digital vs. medium format

Bandicoot wrote:

"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
...
[SNIP]

While some professionals will be hired for their gear, the true
professionals get work based upon their creative vision. Those that
will continue working in the future will also remain professionals
because they continue to be creative, not because they own the latest
gadget.

I've _never_ had a client, or a prospective client, ask me what equipment
I use.

I've been asked about how big a given image could be enlarged, which leads
back to issues of what film I used and what format I shot on, but that's it.
In those instances, if I'd said it was digital, the interest would still
have been on the same basis: how the image could be used, so how big it
could be reproduced.

Clients look at pictures, not cameras. (Students ask about cameras, but
that's different, and to an extent is fair enough.)

Peter

That had been my experience, though I do get questions more now about
equipment. However, once these people see the images, or the final prints, then
what equipment was used becomes not important. The results are the greatest
concern.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

jjs wrote:

"Bandicoot" wrote in message
t...
"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
[SNIP]

The biggest fallacy here is that scanned pixels are much less clean
than digital-original pixels.

? What do you mean? Since a pixel is a pixel, do you mean that in a given
area of even tone, pixels from scanning film will vary more than pixels
from
direct digital - or is it something else?

David's post is confusing. Direct digital is cleaner. Look, if you scan film
there's grain and gain, artifacts, moiré and adjacency issues to deal with.
I can't see why anyone wouldn't understand that.

Though when those things are not showing up in the final printed pieces, then
some of fail to see the bias. Some people need to get away from their computer
monitors, and actually look at some printed images.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

In article ,
Gordon Moat wrote:

Though when those things are not showing up in the final printed pieces, then
some of fail to see the bias. Some people need to get away from their computer
monitors, and actually look at some printed images.

We both know thats the case, many times grain is not an objectionable
issue. But Nothing bothers me more than a bad 4 color print job, that I
know is the result of comp-room (home users included), pressroom or
general press operator error. If anyone thinks digital imagery is going
to correct those issues I see them as sadly mistaken.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

Gregory Blank wrote:

In article ,
Gordon Moat wrote:

Though when those things are not showing up in the final printed pieces, then
some of fail to see the bias. Some people need to get away from their computer
monitors, and actually look at some printed images.

We both know thats the case, many times grain is not an objectionable
issue. But Nothing bothers me more than a bad 4 color print job, that I
know is the result of comp-room (home users included), pressroom or
general press operator error. If anyone thinks digital imagery is going
to correct those issues I see them as sadly mistaken.

Definitely agree. There is no "magic bullet", though it appears there are plenty of
companies trying to sell "magic bullets". About 90% of the time, the careless (or
clueless) user will get acceptable results, and then be completely perplexed by the
10% errors and what to do about those.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com