Digital BW, The Print

Jerry,
Actually the digital cameras do very well with the tree branches (because of the
straight line algorithms), but it's the information *BETWEEN* the branches.
It's that information that the digital cameras cannot resolve or properly
interpret, but can be found in film.

Digital camera do well with straight lines and broad areas of color and
surface.  e.g. Cars, smooth buildings, macro shots of flowers, etc.


Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC


>  What sort of subject matter does the digital realm really shine at? I
> know it doesn't do great on super fine tree branches, but most cameras
> and lenses don't. I've very rarely seen any lens or film combination or
> camera that could resolve the finely detailed tips of a bare tree's
> branches in the winter. (no leaves, just branches). An 8x10 Contact
> print can do it, but an enlargemnent? Not many!
>
> Jerry
>
>
>
> SKID Photography wrote:
> >
> > Jerry Olson wrote:
> >
> > >  But Austin, If you had a 16x24 print from a velvia slide and the same
> > > size from a 20 megapixel camera, (with a top of the line Leitz, Zeiss,
> > > Canon, or Nikkor Lens), could anyone on the planet see any difference,
> > > anywhere in the print? I doubt it very much. Of course if you're
> > > speaking of billboard size prints, you'd need the 100 meg. An 8x10 print
> > > from a Canon D30 absolutely equals a velvia slide. Ther is no question
> > > about it. I've done this comparison many times. You just can't see any
> > > difference that's worth talking about. Your figures may be correct, but
> > > what difference could it possibly make?
> > >
> > > Jerry
> >
> > Jerry,
> > Subject matter, subject matter, subject matter!
> >
> > Harvey Ferdschneider
> > partner, SKID Photography, NYC
> >
>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]