Digital BW, The Print

Hi Jerry,

> > > 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.

No

> Resolution.

No

> Sharpness. Acutance. Clarity.

Possibly, but these are attributes that can be done using image
manipulation, and they are not indicative of "better" in an imaging sense as
we are talking about.

> > 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 understand.  But you are comparing images that I know not a thing about,
and I could create images that prove (in your sense) the exact opposite.

Regards,

Austin