Shel,
I'll be very anxious to read your "evaluation" of
Cameron's image. IOW, defining your personal way of
"seeing" this particular set of optically reproduced
imagery, cross interpolated by your individual color
cones.
I certainly don't believe you will be patronizing and
anything short of that must be considered honesty.
Can't imagine assuming such a level of responsibility
for myself.
Jack
--- Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While I am skeptical about the quality of large
> prints made with a 6mp
> camera, I have seen the quality of the results made
> from 35mm negatives
> that others thought were "impossible." There is a
> lab here that does
> incredible work, and which uses only the highest
> quality equipment and the
> most talented people to accomplish that work, and
> until i saw the
> "stunning" results they get I'd not have thought it
> possible. I saw a six
> or eight food wide print made from a section of a
> 35mm negative that just
> blew me away. It was practically grainless even
> when scrutinized from just
> a mere few inches from the print, and the tonality
> was quite amazing. This
> lab uses only a Tango drum scanner, has developed
> its own algorithms for
> processing, and has a guy working the scanner and
> the software who is quite
> exceptional.
>
> The lab has a 6-foot high B&W pic of Mother Teresa
> in their lobby that is
> printed on "color" paper, and it rivals a silver B&W
> print in every way
> imaginable.
>
> A couple of years ago I mentioned on the list the
> exceptional quality I saw
> in Salgado's B&W prints, many of which were 36" or a
> bit larger on the long
> end, and which were made using Tri-X or TMAX 3200,
> and was told by several
> PDMLers that i was full of shit about the quality -
> that such quality could
> not be achieved. Anyone who has seen Salgado's work
> knows otherwise. My
> credibility (such as it was/is) was supported to
> some some small degree by
> one or two list members who also saw the exhibit,
> and felt similarly about
> the quality of the prints.
>
> Now, what's this got to do with obtaining "stunning"
> results from a 6mp
> Pentax DSLR. Little, except that until one sees the
> prints in question,
> their quality is really unknown, and that most
> anything is possible. Yes,
> I am still skeptical, but skeptical with an open
> mind. There are just too
> many variables to consider, too many skill levels
> involved, and to many
> different ways of seeing the same thing to rush to
> judgement. Over the
> years I have seen any number of things that were
> improbable or impossible.
>
> Cameron has generously offered to send me a print
> for evaluation. I'm
> going to take him up on the offer, and will post a
> message about what I
> think about the results he's obtained. Anyone who
> knows me knows that I am
> critical, dogmatic, and slow to change my mind about
> anything without
> seeing things first hand, and, regardless of
> anything else, I am honest in
> my evaluations (as I see things).
>
> It is very easy for someone to work out a bunch of
> numbers to prove a
> point. In this case so many megapixels are needed
> to get such and such
> quality, and so on. But judging the quality of a
> photograph is not a
> numbers game. One must alsoi consider what the eye
> and the brain and past
> experience contribute to what one sees. One must
> consider, also, the image
> itself - what kind of detail does it contain, what
> are the colors and their
> relationship to one another, and so on.
>
> Shel
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: J. C. O'Connell
>
> > Don't throw around hyped up terms and you wont
> > get negative feedback. With 24 x36 prints
> > the image capability of the human eye is
> incredible
> > and a 6 MP DSLR is not capable of meeting that
> > capabiliy or even coming close. You would need
> > some thing on the order of 60 MP uninterpolated
> > and that is assuming a perfect lens.
>
>
>
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
