Digital BW, The Print

Helene,
I cannot help it if you can't comprehend english.  The concept is very
straightforward, and by your answer you seem to understand it.

You might disagree, but it seems do obvious that there are *things* between tree
branches in a forest (beyond sky) that would be good to render.

I do not feel the need to site a reference, since I did not mention it in my
original post.

Finally, I have seen this problem with my own eyes, it has been widely reported
in many write-ups in print and on the web and even, and on this list.  If you
don't want to believe me, fine.  Why don't you just try it yourself.  I am not
selling this equipment and I don't really give a dam if you believe me or not.

It was a dumb question that you already had the answer to, and I responded in
kind.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC

PS:  I am especially on edge today as our brand new Epson 7000 arrived damaged
by the trucking company. UGH!  It will be taken care of, but it sure is
annoying.


grdglass@... wrote:

>  Harvey,
>
> I find your sarcastic tone offensive.
>
> I see sky "*BETWEEN*" tree branches.  Squirrels?  Hardly.  Rocks?  Hardly.
> Birds?  Rarely.
>
> Perhaps you are so defensive because you mis-interpreted what you read, or
> put your own spin on it.  It would be helpful to cite the source when
> parroting someone else's findings; otherwise, an evaluatuion is impossible.
>
> Helene
>
>
> > I find your question perplexing.  In any place, there is visual information
> > between trees and branches, like details of rocks behind the trees,
> > squirrels,
> > birds, whatever.
> >
> > What exactly do you *think* could be between tree branches?  Certainly
> > there has
> > to be *something*!
> >
> > There was a similar thread on one of the scanner lists last summer, and it
> > also
> > included the resolving power of films well as something to do with lenses.
> > During that discussion, someone posted a bunch of details from scans and
> > digital
> > captures.  It *clearly* illustrated what I am talking about (a picture
> > being
> > worth 1000 words and all), and am frustrated that I cannot explain it
> > further.
> >
> >
> > Harvey Ferdschneider
> > partner, SKID Photography, NYC
> >
> >
> > grdglass@... wrote:
> >
> > >  Harvey,
> > >
> > > What exactly is the information between tree branches?
> > >
> > > Helene
> > >
> > > << 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. >>
> >
>
>




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