[rollei_list] Re: "I just need to look for the lack of detail" (was: Digital printing v. Analog)
- From: Ardeshir Mehta <ardeshir@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 20:45:29 -0400
On Saturday, April 16, 2005, at 07:28 AM, Richard Urmonas wrote:
> On 16/04/2005, at 6:18 AM, Peter K. wrote:
>
>> I think a lot depends on how they are done. If I showed you several
>> images both digital and analog, blown up to 11 x 14 I would doubt you
>> could tell the difference.
>>
>> Of course, I am referring to a decent SLR and not a P&S.
>>
>> Peter K
>
> If both sets of shots are well done (i.e. not limited by camera shake
> or similar), and they are typical shots (it is often possible to
> choose shots which 'mask' the deficiencies of a camera) they yes, I
> would tell the difference. I just need to look for the lack of detail.
>
> Richard
> ---
> Richard Urmonas
Richard U. is QUITE right. One just has to know what to look for.
Digital photography (as it exists today) can fool the average Joe
Schmoe, but very often, not the serious photographer who knows the
difference between sharpness and detail.
That said, I am sure in ten years' time or thereabouts, digital WILL
surpass film. That doesn't mean that film will be obsolete, though, any
more than drawing and painting became obsolete once photography was
invented!
Cheers.
Other related posts:
