B) I don't mean "good" as in the best quality possible, I mean "good" in terms of the best of a number of photos taken with the same camera. Say you take 10 pictures of Aunt Bea at her birthday party, 2 have someone leaning in the frame, she has her eyes closed in 4, her mouth open and full of food in 3 others. The last picture, where she has a nice smile just before she blows out the candles on her cake, goes to the lab or the inkjet so you can keep a print. I think this is how digital cameras are being used in many cases, so I think comparing prints is a valid test.
The monitor is sometimes the intended output, but I think it is more often just a viewing mechanism, just like a contact sheet or a lightbox.
Am I the only one who shoots film and doesn't get a "keeper" on every shot? Or is everyone else printing and keeping every frame of every roll?
On Friday, July 11, 2003, at 01:07 PM, Caveman wrote:
It will achieve the stated goal, i.e. compare them in typical use. If you want to compare "the best" of each, you may want to compare a 8x10 slide to a print from the best MF digital back. I don't have the money nor the inclination to do such test.
Matt Bevers wrote:
Again, I would argue that the good digital photos end up as prints, so you should print both and compare those. Comparing a screen image to a print is essentially useless. It should however, achieve your goal of once again "proving" that digital is inferior.
