Re: Digital camera advice...

From: Tom Ferguson ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 04/04/04-03:37:34 PM Z
Message-id: <>

I saw Huntington Witherill talk and exhibit at Freestyle in Hollywood a
few months ago. He (a rather typical Carmel photographer) is doing more
digital and abstract work. Fun exhibit and talk. This does relate to
the subject..........

Huntington talked about accepting digital because (paraphrased) "All
photography is dots, film is random semi-round dots, digital is regular
square dots.... no big difference to the photographer".

Here, as Mark suggested, is a "big difference": When you "scan" film or
negs you are scanning semi-round dots (film) with square dots
(digital). NOT the best system!

A good (or even average) digital capture can be upsized and still
"look" better than a scan. I've made 16x20 prints from my upsized Fuji
S2 files that are similar in quality to medium format film. Not the
same, film and dig are different.

My point is, don't consider a dig camera purchase just by numbers and
math, that isn't how art works :-)

To me, the most serious limitation of the consumer digitals is dynamic
range. 8 bit per color files are like slide film, contrasty and in need
of ^$%#$ close to perfect exposure.

Try a dig camera, try upsizing a file, try making a print (or digital
neg, then print). I find digital cameras a wonderful new tool. I won't
be selling my 11x14 camera, but I do carry my dig more often and more
places than "the beast"!

On Sunday, April 4, 2004, at 01:28 PM, wrote:

> Denny,
> One thing I have noticed about digital camera shots is that they can
> be upsampled with less loss of sharpness than scans.  You might try it
> and see if you still have the quality you need.
> Mark Nelson
> In a message dated 4/4/04 3:20:02 PM, writes:
> Chris,
> That's exactly what I wanted to know.  That's telling me that if I
> want to
> output a neg at 300 dpi I'm going to end up with a neg about 6x8.
> Thanks,
> Denny 
> Mark Nelson
> Precision Digital Negatives
Tom Ferguson
Received on Sun Apr 4 15:38:15 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 05/14/04-02:14:31 PM Z CST