----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 5:13 AM Subject: Re: Comparing digital to film
> > The argument that digital A is equal to film B because resolution of C and D > > even out all differences is still meaningless. I have two large MF prints > > hanging on my wall. I have also two equally large prints made from 35mm. I > > find the quality to be good as far as print goes. Now this is a "real life" > > test of MF vs. 35mm as this is the quality of prints I get. I hereby declare > > once and for all that 35mm is equally good as MF because I can't see a bloody > > difference from my prints. > > > > You're amazingly contentious about this issue. It sounds a lot like it's an > emotional issue with you, not a technical one. What a strange thing to get > so emotional about. Certainly not. I'm emotional about the fact that people insist they are comparing film vs. digital when they are in fact comparing two digital products: digital cameras vs. scanners (and printers for that matter). I have no doubts whatsoever that people are getting great results with their digital cameras and I certainly expect to switch to digital at some stage; preferable when things starts to even out a bit.. I just wish some could get their facts and arguments straight instead of this stream of misinformation. P�l
