differentiate >> digital from analog image capture: the content of the scene (Ritz >> cracker excepted)! There are some scenes that will be better >> represented by one medium or the other, but the general difference >> between the media is the ability to capture subtle textures. > > No, no, Neil, you don't understand. We are engaged in a science > project > here, an engineering trial. Why on earth would you want to introduce > aesthetic or artistic considerations into a photographic discussion? > <g> > Mea culpa! OTOH, if an engineering trial is the challenge, Richard Knoppow's excellent response differentiating accutance from sharpness should have put the matter to rest. > We have this circular debate over and over and over again, and even > from an engineering POV, the assumptions made here are so out of > touch with reality > as to render it both boring and useless... JMOs of course... > I find such debates to be amusing, at least for a while. Especially when it's a debate between experienced and knowledgable individuals who should know better. 8-) Neil