Jim, Let it be known that I do not have any "day job", being unemployed :-) Jerry Jim Somberg wrote: > 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