[rollei_list] Re: Digital printing v. Analog
- From: "Neil Gould" <neil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 07:12:27 -0500
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
Other related posts:
