I am not opposed to digital either, I am opposed to digital that is inferior to my current 4x5 film setup. If and when I can get same quality out of digital as my 4x5 film I will switch too but for now it is a low resolution format I am not interested in.
JCO -----Original Message----- From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 3:07 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 35 vs digi - Some points to ponder. I have not noticed anyone who is opposed to digital image capture. The most die-hard of us think it is neat. We are opposed to the idea that, just because you, and others like you, spent thousands of dollars on digital, what we like and can afford is junk. We are opposed to the idea that the new should replace the old just because it is new. We are opposed to our consumer driven society making it at least difficult to pursue a hobby that many of us have spent decades of our life on. We are opposed to the idea that we have to defend our interests from those who would destroy them just because they have gone somewhere else. We photographers are opposed to you imagers (whether you use digital or film) telling us we are stupid because we do not follow in your footsteps along with a million others. I am personally beginning to feel like the only thing positive there is to say about imagers is they seem to have lots of money. I have a great deal of fun with my old cheap cameras and would not like to see them become useless because the unwashed masses pass them by. What you follow-the-herd folks do does not matter to me the slightest bit beyond that. You guys think you are so Avant-garde, while I was arguing for digital here on the list 5 years ago, and most of you were arguing against it 1 year ago. Now it is mainstream. As long as 10,000 others do it you will walk into the gas chambers without complaint. Lemmings, the lot of you. -- Rob Studdert wrote: > On 26 Aug 2004 at 7:35, Gonz wrote: > > >>Of course the weakness in the >>digital system are at the two ends, both of which are analog >>microphones/pre-amps and speakers. A/D converters have gotten S/N down >>to imperceptible levels. Now if only we could get digital microphones >>and digital speakers!!! > > > The same holds true in digital imaging systems, the transducer and > analogue to > digital conversion then the subsequent analogue reconstruction and output of > the digital data sets the system performance limits in a well designed system. > Even consumer film scanners are near the practical limits of film resolution > now at 5400dpi, any more resolution and they will be capturing film grain > detail with accuracy, not more actual image detail. > > Of course it's more difficult to construct a direct digital capture > camera and > the current products aren't as good as film when appropriate tests are > executed. However they will eventually become as good and then soon after > better than film in both quality and cost at which point it will be interesting > to hear the arguments from those film proponents that seem currently so opposed > to digital image capture. > > > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ > Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 > > -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
