[rollei_list] Re: Digital Wins
- From: "Jim Somberg" <jimsberg_04@xxxxxxx>
- To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 16:25:38 -0700
I think that the bottom line is that I have seen very sharp edged digital pix
at large sizes, that sort of pass as high resolution pictures- but regardless
of the # of pixels in the digital camera, these pictures don't look right. With
the sharpening software that is invariably used to achieve those results,
things look decidedly oversharp, often with an unusually extended depth of
field, and unnatural edges. It is particularly obvious in newspaper photos for
the past year or more and in many product shots; the pictures appear to be
superb at first look, looking like they came from 8X10 sheet film, and slightly
weird after the longer look. Someone made the point that sharpness is not the
same as detailed and I believe they were right on.
In other words, these pictures are probably OK for their intended short term
uses, but somewhat dishonest in the long term and as gallery/wall prints. Ansel
Adams would be appalled.
Now, would you good fellows stop with all the daily emails and get back to your
day jobs! (Just kidding, of course.)
Jim Somberg
----- Original Message -----
From: Ardeshir Mehta
To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 4:07 PM
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Digital Wins
I can't imagine how Austin can be wrong in what he writes re. Digital
vs. Film. It seems to me a straightforward matter of mathematics! A
scanned 35mm negative or slide, scanned even at a low 2400 dpi, would
result in a file containing 8.64 megapixels - and each of these pixels
would contain ALL the primary colours, not just one, as in a digital
camera! How then can even an 8-megapixel digital camera, let alone a
4-megapixel one, give the same resolution as a slide or negative taken
on good quality film with even a 35 mm camera - let alone with a
Rolleiflex TLR - which is then scanned using a good scanner at, say,
3600 or 4800 dpi?
Or am I missing something here? If I am, would someone PLEASE set me
straight?
Cheers.
+++++
On Friday, April 15, 2005, at 09:34 AM, Austin Franklin wrote:
> Marc,
>
>> At 10:09 AM 4/14/05 -0400, Austin Franklin wrote:
>>
>>> I can't imagine by what stretch of the imagination you could
>>> possibly believe that you can get an "acceptable" 20 x 24 print from
>>> a P&S digital camera, unless you have VERY low standards.
>>
>> Gee, Austin, I guess you must be right. I must just have very low
>> standards.
>
> You just to even remotely believe such a silly claim!
>
>> Now, again, go sit on it.
>
> Why are you being an ass? Because someone disagrees with you? How
> juvenile.
>
>> And, yes, you are wrong,
>
> I guess you believe if you just keep saying it, it must be true.
> Delirium not withstanding, your claim is simply nonsensical, no matter
> how many times you claim it.
>
>> ...as many others have pointed out.
>
> Hardly "many" as you so erroneously claim. Obviously, you have little
> "appreciation" for image quality. That's fine, and it's your
> prerogative...but that doesn't make your claim any less nonsensical.
>
> Austin
+++++
On Friday, April 15, 2005, at 09:37 AM, Austin Franklin wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
>> I have seen many digital images. Done right, you could not tell the
>> difference between a quality digital image at 11x14 or one from a
>> film camera.
>
> Absolutely, but not from a 4.1mp digital P&S.
>
> Regards,
>
> Austin
Other related posts:
