Digital BW, The Print

> > Austin, I don't know how to more clearly state it. The foveon was
> > sharper and the overall quality was better than the D60. Simple as that.
> 
> I believe that you believe that, but sharpness is simply irrelevant to image
> quality in the sense we are talking.  You can make any image sharp.  Also,
> more pixels will actually give a less sharp image, and as I've stated time
> and time again, I can give you a two pixel image that is as sharp or sharper
> than ANY image you can get anywhere.

But Austin, you know what I'm talking about. Detail. Resolution.
Sharpness. Acutance. Clarity. I don't know any other way to say it.

> Well, the print YOU saw YOU believed was better than a print YOU made from
> YOUR D60.  If the same person were given the same data file and spent the
> same amount of time and effort on your D60 image, you would not be saying
> the same thing.  It's a game, kind of a con game in my opinion.

I didn't ever say there was a huge difference in quality between the
Foveon and the Canon D60. I said the difference was better with the
foveon. Not a LOT better, but better. Noticeably better. I would love to
have that foveon chip in my D60. And I'm sure the next generation chip
will be better still.

I think I'm pretty good at bringing out the best in an image. I've been
at it for a lot of years, and have used photoshop for 12 years. I had a
copy of it when it was Barneyscan, software for a Nikon scanner. And I
have had 
every single upgrade they have released. I have a LOT of plugins, and
think I can make an image as good as it can be.

Jerry
>