Not to mention that, if you REALLY want high resolution on digital, one
can learn to shoot in pieces with a shorter focal length lens and stitch
the files to make a really huge final print. If the shot is being done
on a tripod itīs even easier, to shoot and to output bigger files. Itīs
possible to achieve a good final file even with PSīs Photomerge.
Regards,
Rodolpho Pajuaba
Dan Burkholder escreveu:
>>Christina Z. Anderson wrote on 2/6/06, 9:57 AM:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I almost balked
>>>at buying digital after seeing the comparison of 4x5 film and digital.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
>Now Ken is talking about shooting landscapes, right? That is, subjects
>that don't move. With a digital camera on a tripod he can easily bracket
>exposures (the D200 will do a NINE STOP bracket with one shutter press)
>and combine them in CS2 to achieve more dynamic range than any film can
>hold.
>
>Don't get me wrong, one should not be surprised that a well-scanned 4x5
>chrome or neg. has more "resolution" than a 10 MB digital capture. But
>for Ken to suggest his total expense for his 4x5 system is just $2000 is
>a bit misleading at best. Heck, if he's going to fudge his results by
>using an 11X zoom on the D200, the least he could do when comparing
>system expenses is to quote a 4x5 system that encompasses lenses that
>cover that same 11X-wide-to-tele range. Sheesh! And let's not even talk
>about how it's costing Ken $2.50 every time he exposes a sheet of Velvia
>(not counting processing). Once you have a digital system, you can shoot
>with abandon for pennies. Oh, I nearly forgot, if you read Ken's "4x5
>system" specs, he's allowing for TWO film holders. Now THERE'S a system
>ready to tackle a week of shooting. What does Ken do when he want's to
>take that rare 5th shot?
>
>
>
>
Received on Mon Feb 6 12:57:29 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 03/13/06-10:42:57 AM Z CST