In article . com,
says...

Out of curiosity, I was wondering what Ansel Adams would do in today's
world. Would he get rid of his bulky, heavy wooden, paper/glass
negative cameras and go digital? Actually Ansel took pictures, but it
was his dark room expertise that gave him his benchmark prints.

Or do you think that "Weedgie" would trade in his beat up old
Speed-Graphics for an 8 pixel???


I was simply wondering what the results would be if you turned these
guys loose with digital.

Tim

I'm guessing he'd still be waiting for higher resolution. The amount of
information on a 8x10 or even 4x5 is orders of magnitude greater than
the highest res chip available.

Even pro digital can barely rival 35mm today. I'm guessing Weegie would
be still playing with formulas, emulsions, dodging and burning.

jps

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
says...

Out of curiosity, I was wondering what Ansel Adams would do in today's
world. Would he get rid of his bulky, heavy wooden, paper/glass
negative cameras and go digital? Actually Ansel took pictures, but it
was his dark room expertise that gave him his benchmark prints.

Or do you think that "Weedgie" would trade in his beat up old
Speed-Graphics for an 8 pixel???


I was simply wondering what the results would be if you turned these
guys loose with digital.

Tim

I'm guessing he'd still be waiting for higher resolution. The amount of
information on a 8x10 or even 4x5 is orders of magnitude greater than
the highest res chip available.

Even pro digital can barely rival 35mm today. I'm guessing Weegie would
be still playing with formulas, emulsions, dodging and burning.

jps

He also processed each negative differently according to how the range of
light in the original scene corresponded to his zone system. I suspect he
would've stayed with film for this reason.

"jps" wrote in message
...

I'm guessing he'd still be waiting for higher resolution. The amount of
information on a 8x10 or even 4x5 is orders of magnitude greater than
the highest res chip available.

Even pro digital can barely rival 35mm today. I'm guessing Weegie would
be still playing with formulas, emulsions, dodging and burning.

jps


Check out http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/f...digital.1.html

It appears that depending on ISO speed, digital can sometimes be better than
film, even in the 6 megapixel range.

Eisboch

In article ,
says...

"jps" wrote in message
...

I'm guessing he'd still be waiting for higher resolution. The amount of
information on a 8x10 or even 4x5 is orders of magnitude greater than
the highest res chip available.

Even pro digital can barely rival 35mm today. I'm guessing Weegie would
be still playing with formulas, emulsions, dodging and burning.

jps


Check out http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/f...digital.1.html

It appears that depending on ISO speed, digital can sometimes be better than
film, even in the 6 megapixel range.

Eisboch

If you're shooting black and white and not tech pan. But if you're
shooting the equivalent of velvia transparencies, you'll need a mighty
expensive camera in place of a sub-$1000 nikon or canon film camera.

I'll bet my $150 nikkormat with a 50mm 1.4 would kick ass on the Canon
5D going for $2700 for the body alone. My $140 Rollei TLR shooting
velvia is still unrivaled, leaving alone the Zeiss glass I can put in
front of the Hassy body.

And, so when a 360 megapixel camera hits the market, Ansel will have
found a near equivalent. Remember, however, that he was constantly
playing with emulsions, chemicals to achieve tighter grain structure and
probably exceeded TMY at 100 by quite a bit.

Digital photography has come a great distance in a short time and I'm
sure we'll all (hopefully) witness the day when it eclipses medium and
large format film but it'll be decades before it's that inexpensive.

And it still won't come close to what I can do with velvia and
ilfochrome in the darkroom. Don't get me wrong. I'm a fan of digital
and own a d70s but I still love film and much prefer the art of a
darkroom to what I consider the pseudo-art of computing.

jps

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"jps" wrote in message
...

I'm guessing he'd still be waiting for higher resolution. The amount
of
information on a 8x10 or even 4x5 is orders of magnitude greater than
the highest res chip available.

Even pro digital can barely rival 35mm today. I'm guessing Weegie
would
be still playing with formulas, emulsions, dodging and burning.

jps


Check out http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/f...digital.1.html

It appears that depending on ISO speed, digital can sometimes be better
than
film, even in the 6 megapixel range.

Eisboch

If you're shooting black and white and not tech pan. But if you're
shooting the equivalent of velvia transparencies, you'll need a mighty
expensive camera in place of a sub-$1000 nikon or canon film camera.

I'll bet my $150 nikkormat with a 50mm 1.4 would kick ass on the Canon
5D going for $2700 for the body alone. My $140 Rollei TLR shooting
velvia is still unrivaled, leaving alone the Zeiss glass I can put in
front of the Hassy body.

And, so when a 360 megapixel camera hits the market, Ansel will have
found a near equivalent. Remember, however, that he was constantly
playing with emulsions, chemicals to achieve tighter grain structure and
probably exceeded TMY at 100 by quite a bit.

Digital photography has come a great distance in a short time and I'm
sure we'll all (hopefully) witness the day when it eclipses medium and
large format film but it'll be decades before it's that inexpensive.

And it still won't come close to what I can do with velvia and
ilfochrome in the darkroom. Don't get me wrong. I'm a fan of digital
and own a d70s but I still love film and much prefer the art of a
darkroom to what I consider the pseudo-art of computing.

jps

Assuming a printer that is capable of at least the resolution of the camera,
I wonder what the limitation of the human eye is when viewing a 8x10 print.
Can the eye resolve the difference between high resolution digital and film?
I know the eye is an incredible detector in terms of identifying colors,
chromaticity and hues, but I don't know it's capability in terms of overall
resolution.

Eisboch

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...


Assuming a printer that is capable of at least the resolution of the
camera, I wonder what the limitation of the human eye is when viewing a
8x10 print. Can the eye resolve the difference between high resolution
digital and film? I know the eye is an incredible detector in terms of
identifying colors, chromaticity and hues, but I don't know it's
capability in terms of overall resolution.

Eisboch


Found the answer to my question:

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...esolution.html

Eisboch

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...


Assuming a printer that is capable of at least the resolution of the
camera, I wonder what the limitation of the human eye is when viewing a
8x10 print. Can the eye resolve the difference between high resolution
digital and film? I know the eye is an incredible detector in terms of
identifying colors, chromaticity and hues, but I don't know it's
capability in terms of overall resolution.

Eisboch


Found the answer to my question:

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...esolution.html

Eisboch


Forgot. Simply put, (which it isn't) the eye/brain combination yields the
equivalent of a 576 megapixel camera, according to Clark.

Eisboch

In article ,
says...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...


Assuming a printer that is capable of at least the resolution of the
camera, I wonder what the limitation of the human eye is when viewing a
8x10 print. Can the eye resolve the difference between high resolution
digital and film? I know the eye is an incredible detector in terms of
identifying colors, chromaticity and hues, but I don't know it's
capability in terms of overall resolution.

Eisboch


Found the answer to my question:

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...esolution.html

Eisboch


Forgot. Simply put, (which it isn't) the eye/brain combination yields the
equivalent of a 576 megapixel camera, according to Clark.

Eisboch


Man, that's a pretty hi res device. Good to know. And in my case, all
that resolution comes into focus at about 2 feet and moving further.

jps