If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D100 vs 4x5 field camera side-by-side enlargement
"JimKramer" skrev i en meddelelse ... On Jan 22, 3:24 pm, "Max Perl" wrote: "JimKramer" skrev i en ... On Jan 22, 2:32 pm, "Max Perl" wrote: "JimKramer" skrev i en ... On Jan 22, 1:09 pm, "Max Perl" wrote: The 6MP DSLR camera seems to "create" its own "details"? I can see patterns I can't find in the 4x5 crop........? It is interresting to see how it should have looked like......and how the DSLR "manipulates" the real world :-) "." skrev i en ... http://www.widerange.org/resolution.html-Hidequoted text - - Show quoted text - "For this resolution comparison, I enlarged the D100 shot to the same width as the 4x5 shot, then cropped the same sized section from both. " To me, that means the "extra details" were added long after the camera got done taking the picture and had more to do with Photoshop, presumably, than the camera. But would it really have been so much effort to at least take the picture near the same time? And at an F stop that wouldn't already be well in to the "diffraction damage zone" for a cropped sensor DSLR? There were a number of, at least in my mind, questionable photographic decisions that did nothing to demonstrate the capabilities of Nikon D100, yet were very "normal" for a 4x5 shooter. It is probably PhotoShop which did something........ But a brigwall test using a DSLR could be interresting and make a 100% crop of an area and then a full frame macro shot of the same area to see how the DSLR handles the details it can't handle......or how should I explain.......to see if the DSLR creates its own reality. It has probably been done many times........- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Yes it has, but film does the same thing when your details are past its resolving power (or worse the lens' resolving power.) "New" technology same "Old" problem. Want to resolve more detail? Go to a larger image format. A simple expensive solution. Now if I could get up the courage (and funds) to get an 8x10" camera and a drum scanner to go with it. :-) Yes.....but it is quite heavy and it will be another kind of images you will get I assume.... :-) With film the details seems to fade out a nicer way than with digital which is more ugly in my opinon. Maybe it is because I have so many nice old analog cameras I want to use......e.g. Voigtländer Prominent, Koak Retina IIIc, Contax II, Kiev 4a etc :-)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Ugly on a computer screen or ugly on a print? :-) I think it was a the screen at 100% viewing. Text in digital images looks ugly when it is at the limit what the sensor can resolve....... Off course you can blur it in Photoshop etc......... I've seen plenty of ugly pictures either way, but the newer print shops with the digital printers are set to print at the lowest possible resolution for speed and turn out consistently worse stuff then they did 15 years ago. A good scanner and printer will make you look at your films a different way then optical printing will allow and makes pretty digital prints much easier. I was less then happy with anything I ever did in the darkroom, but the same films scanned are truly lovely. I have reused many of my slides by scanning them and printing them. 6x6 and 6x9 looks great. But my PC has a hard time if I scan at 4000 dpi and use layers in Photoshop. Just keep using the cameras; don't let them get too dusty. :-) Yes.....it is hard to explain what it so fun using these old cameras. I have a 12MP DSLR but I still like using old rangefinders. A Vitomatic IIa with Ultron 50/2 is not bad either.....or a BessaII with Color-Heliar. These can still make nice photographs........ |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D100 vs 4x5 field camera side-by-side enlargement
"Yoshi" skrev i en meddelelse ... "Max Perl" wrote in message k... "JimKramer" skrev i en meddelelse ... On Jan 22, 1:09 pm, "Max Perl" wrote: The 6MP DSLR camera seems to "create" its own "details"? I can see patterns I can't find in the 4x5 crop........? It is interresting to see how it should have looked like......and how the DSLR "manipulates" the real world :-) "." skrev i en ... http://www.widerange.org/resolution.html- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - "For this resolution comparison, I enlarged the D100 shot to the same width as the 4x5 shot, then cropped the same sized section from both. " To me, that means the "extra details" were added long after the camera got done taking the picture and had more to do with Photoshop, presumably, than the camera. But would it really have been so much effort to at least take the picture near the same time? And at an F stop that wouldn't already be well in to the "diffraction damage zone" for a cropped sensor DSLR? There were a number of, at least in my mind, questionable photographic decisions that did nothing to demonstrate the capabilities of Nikon D100, yet were very "normal" for a 4x5 shooter. It is probably PhotoShop which did something........ But a brigwall test using a DSLR could be interresting and make a 100% crop of an area and then a full frame macro shot of the same area to see how the DSLR handles the details it can't handle......or how should I explain.......to see if the DSLR creates its own reality. It has probably been done many times........ What exactly is a "brigwall"? It should probably be in two words......brig wall ....a wall made of brigs. Like this: http://good-times.webshots.com/photo...82247258BOSMKd It has a lot of fine details so often used as test object to compare lenses...... |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D100 vs 4x5 field camera side-by-side enlargement
On Jan 24, 2:15*pm, "Yoshi" wrote:
"Max Perl" wrote in message k... "JimKramer" skrev i en meddelelse ... On Jan 22, 1:09 pm, "Max Perl" wrote: The 6MP DSLR camera seems to "create" its own "details"? I can see patterns I can't find in the 4x5 crop........? It is interresting to see how it should have looked like......and how the DSLR "manipulates" the real world :-) "." skrev i en ... http://www.widerange.org/resolution.html-Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - "For this resolution comparison, I enlarged the D100 shot to the same width as the 4x5 shot, then cropped the same sized section from both. " To me, that means the "extra details" were added long after the camera got done taking the picture and had more to do with Photoshop, presumably, than the camera. But would it really have been so much effort to at least take the picture near the same time? And at an F stop that wouldn't already be well in to the "diffraction damage zone" for a cropped sensor DSLR? There were a number of, at least in my mind, questionable photographic decisions that did nothing to demonstrate the capabilities of Nikon D100, yet were very "normal" for a 4x5 shooter. It is probably PhotoShop which did something........ But a brigwall test using a DSLR could be interresting and make a 100% crop of an area and then a full frame macro shot of the same area to see how the DSLR handles the details it can't handle......or how should I explain.......to see if the DSLR creates its own reality. It has probably been done many times........ What exactly is a "brigwall"?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - He means brick, i believe. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D100 vs 4x5 field camera side-by-side enlargement
"JimKramer" skrev i en meddelelse ... On Jan 24, 2:15 pm, "Yoshi" wrote: "Max Perl" wrote in message k... "JimKramer" skrev i en meddelelse ... On Jan 22, 1:09 pm, "Max Perl" wrote: The 6MP DSLR camera seems to "create" its own "details"? I can see patterns I can't find in the 4x5 crop........? It is interresting to see how it should have looked like......and how the DSLR "manipulates" the real world :-) "." skrev i en ... http://www.widerange.org/resolution.html-Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - "For this resolution comparison, I enlarged the D100 shot to the same width as the 4x5 shot, then cropped the same sized section from both. " To me, that means the "extra details" were added long after the camera got done taking the picture and had more to do with Photoshop, presumably, than the camera. But would it really have been so much effort to at least take the picture near the same time? And at an F stop that wouldn't already be well in to the "diffraction damage zone" for a cropped sensor DSLR? There were a number of, at least in my mind, questionable photographic decisions that did nothing to demonstrate the capabilities of Nikon D100, yet were very "normal" for a 4x5 shooter. It is probably PhotoShop which did something........ But a brigwall test using a DSLR could be interresting and make a 100% crop of an area and then a full frame macro shot of the same area to see how the DSLR handles the details it can't handle......or how should I explain.......to see if the DSLR creates its own reality. It has probably been done many times........ What exactly is a "brigwall"?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - He means brick, i believe. Yes....that is correct! A google search on "brick wall" and everybody will know.......I better write in danish next time...... |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D100 vs 4x5 field camera side-by-side enlargement
On Jan 24, 2:38*pm, "Max Perl" wrote:
"JimKramer" skrev i en ... On Jan 24, 2:15 pm, "Yoshi" wrote: "Max Perl" wrote in message . dk... "JimKramer" skrev i en meddelelse .... On Jan 22, 1:09 pm, "Max Perl" wrote: The 6MP DSLR camera seems to "create" its own "details"? I can see patterns I can't find in the 4x5 crop........? It is interresting to see how it should have looked like......and how the DSLR "manipulates" the real world :-) "." skrev i en ... http://www.widerange.org/resolution.html-Hidequoted text - - Show quoted text - "For this resolution comparison, I enlarged the D100 shot to the same width as the 4x5 shot, then cropped the same sized section from both. " To me, that means the "extra details" were added long after the camera got done taking the picture and had more to do with Photoshop, presumably, than the camera. But would it really have been so much effort to at least take the picture near the same time? And at an F stop that wouldn't already be well in to the "diffraction damage zone" for a cropped sensor DSLR? There were a number of, at least in my mind, questionable photographic decisions that did nothing to demonstrate the capabilities of Nikon D100, yet were very "normal" for a 4x5 shooter. It is probably PhotoShop which did something........ But a brigwall test using a DSLR could be interresting and make a 100% crop of an area and then a full frame macro shot of the same area to see how the DSLR handles the details it can't handle......or how should I explain.......to see if the DSLR creates its own reality. It has probably been done many times........ What exactly is a "brigwall"?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - He means brick, i believe. Yes....that is correct! A google search on "brick wall" and everybody will know.......I better write in danish next time......- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - That would leave most of us in the dark. :-) I'd take a good stab at German or Spanish though. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D100 vs 4x5 field camera side-by-side enlargement
On Jan 22, 11:07*am, "Max Perl" wrote:
"JimKramer" skrev i en ... On Jan 22, 3:24 pm, "Max Perl" wrote: "JimKramer" skrev i en ... On Jan 22, 2:32 pm, "Max Perl" wrote: "JimKramer" skrev i en ... On Jan 22, 1:09 pm, "Max Perl" wrote: The 6MP DSLR camera seems to "create" its own "details"? I can see patterns I can't find in the 4x5 crop........? It is interresting to see how it should have looked like......and how the DSLR "manipulates" the real world :-) "." skrev i en ... http://www.widerange.org/resolution.html-Hidequotedtext - - Show quoted text - "For this resolution comparison, I enlarged the D100 shot to the same width as the 4x5 shot, then cropped the same sized section from both. " To me, that means the "extra details" were added long after the camera got done taking the picture and had more to do with Photoshop, presumably, than the camera. But would it really have been so much effort to at least take the picture near the same time? And at an F stop that wouldn't already be well in to the "diffraction damage zone" for a cropped sensor DSLR? There were a number of, at least in my mind, questionable photographic decisions that did nothing to demonstrate the capabilities of Nikon D100, yet were very "normal" for a 4x5 shooter. It is probably PhotoShop which did something........ But a brigwall test using a DSLR could be interresting and make a 100% crop of an area and then a full frame macro shot of the same area to see how the DSLR handles the details it can't handle......or how should I explain.......to see if the DSLR creates its own reality. It has probably been done many times........- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Yes it has, but film does the same thing when your details are past its resolving power (or worse the lens' resolving power.) "New" technology same "Old" problem. Want to resolve more detail? Go to a larger image format. A simple expensive solution. Now if I could get up the courage (and funds) to get an 8x10" camera and a drum scanner to go with it. :-) Yes.....but it is quite heavy and it will be another kind of images you will get I assume.... :-) With film the details seems to fade out a nicer way than with digital which is more ugly in my opinon. Maybe it is because I have so many nice old analog cameras I want to use......e.g. Voigtländer Prominent, Koak Retina IIIc, Contax II, Kiev 4a etc :-)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Ugly on a computer screen or ugly on a print? :-) I think it was a the screen at 100% viewing. Text in digital images looks ugly when it is at the limit what the sensor can resolve....... Off course you can blur it in Photoshop etc......... What you are most likely seeing in the digital images is aliasing, and sadly simply blurring in PhotoShop after the fact does not help much. This is a tradeoff every digital camera has to deal with, if you put in a strong enough anti-alias filter to remove all aliasing the image will have poor contrast at lower spatial frequencies and not look sharp, but a weaker AA filter can lead to artifacts. Of course I consider any visible grain in a film image as an artifact, so film is not free from artifacts either. Film can often add texture in an image where none was in the original scene, this bothers some people more then others, it bothers me a fair bit. Scott |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D100 vs 4x5 field camera side-by-side enlargement
"JimKramer" skrev i en meddelelse ... On Jan 24, 2:38 pm, "Max Perl" wrote: "JimKramer" skrev i en ... On Jan 24, 2:15 pm, "Yoshi" wrote: "Max Perl" wrote in message . dk... "JimKramer" skrev i en meddelelse ... On Jan 22, 1:09 pm, "Max Perl" wrote: The 6MP DSLR camera seems to "create" its own "details"? I can see patterns I can't find in the 4x5 crop........? It is interresting to see how it should have looked like......and how the DSLR "manipulates" the real world :-) "." skrev i en ... http://www.widerange.org/resolution.html-Hidequoted text - - Show quoted text - "For this resolution comparison, I enlarged the D100 shot to the same width as the 4x5 shot, then cropped the same sized section from both. " To me, that means the "extra details" were added long after the camera got done taking the picture and had more to do with Photoshop, presumably, than the camera. But would it really have been so much effort to at least take the picture near the same time? And at an F stop that wouldn't already be well in to the "diffraction damage zone" for a cropped sensor DSLR? There were a number of, at least in my mind, questionable photographic decisions that did nothing to demonstrate the capabilities of Nikon D100, yet were very "normal" for a 4x5 shooter. It is probably PhotoShop which did something........ But a brigwall test using a DSLR could be interresting and make a 100% crop of an area and then a full frame macro shot of the same area to see how the DSLR handles the details it can't handle......or how should I explain.......to see if the DSLR creates its own reality. It has probably been done many times........ What exactly is a "brigwall"?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - He means brick, i believe. Yes....that is correct! A google search on "brick wall" and everybody will know.......I better write in danish next time......- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - That would leave most of us in the dark. :-) I'd take a good stab at German or Spanish though. "brick" in danish would be "mursten" and "wall" would be "væg" .....but we have a lot of words we put together without spaces in between so "brick wall" will be "murstensvæg". The extra "s" is some danish gramma........ :-) |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D100 vs 4x5 field camera side-by-side enlargement
"Scott W" skrev i en meddelelse ... On Jan 22, 11:07 am, "Max Perl" wrote: "JimKramer" skrev i en ... On Jan 22, 3:24 pm, "Max Perl" wrote: "JimKramer" skrev i en ... On Jan 22, 2:32 pm, "Max Perl" wrote: "JimKramer" skrev i en ... On Jan 22, 1:09 pm, "Max Perl" wrote: The 6MP DSLR camera seems to "create" its own "details"? I can see patterns I can't find in the 4x5 crop........? It is interresting to see how it should have looked like......and how the DSLR "manipulates" the real world :-) "." skrev i en ... http://www.widerange.org/resolution.html-Hidequotedtext - - Show quoted text - "For this resolution comparison, I enlarged the D100 shot to the same width as the 4x5 shot, then cropped the same sized section from both. " To me, that means the "extra details" were added long after the camera got done taking the picture and had more to do with Photoshop, presumably, than the camera. But would it really have been so much effort to at least take the picture near the same time? And at an F stop that wouldn't already be well in to the "diffraction damage zone" for a cropped sensor DSLR? There were a number of, at least in my mind, questionable photographic decisions that did nothing to demonstrate the capabilities of Nikon D100, yet were very "normal" for a 4x5 shooter. It is probably PhotoShop which did something........ But a brigwall test using a DSLR could be interresting and make a 100% crop of an area and then a full frame macro shot of the same area to see how the DSLR handles the details it can't handle......or how should I explain.......to see if the DSLR creates its own reality. It has probably been done many times........- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Yes it has, but film does the same thing when your details are past its resolving power (or worse the lens' resolving power.) "New" technology same "Old" problem. Want to resolve more detail? Go to a larger image format. A simple expensive solution. Now if I could get up the courage (and funds) to get an 8x10" camera and a drum scanner to go with it. :-) Yes.....but it is quite heavy and it will be another kind of images you will get I assume.... :-) With film the details seems to fade out a nicer way than with digital which is more ugly in my opinon. Maybe it is because I have so many nice old analog cameras I want to use......e.g. Voigtländer Prominent, Koak Retina IIIc, Contax II, Kiev 4a etc :-)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Ugly on a computer screen or ugly on a print? :-) I think it was a the screen at 100% viewing. Text in digital images looks ugly when it is at the limit what the sensor can resolve....... Off course you can blur it in Photoshop etc......... What you are most likely seeing in the digital images is aliasing, and sadly simply blurring in PhotoShop after the fact does not help much. This is a tradeoff every digital camera has to deal with, if you put in a strong enough anti-alias filter to remove all aliasing the image will have poor contrast at lower spatial frequencies and not look sharp, but a weaker AA filter can lead to artifacts. Of course I consider any visible grain in a film image as an artifact, so film is not free from artifacts either. Film can often add texture in an image where none was in the original scene, this bothers some people more then others, it bothers me a fair bit. Scott Yes......but after I have used digital for a while and the digital world has settled a bit......there are some years between the 11 MP Canon EOS 1Ds and the 12 MP Nikon D3 and there are some improvements such as lower high iso noise and frames pr. sec etc. But not as much improvement as the first years. So there is time to look back and we can see what digital has to offer compared to film. As a "non-pro" and "non-sports photographer" I still think film has a kind of artistic expression I like......so I will use both..... Because of the AA filter digital images are a bit soft by nature.....and they need to be sharpened.....and I have seen many which has got far to much USM and I am a bit tired of these images......to make good USM is an art of its own. So it can be quite relaxing to see a good film based print...... :-) many digital images has also over saturated colors after my taste.....and the posibilities in Photoshop are endless working in many layes. I have seen to many "Lord of the Ring" images now.... I know you can make something like this also with scanned film......but not quite as easy as from direct digital capture...... I just miss the good old out of the box images.....and not these where people has spend days in Photoshop to get a ......what they think are a perfect image :-) |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D100 vs 4x5 field camera side-by-side enlargement
"That Rich" skrev i en meddelelse ... On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 23:38:38 +0100, "Max Perl" wrote: Yes......but after I have used digital for a while and the digital world has settled a bit......there are some years between the 11 MP Canon EOS 1Ds and the 12 MP Nikon D3 and there are some improvements such as lower high iso noise and frames pr. sec etc. But not as much improvement as the first years. So there is time to look back and we can see what digital has to offer compared to film. As a "non-pro" and "non-sports photographer" I still think film has a kind of artistic expression I like......so I will use both..... Because of the AA filter digital images are a bit soft by nature.....and they need to be sharpened.....and I have seen many which has got far to much USM and I am a bit tired of these images......to make good USM is an art of its own. So it can be quite relaxing to see a good film based print...... :-) many digital images has also over saturated colors after my taste.....and the posibilities in Photoshop are endless working in many layes. I have seen to many "Lord of the Ring" images now.... I know you can make something like this also with scanned film......but not quite as easy as from direct digital capture...... I just miss the good old out of the box images.....and not these where people has spend days in Photoshop to get a ......what they think are a perfect image :-) Excellent post Max. My feelings exactly. Thank you. I'll bet it sounds twice as nice in Danish Cheers, RP© It sounds a bit funny in Danish. We have many brick walls in Denmark and you just have to write "mur" in danish......then "in between the lines" people often understand it as a brick wall as many houses are build using bricks to build the walls...... Yes.....relaxing to use a film camera......e.g. a good quality rangefinder in the city.....and let the lens do the job instead of PhotoShop........ :-) |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D100 vs 4x5 field camera side-by-side enlargement
On Jan 24, 12:38 pm, "Max Perl" wrote:
"Scott W" skrev i en ... On Jan 22, 11:07 am, "Max Perl" wrote: "JimKramer" skrev i en ... On Jan 22, 3:24 pm, "Max Perl" wrote: "JimKramer" skrev i en ... On Jan 22, 2:32 pm, "Max Perl" wrote: "JimKramer" skrev i en ... On Jan 22, 1:09 pm, "Max Perl" wrote: The 6MP DSLR camera seems to "create" its own "details"? I can see patterns I can't find in the 4x5 crop........? It is interresting to see how it should have looked like......and how the DSLR "manipulates" the real world :-) "." skrev i en ... http://www.widerange.org/resolution....idequotedtext- - Show quoted text - "For this resolution comparison, I enlarged the D100 shot to the same width as the 4x5 shot, then cropped the same sized section from both. " To me, that means the "extra details" were added long after the camera got done taking the picture and had more to do with Photoshop, presumably, than the camera. But would it really have been so much effort to at least take the picture near the same time? And at an F stop that wouldn't already be well in to the "diffraction damage zone" for a cropped sensor DSLR? There were a number of, at least in my mind, questionable photographic decisions that did nothing to demonstrate the capabilities of Nikon D100, yet were very "normal" for a 4x5 shooter. It is probably PhotoShop which did something........ But a brigwall test using a DSLR could be interresting and make a 100% crop of an area and then a full frame macro shot of the same area to see how the DSLR handles the details it can't handle......or how should I explain.......to see if the DSLR creates its own reality. It has probably been done many times........- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Yes it has, but film does the same thing when your details are past its resolving power (or worse the lens' resolving power.) "New" technology same "Old" problem. Want to resolve more detail? Go to a larger image format. A simple expensive solution. Now if I could get up the courage (and funds) to get an 8x10" camera and a drum scanner to go with it. :-) Yes.....but it is quite heavy and it will be another kind of images you will get I assume.... :-) With film the details seems to fade out a nicer way than with digital which is more ugly in my opinon. Maybe it is because I have so many nice old analog cameras I want to use......e.g. Voigtländer Prominent, Koak Retina IIIc, Contax II, Kiev 4a etc :-)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Ugly on a computer screen or ugly on a print? :-) I think it was a the screen at 100% viewing. Text in digital images looks ugly when it is at the limit what the sensor can resolve....... Off course you can blur it in Photoshop etc......... What you are most likely seeing in the digital images is aliasing, and sadly simply blurring in PhotoShop after the fact does not help much. This is a tradeoff every digital camera has to deal with, if you put in a strong enough anti-alias filter to remove all aliasing the image will have poor contrast at lower spatial frequencies and not look sharp, but a weaker AA filter can lead to artifacts. Of course I consider any visible grain in a film image as an artifact, so film is not free from artifacts either. Film can often add texture in an image where none was in the original scene, this bothers some people more then others, it bothers me a fair bit. Scott Yes......but after I have used digital for a while and the digital world has settled a bit......there are some years between the 11 MP Canon EOS 1Ds and the 12 MP Nikon D3 and there are some improvements such as lower high iso noise and frames pr. sec etc. But not as much improvement as the first years. So there is time to look back and we can see what digital has to offer compared to film. As a "non-pro" and "non-sports photographer" I still think film has a kind of artistic expression I like......so I will use both..... Because of the AA filter digital images are a bit soft by nature.....and they need to be sharpened.....and I have seen many which has got far to much USM and I am a bit tired of these images......to make good USM is an art of its own. So it can be quite relaxing to see a good film based print...... :-) many digital images has also over saturated colors after my taste.....and the posibilities in Photoshop are endless working in many layes. I have seen to many "Lord of the Ring" images now..... I know you can make something like this also with scanned film......but not quite as easy as from direct digital capture...... I just miss the good old out of the box images.....and not these where people has spend days in Photoshop to get a ......what they think are a perfect image :-) Your "Lord of the Ring" images is a good way of putting it, a style that I don't like but many do. I don't believe that digital is to blame as much as people going overboard with the post processing. I use to participate in a weekly photo contest, one that is just for fun, the images that tend to win are the heavily processed image. But to me a lot of film shots that I see have that over saturated high contrast look, as in Kodachrome slides. As 4x6 inch prints I doubt that you could tell my film prints from my digital, at larger sizes the digital stand out for lack of grain. Scott |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Kenya - Belgium New November 2007 Travel Pictures side by side | BoBi | Digital Photography | 0 | November 18th 07 11:12 AM |
Nikon D40 vs Nikon D50 vs Pentax K110D Side by Side Comparison | dslr_shooter | Digital Photography | 7 | December 15th 06 10:56 PM |
Kenya - Belgium New November 2006 Pictures side by side | BoBi | Photographing Nature | 0 | November 12th 06 01:40 AM |
Kenya - Belgium New October 2006 Pictures side by side | BoBi | Photographing Nature | 0 | October 27th 06 07:39 PM |
Arsat-Kiev/Zeiss-Rollei side-by-side fisheye photos | Jim Hemenway | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 25 | May 6th 04 10:36 PM |