Digital BW, The Print

Two things for sure in this world-  1/ Austin knows the definition 
of sharpness and 2/ Austin gets the last word

Garry Sarre

www.sarre.com.au

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Austin 
Franklin" <darkroom@i...> wrote:
> 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.  Quality, well, that's 
certainly
> subjective.
> 
> > You must have been a clinton lawyer.
> 
> No.  He would have done jail time if I was.
> 
> > Always want to know what "is" is.
> 
> Yep.  Me too.
> 
> > You know a good quality print from an average print. You know a 
great
> > quality print from a very good quality print. I'm not putting 
the foveon
> > chip against a 4x5 scanning back. Overall it simply was better 
overall
> > than the canon D60, which I own, and love.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin
> 
> > jerry
> >
> > > > For all practical purposes Derek, the Foveon 3 megapixel is
> > equal in all
> > > > respects to a 9 megapixel chip, because of its unique design.
> >
> > > Absolutely not.
> > Absolutely.
> >
> > > > I've I've
> > > > seen side by side comparisons of huge enlargements and the 
foveon is
> > > > sharper than the D60.
> > >
> > > So what?  I can make an enlargement of a two pixel image and 
it will be
> > > "sharper" than the D60.
> >
> > C'mon Austin, you know perfectly well what I mean here.
> >
> > Sharpness is an exceptionally bad metric.  It may
> > > be the attribute YOU consider important in an image, but it is 
not an
> > > attribute of the quality of the imaging device, period.
> >
> > How about ability to separate out fine detail then? More detail 
than the
> > other one.
> >
> > Overall quality. Resolution, sharpness, detail, the picture any
> > professional would choose over the other one in a side
> >
> > > Austin