clive_kenyon
Well-Known Member
Marc,
Like Austin I would appreciate knowing exactly how the medium format prints can compare to those from a Contax ND. You draw the conclusion that the ND is equal in image quality yet others might assume that the digital printing methods have not allowed the film image to be recorded to its best ability.
This important point is also central to my original claim. After all, you can print a film image digitally, but you cannot easily print a digital image conventionally. In February I claimed that a proper old fashioned photograph taken on a compact 35mm camera using a decent film will be a better image than a digital print. (I should have qualified it to say 35mm format digital). For that comment I suffered abuse and ridicule from you and others yet so far, 5 months later, no one has posted a digital image to match the scanned film images let alone the conventional photographs I sent to Michael Hahn.
I have never said that a film compact is 'better' than any digital camera. I only made claims about the image quality. I make these claims because I am sick and tired of people like you converting to digital and then telling the world that the images are as good as film when quite plainly they are not. Those claims might influence someone to make an expensive mistake. I took the same stance about APS and suffered the same ridicule from those who had bought in.
Trying to get you guys to put up or shut up is like catching soap in the bath. Every time I get near you change the subject, put up a smoke screen or just play at ostriches. You talk a good image, but can't seem to post one.
Now if you have any digital images amongst the thousands that you have taken recently that can prove your defence then for God's sake post them.
------------------
last part was deleted by the webmaster because of Netiquette violations
---------------------------------
Regards,
Clive
Like Austin I would appreciate knowing exactly how the medium format prints can compare to those from a Contax ND. You draw the conclusion that the ND is equal in image quality yet others might assume that the digital printing methods have not allowed the film image to be recorded to its best ability.
This important point is also central to my original claim. After all, you can print a film image digitally, but you cannot easily print a digital image conventionally. In February I claimed that a proper old fashioned photograph taken on a compact 35mm camera using a decent film will be a better image than a digital print. (I should have qualified it to say 35mm format digital). For that comment I suffered abuse and ridicule from you and others yet so far, 5 months later, no one has posted a digital image to match the scanned film images let alone the conventional photographs I sent to Michael Hahn.
I have never said that a film compact is 'better' than any digital camera. I only made claims about the image quality. I make these claims because I am sick and tired of people like you converting to digital and then telling the world that the images are as good as film when quite plainly they are not. Those claims might influence someone to make an expensive mistake. I took the same stance about APS and suffered the same ridicule from those who had bought in.
Trying to get you guys to put up or shut up is like catching soap in the bath. Every time I get near you change the subject, put up a smoke screen or just play at ostriches. You talk a good image, but can't seem to post one.
Now if you have any digital images amongst the thousands that you have taken recently that can prove your defence then for God's sake post them.
------------------
last part was deleted by the webmaster because of Netiquette violations
---------------------------------
Regards,
Clive