Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2014/04/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Aren't we comparing a digital scanner against a digital camera? I don't think its a real film to digital comparison without a high end drum scan or at least a scan from one of those Hasselblad Flextight X1 Scanners which cost the same as a used Chevy Nova. On 4/12/14 12:45 AM, "Howard Ritter" <hlritter at bex.net> wrote: > Oh, I absolutely agree. The film images in my repertoire that please me the > most don?t depend on resolution to do so (sometimes not even focus ;-). > For example, the images of the skateboarders in London (link just now > posted) > would not be improved in the least by tack-sharp resolution, any more than > by > a shutter speed that would have frozen the boarder in mid-air. > > Marginal detail does way less to degrade an image well seen and captured > than > the best detail can possibly improve a mediocre one. > > As a geek, as well as realizing that many applications do benefit from > however > great a degree of resolution can be achieved, I just wanted to look at how > our > technologies stacked up, both within themselves and compared to each other. > > > On Apr 12, 2014, at 12:26 AM, Richard Man <richard at richardmanphoto.com> > wrote: > >> Shoot film for certain qualities lacking in digital, whatever they may be, >> but chasing tangible qualities such as resolution is probably a loss >> cause. >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information -- Mark William Rabiner Photographer http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/