Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/05/31
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Not quite. More like: two people take an identical photo with different film and cameras. But who has to do more work on their negatives to get to the same end result? Obviously we want to take the easiest path (or path which yields ultimately the better print quality for a given amount of work - I could spend 3 hours massaging a point and shoot file, or three hours on a D3x file, and I guarantee you that at 40x60 the D3x will look better...) On Jun 1, 2009, at 10:51 AM, Jayanand Govindaraj wrote: > I still don't see how it makes a difference to the final product, i.e. > the output in any form. We are discussing negatives here, to use a > film analogy. This, to my mind is a meaningless discussion, like whose > negatives are better, Adams or Weston? > Cheers > Jayanand > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 8:07 AM, Thein Onn Ming > <mingthein at gmail.com> wrote: >> That is what I have to do to get the same amount of perceived >> sharpness (at >> least to my eyes). >> >> It doesn't matter at all for the final print. >> >> But it is a good illustration of how much inherently sharper a non- >> AA camera >> (the M8) is than the best of the AA cameras (arguably, the D3) >> straight out >> of the box with sharpening set to zero in ACR defaults. >> THEIN Onn Ming *photohorologer ming at www.mingthein.com www.flickr.com/mingthein