>Lynne, Clive, Dirk, Et.Al
I want to clarify an issue (I know Lynne to be a staunch supporter of Clive's photograhy ... as well she should be ... it is very good.) but the original discussion was simply Clive's assertion that no 35 mm digital camera could take a photograph as GOOD as a 35 mm point and shoot, not better. I found that a silly claim. Although, in workflow, the digital (for me) is definitely easier.
I am not trying to prove that current digitals are superior, but that they can be tools for taking great photographs, that can generate prints as good as 35mm film. Ok, some of the lists members have panned the Ms. Kitty photo as a "soft" photo. Ummm. When I print the photograph, I print the photo as a full frame photo, and get comments that the photograph is a very nice print. Great? Perhaps not. Perhaps, due the subject matter? Perhaps due to dog lovers? When I look at the photo, I see the photo on the monitor and as a print, as a nice, rich photo, with good black, whites, and tone. The photograph is interesting, techniclly well done, holds the viewers interest. Anyway, I know the photograph to be a good shot and while we can say that the 10% crop of the image is poor due to softness in the hair structure ... I think the point is totally lost. I would not print the 10% image. I posted the 10% and the 1% because Clive keeped "bashing" me for not taking on his posting challenge. And, when I look at the crops, I think they are as good as the angler crops. Look at the noise, in the Angler crops. Are those freckles, or grain, or noise? Look at the mush of colors. And you know what, Clive's scan was a poor scan from the start, because he scanned a print, not the original negative. But, if you look at the full size image of the Angler, I think the print works great. That is a nice shot.
Now, several of you seem to agree with Clive that the ND postings are "inferior". Hmmm. Just don't see it. Perhaps, I made a mistake by posting an image of a live animal taken at 1/11th of a second and as Irakely noted, some camera shake using an 300mm telephoto could be detected. But, I thought the subject intersting, and the crops from face to eye would be of interest.
I did take a photograph of a group shot using both the N1 (film) and the ND (digital) at the exact same instance. The digital shot, is the shot that we used to mail to 25 of the folks in the shot. Why? The digital was just as good as the film, and much easier to print! This weekend, I will try to post those shots, side by side.
It will take me a few days to get to a high speed connection, but as Dirk suggested, I will also upload the tif of Ms. Kitty.
Thanks,
Michael.