Auteur: jean-louis SALVIGNOL
Date: 07-05-2004 20:28
Deux types de réactions :
Dans le sens des réserves de PDF :
I looked at his comparisons, and i don't think much of them.
with regard to the film tests the problem is the scanner. with the dslr the problem is the lens, and he doesn't say whether he was shooting raw files or jpegs; or how the scans and digital photos were processed in photoshop, I'd love to see the original digital files.
He then takes this flawed basis -- he assumes that the quality level of the 300D is representative of all digital cameras (it isn't) -- and extrapolates flawed conclusions from there.
in sum: with film he is actually evaluating the scanner, and with the DSLR he uses a lens that isn't equal to the quality of the lenses used on the film camera, etc.
his conclusions are flawed
E. Vener
Une autre réaction :
May I inject a small note of criticism? I have a horrible time when it comes to using numbers in different contexts - you should see me shake when I use stats packages! But, it seems to me, when I look at the bottle shots, taking the 6x7 image, I'm looking at it as if it was taken from a print approximately 3m by 3.5m (a bit shorter, as 6x7 isn't 6cm by 7cm). For the 8x10 and 4x5, as if they were 3.12m by 2.5m (the changed degree of enlargement in the image presented accounts the format differences, so they're effectively the same size). Previous comments on this site indicate a MAXIMUM normal print size for most people to be about 1.25m by 1m (50x40) - 40% of the enlargement shown. It would seem to me, to be meaningful at a print size of 50x40, the images shown would have to be reduced by 60%. For the people who typically make even smaller enlargements, (and from recent threads, this is the majority), an even greater reduction would be required.
In short, 50x is predisposing the results to be those we would like to see - the greater the magnification, the larger formats must by definition win, regardless of the real-world ability to discern a difference in prints on the wall (which I take to be 'real world' - others may have different criteria).
Or have I blundered with the numbers?
R. Fenner
Qui croire ? Y-a-t-il une méthode "intégriste" et une méthode "relativiste" ou "réaliste"
JLS
|
|