Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Finally did it!

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
January 19, 2005 2:23:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I finally got my order in for a D70 with the kit (from a reputable dealer at
a good price). I'm having all my older lenses converted to use with the new
camera, and I'm looking forward to my adventures in high-end digital
photography -- my old Sony digital is giving me all kinds of problems.

I just wanted to thank everyone for answering all my stupid questions, and
thanks to everyone who even e-mailed me images and set me straight on where
to buy.

I guess this is just the beginning of my visits to this newsgroup. I used
to take photos for a living, and I'm very excited about getting back into
photography again.

Thanks.

Sheldon
sheldon@sopris.net

More about : finally

Anonymous
January 19, 2005 4:27:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Sheldon wrote:

> camera, and I'm looking forward to my adventures in high-end digital
> photography

That would take an H1 with a 22 Mpix back or something along those lines.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
January 19, 2005 10:34:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:csm8qd$hkt$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
| Sheldon wrote:
|
| > camera, and I'm looking forward to my adventures in high-end digital
| > photography
|
| That would take an H1 with a 22 Mpix back or something along those lines.
|
|
| --
| -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
| -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
| -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
| -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

High-end is a relative term. Going from a Brownie to a 110 camera looks like
high end to the person with the Brownie. To Alan, the D70 is high-end, as it
is to a lot of people.

Rick
Related resources
January 19, 2005 11:31:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:csm8qd$hkt$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> Sheldon wrote:
>
> > camera, and I'm looking forward to my adventures in high-end digital
> > photography
>
> That would take an H1 with a 22 Mpix back or something along those lines.
>


I disagree. I would call D70 a high-end digital camera. I would also
consider my Canon 20D high end. I would consider a Canon 1Ds MkII a full pro
camera. A porsche carrera turbo is a high end sports car, but it is not a
professional race car.

It may be just terminology, but I consider digital cameras into the
following categories

P&S compact - eg Canon SD300
P&S prosumer - eg Olympus C-8080
SLR consumer/high-end - Canon 300D
SLR high end - Canon 20D, Nikon D70 (borderline)
SLR professional - Canon 1Dx, Nikon D2X

D70 and 10D are less high end than 20D because they are older and are not as
fast. But 20D is a VERY fast camera and with a rich set of features to the
point that I have seen pros use them. I have seen pros shoot with 10D.

With anything you have to distinguish high-end from professional. If
spending over $2000 on a body and lens is not high-end, then what is?
Anonymous
January 19, 2005 11:31:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Musty wrote:

> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:csm8qd$hkt$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>
>>Sheldon wrote:
>>
>>
>>>camera, and I'm looking forward to my adventures in high-end digital
>>>photography
>>
>>That would take an H1 with a 22 Mpix back or something along those lines.
>>
>
>
>
> I disagree. I would call D70 a high-end digital camera. I would also
> consider my Canon 20D high end. I would consider a Canon 1Ds MkII a full pro
> camera. A porsche carrera turbo is a high end sports car, but it is not a
> professional race car.

Whatever a Porche is or isn't is very immaterial. In photography, 35mm (where
these 70D's and Canon 20D's evolve from) is not high end. It has its high end
in cameras like the EOS-1v, F5 and Maxxum 9, but the 20D, D70 and Max 7D do not
in any way measure up to the capabilities of the film 'kings'. And those film
kings in 35mm are certainly not 'high end' in photography in any sense.

>
> It may be just terminology, but I consider digital cameras into the
> following categories
>
> P&S compact - eg Canon SD300
> P&S prosumer - eg Olympus C-8080
> SLR consumer/high-end - Canon 300D
> SLR high end - Canon 20D, Nikon D70 (borderline)
> SLR professional - Canon 1Dx, Nikon D2X

The Hassy H1 is an SLR. 6x6 cm film or smaller 22 mpix digital. That's high
end. (And there are scanning backs that go much higher).


>
> D70 and 10D are less high end than 20D because they are older and are not as
> fast. But 20D is a VERY fast camera and with a rich set of features to the
> point that I have seen pros use them. I have seen pros shoot with 10D.

You'll see pros shoot with lesser cameras than that. But if they have
commercial accounts for advertising, etc., they will need MF.

>
> With anything you have to distinguish high-end from professional. If
> spending over $2000 on a body and lens is not high-end, then what is?

$2000 on a body and a lens? That's toyland where pros are concerned. Pros, or
their companies, are buying $4000 - $8000 full frame DSLR's. The top of this
range, the 1Ds Mk II is encroaching on MF. That is definitely high end where
"35mm" ish DSLR's are concerned. The D70 is a relative toy.

It depends on the profession.

With the 1Ds Mk II or even the recent Nikon 12 Mpix, one has the tools one would
expect to satisfy many, but not all pros.

Product photographers and others cannot do their work with less than a MF camera
(film or digital). The cameras that we talk about most here in this ng are the
6-8 Mpix cameras that Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus and finally K-M are
targetting at amateurs of all stripes and 'lower end' professionals who do not
need large enlargements. Surely the number of pixels will increase over time,
but so it will for 'high end' cameras. There will always be a gap, as there is
in most domains.

It is no different really from the fact that professionals in the pre-digital
era used mainly MF and LF cameras for serious commercial work in advertising,
modeling, weddings, architecture, landscape, etc. 35mm was not enough for many
applications then, and it isn't any more applicable now. For sports it is
highly applicable, but most pro photogs have been shooting the high end Canons
and Nikons, not the consumer cameras.

I don't mean to put down the consumer oriented cameras, I hope to get a Maxxum
7D soon myslef. But despite my esoteric collection of glass, it will not be any
more 'high end' than my pro Maxxum 9 35mm body is with the same collection of
glass. Same goes for the 70D+any collection of glass or the Canon 10D/20D and
any collection of glass. Fine enough, but not 'high end'.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
January 20, 2005 12:08:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:23:23 -0700, "Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net>
wrote:

>I finally got my order in for a D70 with the kit (from a reputable dealer at
>a good price). I'm having all my older lenses converted to use with the new
>camera, and I'm looking forward to my adventures in high-end digital
>photography -- my old Sony digital is giving me all kinds of problems.
>
>I just wanted to thank everyone for answering all my stupid questions, and
>thanks to everyone who even e-mailed me images and set me straight on where
>to buy.
>
>I guess this is just the beginning of my visits to this newsgroup. I used
>to take photos for a living, and I'm very excited about getting back into
>photography again.
>
>Thanks.
>
>Sheldon
>sheldon@sopris.net
>

You're welcome - you're gonna LOVE yer D70!
January 20, 2005 12:26:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:csmhjj$2ot$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> Musty wrote:
>
> > "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> > news:csm8qd$hkt$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> >
> >>Sheldon wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>camera, and I'm looking forward to my adventures in high-end digital
> >>>photography
> >>
> >>That would take an H1 with a 22 Mpix back or something along those
lines.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > I disagree. I would call D70 a high-end digital camera. I would also
> > consider my Canon 20D high end. I would consider a Canon 1Ds MkII a full
pro
> > camera. A porsche carrera turbo is a high end sports car, but it is not
a
> > professional race car.
>
> Whatever a Porche is or isn't is very immaterial. In photography, 35mm
(where
> these 70D's and Canon 20D's evolve from) is not high end. It has its high
end
> in cameras like the EOS-1v, F5 and Maxxum 9, but the 20D, D70 and Max 7D
do not
> in any way measure up to the capabilities of the film 'kings'. And those
film
> kings in 35mm are certainly not 'high end' in photography in any sense.
>
> >
> > It may be just terminology, but I consider digital cameras into the
> > following categories
> >
> > P&S compact - eg Canon SD300
> > P&S prosumer - eg Olympus C-8080
> > SLR consumer/high-end - Canon 300D
> > SLR high end - Canon 20D, Nikon D70 (borderline)
> > SLR professional - Canon 1Dx, Nikon D2X
>
> The Hassy H1 is an SLR. 6x6 cm film or smaller 22 mpix digital. That's
high
> end. (And there are scanning backs that go much higher).
>
>
> >
> > D70 and 10D are less high end than 20D because they are older and are
not as
> > fast. But 20D is a VERY fast camera and with a rich set of features to
the
> > point that I have seen pros use them. I have seen pros shoot with 10D.
>
> You'll see pros shoot with lesser cameras than that. But if they have
> commercial accounts for advertising, etc., they will need MF.
>
> >
> > With anything you have to distinguish high-end from professional. If
> > spending over $2000 on a body and lens is not high-end, then what is?
>
> $2000 on a body and a lens? That's toyland where pros are concerned.
Pros, or
> their companies, are buying $4000 - $8000 full frame DSLR's. The top of
this
> range, the 1Ds Mk II is encroaching on MF. That is definitely high end
where
> "35mm" ish DSLR's are concerned. The D70 is a relative toy.
>
> It depends on the profession.
>
> With the 1Ds Mk II or even the recent Nikon 12 Mpix, one has the tools one
would
> expect to satisfy many, but not all pros.
>
> Product photographers and others cannot do their work with less than a MF
camera
> (film or digital). The cameras that we talk about most here in this ng
are the
> 6-8 Mpix cameras that Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus and finally K-M are
> targetting at amateurs of all stripes and 'lower end' professionals who do
not
> need large enlargements. Surely the number of pixels will increase over
time,
> but so it will for 'high end' cameras. There will always be a gap, as
there is
> in most domains.
>
> It is no different really from the fact that professionals in the
pre-digital
> era used mainly MF and LF cameras for serious commercial work in
advertising,
> modeling, weddings, architecture, landscape, etc. 35mm was not enough for
many
> applications then, and it isn't any more applicable now. For sports it is
> highly applicable, but most pro photogs have been shooting the high end
Canons
> and Nikons, not the consumer cameras.
>
> I don't mean to put down the consumer oriented cameras, I hope to get a
Maxxum
> 7D soon myslef. But despite my esoteric collection of glass, it will not
be any
> more 'high end' than my pro Maxxum 9 35mm body is with the same collection
of
> glass. Same goes for the 70D+any collection of glass or the Canon 10D/20D
and
> any collection of glass. Fine enough, but not 'high end'.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan
>

The thread is concerning digital SLR only - not 35mm or MF cameras, and
again you keep bringing a professional context in (I completely agree with u
that the 20D is below par compared to the cameras which you mention).
High-end is a consumer concept, so these _are_ high end digital cameras, but
not professional. And $2000+ on a consumer camera is about as high as people
will spend (definitely not $8000 body - with another $20K on lenses - its
just not worth it for consumers and hobbyists). I am not naive about what
pros can spend on equipment. I would rather (and have) put my money into
things like property and investments since my profession is an an engineer
and not a photographer. I get excellent results with my 20D and 2 lenses
(17-85 and 70-200 f/4L). I plan to get more L glass in the near future.
So for a hobbyist like myself (and probably many others on this group) -
professional equipment is just that - its professional. BTW, I plan to buy
a "pro" body once they reach the $4K level - any higher and its not worth it
for me. I think I will have to wait about 2 years to get a 1Ds MkII like
camera for that price.

I think it is just terminology. You are saying:

high-end == professional

I am saying

1) high-end == "top of the line" consumer (20D is top of the line consumer -
in my opinion).
2) professional == a level above that and for only very few consumers
January 20, 2005 12:26:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I remember a few years ago a 3-4Mp Pro was High end, now there not worth
much, the D70 or 20D makes a much better picture than the older High end
Digitals.
The camera does not make the Pro, its how the camera is used.




"Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:0gAHd.34927$Ta2.29169@fe2.texas.rr.com...
>
> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:csmhjj$2ot$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> > Musty wrote:
> >
> > > "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> > > news:csm8qd$hkt$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> > >
> > >>Sheldon wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>camera, and I'm looking forward to my adventures in high-end digital
> > >>>photography
> > >>
> > >>That would take an H1 with a 22 Mpix back or something along those
> lines.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I disagree. I would call D70 a high-end digital camera. I would also
> > > consider my Canon 20D high end. I would consider a Canon 1Ds MkII a
full
> pro
> > > camera. A porsche carrera turbo is a high end sports car, but it is
not
> a
> > > professional race car.
> >
> > Whatever a Porche is or isn't is very immaterial. In photography, 35mm
> (where
> > these 70D's and Canon 20D's evolve from) is not high end. It has its
high
> end
> > in cameras like the EOS-1v, F5 and Maxxum 9, but the 20D, D70 and Max 7D
> do not
> > in any way measure up to the capabilities of the film 'kings'. And
those
> film
> > kings in 35mm are certainly not 'high end' in photography in any sense.
> >
> > >
> > > It may be just terminology, but I consider digital cameras into the
> > > following categories
> > >
> > > P&S compact - eg Canon SD300
> > > P&S prosumer - eg Olympus C-8080
> > > SLR consumer/high-end - Canon 300D
> > > SLR high end - Canon 20D, Nikon D70 (borderline)
> > > SLR professional - Canon 1Dx, Nikon D2X
> >
> > The Hassy H1 is an SLR. 6x6 cm film or smaller 22 mpix digital. That's
> high
> > end. (And there are scanning backs that go much higher).
> >
> >
> > >
> > > D70 and 10D are less high end than 20D because they are older and are
> not as
> > > fast. But 20D is a VERY fast camera and with a rich set of features to
> the
> > > point that I have seen pros use them. I have seen pros shoot with 10D.
> >
> > You'll see pros shoot with lesser cameras than that. But if they have
> > commercial accounts for advertising, etc., they will need MF.
> >
> > >
> > > With anything you have to distinguish high-end from professional. If
> > > spending over $2000 on a body and lens is not high-end, then what is?
> >
> > $2000 on a body and a lens? That's toyland where pros are concerned.
> Pros, or
> > their companies, are buying $4000 - $8000 full frame DSLR's. The top of
> this
> > range, the 1Ds Mk II is encroaching on MF. That is definitely high end
> where
> > "35mm" ish DSLR's are concerned. The D70 is a relative toy.
> >
> > It depends on the profession.
> >
> > With the 1Ds Mk II or even the recent Nikon 12 Mpix, one has the tools
one
> would
> > expect to satisfy many, but not all pros.
> >
> > Product photographers and others cannot do their work with less than a
MF
> camera
> > (film or digital). The cameras that we talk about most here in this ng
> are the
> > 6-8 Mpix cameras that Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus and finally K-M are
> > targetting at amateurs of all stripes and 'lower end' professionals who
do
> not
> > need large enlargements. Surely the number of pixels will increase over
> time,
> > but so it will for 'high end' cameras. There will always be a gap, as
> there is
> > in most domains.
> >
> > It is no different really from the fact that professionals in the
> pre-digital
> > era used mainly MF and LF cameras for serious commercial work in
> advertising,
> > modeling, weddings, architecture, landscape, etc. 35mm was not enough
for
> many
> > applications then, and it isn't any more applicable now. For sports it
is
> > highly applicable, but most pro photogs have been shooting the high end
> Canons
> > and Nikons, not the consumer cameras.
> >
> > I don't mean to put down the consumer oriented cameras, I hope to get a
> Maxxum
> > 7D soon myslef. But despite my esoteric collection of glass, it will
not
> be any
> > more 'high end' than my pro Maxxum 9 35mm body is with the same
collection
> of
> > glass. Same goes for the 70D+any collection of glass or the Canon
10D/20D
> and
> > any collection of glass. Fine enough, but not 'high end'.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Alan
> >
>
> The thread is concerning digital SLR only - not 35mm or MF cameras, and
> again you keep bringing a professional context in (I completely agree with
u
> that the 20D is below par compared to the cameras which you mention).
> High-end is a consumer concept, so these _are_ high end digital cameras,
but
> not professional. And $2000+ on a consumer camera is about as high as
people
> will spend (definitely not $8000 body - with another $20K on lenses - its
> just not worth it for consumers and hobbyists). I am not naive about what
> pros can spend on equipment. I would rather (and have) put my money into
> things like property and investments since my profession is an an engineer
> and not a photographer. I get excellent results with my 20D and 2 lenses
> (17-85 and 70-200 f/4L). I plan to get more L glass in the near future.
> So for a hobbyist like myself (and probably many others on this group) -
> professional equipment is just that - its professional. BTW, I plan to
buy
> a "pro" body once they reach the $4K level - any higher and its not worth
it
> for me. I think I will have to wait about 2 years to get a 1Ds MkII like
> camera for that price.
>
> I think it is just terminology. You are saying:
>
> high-end == professional
>
> I am saying
>
> 1) high-end == "top of the line" consumer (20D is top of the line
consumer -
> in my opinion).
> 2) professional == a level above that and for only very few consumers
>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 12:26:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Musty wrote:
> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:csmhjj$2ot$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> I think it is just terminology. You are saying:
>
> high-end == professional
>
> I am saying
>
> 1) high-end == "top of the line" consumer (20D is top of the line consumer -
> in my opinion).
> 2) professional == a level above that and for only very few consumers
>

Musty is correct; Alan, tho, will not budge. So says a fiver.

--
John McWilliams
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 12:42:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:csm8qd$hkt$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> Sheldon wrote:
>
>> camera, and I'm looking forward to my adventures in high-end digital
>> photography
>
> That would take an H1 with a 22 Mpix back or something along those lines.

I understand what you are saying, but from where I'm coming from this IS
high-end. I just want/need a camera that will take superior photos and one
that gives me far more control than I have now. I desperately need more
control over focus and depth of field, and this should give it to me, along
with the ability to take photos that can be published. I can always fall
back on my film Nikons if necessary, but having a chance to use my favorite
lenses on a digital camera should be a lot of fun.

As for some of the other comments: Today's newer cameras may give the
photographer more time to spend composing, but an awful lot of great photos
were taken with manual cameras and light meters. The camera can help, but
it's the photographer that makes a great photo. Yeah, if you can shoot 20
fps at a sporting event your good photos are just dumb luck, IMO.

I've had Hasselblads (sp?) and 4x5s, but my best work was always done with a
35mm SLR. And, if you can believe it, I shot some photos for a magazine
with a 1.2megapixel P&S Sony. While I certainly could have used more
megapixels, the photos themselves were great. Fortunately, they didn't have
to be blown up very much for the article, and the 8x10s I made looked
"pretty" good if you didn't put your nose up to them.

I do a lot of PowerPoint presentations (thank god this thing is deductible),
and it's far more camera than I need for that, except my photos can be more
creative now.

Thanks again.

Sheldon
>
>
> --
> -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
> -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
> -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
> -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
January 20, 2005 12:59:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:csmkkh$h01$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> Musty wrote:
>
> > The thread is concerning digital SLR only - not 35mm or MF cameras, and
> <snip>
>
> Learn to snip. And no, I don't agree with you.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan.

Umm, lets do a context check here:

NG name : r.p.digital.slr-systems (dont see anything about 35mm or MF in
that name).
More important (the OP said): "I'm looking forward to my adventures in
high-end digital
photography". Thats right "digital".

So you may not agree that this thread is about digital SLR (or perhaps you
are just dis-agreeing with me in general), but the context does not lie.
Only _you_ have brought in talk of professional film medium format
photgraphy, film "kings", et al.

Anyway, I will just go on merrily in my naive bliss and snap away with my
consumer grade POS 20D. Its funny, but a very good friend of mine who _is_ a
pro photographer has very good things to say about the 20D and "instructed"
me to not even consider going the 1D/1Ds route (tried to keep me sane).
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 2:16:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Jimbo" <Jimbo@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:uc6dnQaE_6IUS3PcRVn-sg@comcast.com...
>I remember a few years ago a 3-4Mp Pro was High end, now there not worth
> much, the D70 or 20D makes a much better picture than the older High end
> Digitals.
> The camera does not make the Pro, its how the camera is used.

Stricky speaking in marketing terms, of course, Canon calls the "1" series
line the "pro" cameras, similar I think as Nikon have done with their
single-digit naming scheme for their pro models.
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 11:29:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:27:26 -0500, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Alan
Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>Sheldon wrote:
>
>> camera, and I'm looking forward to my adventures in high-end digital
>> photography
>
>That would take an H1 with a 22 Mpix back or something along those lines.

You obviously haven't seen the work of Max Lyons, beginning with the
"lowly" Nikon CP-990.

http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 1:45:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Jimbo wrote:

> I remember a few years ago a 3-4Mp Pro was High end, now there not worth
> much, the D70 or 20D makes a much better picture than the older High end
> Digitals.
> The camera does not make the Pro, its how the camera is used.


The pj cameras were in that range, but the MF folks were already running up very
high pixel counts. Further cameras like the Kodak 14 were aiimed at pros.

It's not only what the pro can do, it is who he doing it for. A 4 Mpix camera
cannot be used for fashion spreads unless the images are quite small. What
works for a news photo does not work for a landscape poster... etc.

While it also true that an idiot cannot do much with the best camera in
existance, it is equally true that commercial photographers must deliver to
spec. A low pixel count camera won't meet commercial photography specs.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 1:59:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Musty wrote:

> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:csmkkh$h01$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>
>>Musty wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The thread is concerning digital SLR only - not 35mm or MF cameras, and
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>Learn to snip. And no, I don't agree with you.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Alan.
>
>
> Umm, lets do a context check here:
>
> NG name : r.p.digital.slr-systems (dont see anything about 35mm or MF in
> that name).
> More important (the OP said): "I'm looking forward to my adventures in
> high-end digital
> photography". Thats right "digital".

Exactly, so an H1 would be considerably more "high end" than most of the cameras
we talk about. It's a system. It's an SLR. It's digital back is 22 Mpix
(currently).

>
> So you may not agree that this thread is about digital SLR (or perhaps you
> are just dis-agreeing with me in general), but the context does not lie.
> Only _you_ have brought in talk of professional film medium format
> photgraphy, film "kings", et al.

Just to exemplify comparable "high end" cameras.

>
> Anyway, I will just go on merrily in my naive bliss and snap away with my
> consumer grade POS 20D. Its funny, but a very good friend of mine who _is_ a
> pro photographer has very good things to say about the 20D and "instructed"
> me to not even consider going the 1D/1Ds route (tried to keep me sane).

Do as you like. But don't associate consumer or prosumer cameras with "high
end". Even if this group was strictly the 35mm ish sized SLR's, the Canon 20D
would not be high-end, nor the D70. The 1Ds Mk II would definitely be "high
end". Beyond that, accepting MF, then the Mamiya 645AFD and Hassy H1 and other
systems with digital backs are another cut above.

It's not just pixel counts. The 1Ds Mk II is full frame and fairly low pixel
density. So not only more pixels, but low noise and full use of the lens.

The 20D is indeed highly capable and unless you typically make prints of 24" x
16" then, yes, a 1Ds MkII would be terrible overkill and very expensive. Canon
will replace the 20D soon enough, probably at 10 or 12 Mpix... so it is cheaper
to get there incremntally and you can probably fetch $500 for the 20D at the
time. I believe your pro friend was just helping you from buying more camera
than you need for your use. You can always rent a 1Ds Mk II if you need one for
a special occasion like a wedding.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 2:11:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

John McWilliams wrote:

> Musty wrote:
>
>> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> news:csmhjj$2ot$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>> I think it is just terminology. You are saying:
>>
>> high-end == professional
>>
>> I am saying
>>
>> 1) high-end == "top of the line" consumer (20D is top of the line
>> consumer -
>> in my opinion).
>> 2) professional == a level above that and for only very few consumers
>>
>
> Musty is correct; Alan, tho, will not budge. So says a fiver.

If top of the consumer line is "high end" in somebody's view, then I can't help
but agree with it within their view.

That the notion is patently false is another matter. In film terms it would be
like calling the Nikon F100 "high end". It isn't, and neither is a Canon 20D.

To apply for your fiver, please send me $10.00 and your fiver will follow
withing 30 days.

Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 3:45:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:59:19 GMT, you, "Musty" <musty@nospam.net>, wrote
in news:XKAHd.34965$Ta2.18847@fe2.texas.rr.com:

> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:csmkkh$h01$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>> Musty wrote:
>>
>> > The thread is concerning digital SLR only - not 35mm or MF cameras,
>> > and
>> <snip>
>>
>> Learn to snip. And no, I don't agree with you.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Alan.
>
> Umm, lets do a context check here:
>
> NG name : r.p.digital.slr-systems (dont see anything about 35mm or MF
> in that name).
> More important (the OP said): "I'm looking forward to my adventures in
> high-end digital
> photography". Thats right "digital".


An H1 with a 22 Mpix back is both SLR and digital. Also it's arround
where "high-end digital photography" should be at the moment. Higher-ends
in consumer stuff is nowhere high enough for digital photography.


--
T.N.T.

Lbh xabj jung gb qb vs lbh rire jnag gb rznvy zr.
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 4:46:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 12:45:27 GMT, you, "T.N.T." <tnt@localhost.ca>,
wrote in news:Xns95E44EE9D5Agehatagubzrpbz@corporate.utopia.disorg:


> Higher-ends in consumer stuff is nowhere high enough for digital
> photography.


Should have said "nowhere high enough for high-end digital photography".



--
T.N.T.

Lbh xabj jung gb qb vs lbh rire jnag gb rznvy zr.
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 7:56:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Sheldon wrote:

>
> I understand what you are saying, but from where I'm coming from this IS
> high-end. I just want/need a camera that will take superior photos and one
> that gives me far more control than I have now. I desperately need more
> control over focus and depth of field, and this should give it to me, along
> with the ability to take photos that can be published. I can always fall
> back on my film Nikons if necessary, but having a chance to use my favorite
> lenses on a digital camera should be a lot of fun.
>
> As for some of the other comments: Today's newer cameras may give the
> photographer more time to spend composing, but an awful lot of great photos
> were taken with manual cameras and light meters. The camera can help, but
> it's the photographer that makes a great photo. Yeah, if you can shoot 20
> fps at a sporting event your good photos are just dumb luck, IMO.
>
> I've had Hasselblads (sp?) and 4x5s, but my best work was always done with a
> 35mm SLR. And, if you can believe it, I shot some photos for a magazine
> with a 1.2megapixel P&S Sony. While I certainly could have used more
> megapixels, the photos themselves were great. Fortunately, they didn't have
> to be blown up very much for the article, and the 8x10s I made looked
> "pretty" good if you didn't put your nose up to them.
>
> I do a lot of PowerPoint presentations (thank god this thing is deductible),
> and it's far more camera than I need for that, except my photos can be more
> creative now.

I'm glad you took my comment in the right light. You are further correct in
that photograhy has to be applied regardless of the camera to achieve results.
Cameras don't make photographs, photographers do.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 8:13:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ed Ruf wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:27:26 -0500, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Alan
> Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>Sheldon wrote:
>>
>>
>>>camera, and I'm looking forward to my adventures in high-end digital
>>>photography
>>
>>That would take an H1 with a 22 Mpix back or something along those lines.
>
>
> You obviously haven't seen the work of Max Lyons, beginning with the
> "lowly" Nikon CP-990.

I've seen the page before. There are several photogs who emply this technique,
and moreso since the advent of digital cameras.

It says Canon D60 (as well as CP-990) on that page.

He's 'stiching' many smaller images together, so effectively increasing his
pixel count with each image. A very legitimate approach. However, his noise
figure must be high but I suppose that can be smoothed out with various algorithms.

Such an approach has various obvious limitations so good work can result if one
works within those limitations. It does require talent.

It is still better to begin with more native, low noise pixels than to post
process your way to an image.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 9:55:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:13:40 -0500, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Alan
Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>He's 'stiching' many smaller images together, so effectively increasing his
>pixel count with each image. A very legitimate approach. However, his noise
>figure must be high but I suppose that can be smoothed out with various algorithms.
>
>Such an approach has various obvious limitations so good work can result if one
>works within those limitations. It does require talent.
>
>It is still better to begin with more native, low noise pixels than to post
>process your way to an image.

Maybe, the real point to you and TNT is that high end equipment is neither
a sufficient nor necessary condition for high-end (quality) photography.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 10:56:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:

<rubish snipped>
>
> Product photographers and others cannot do their work with less than a
> MF camera (film or digital). The cameras that we talk about most here
> in this ng are the 6-8 Mpix cameras that Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus
> and finally K-M are targetting at amateurs of all stripes and 'lower
> end' professionals who do not need large enlargements. Surely the
> number of pixels will increase over time, but so it will for 'high end'
> cameras. There will always be a gap, as there is in most domains.
>

<Rubbish snipped>

The "product posters" at this link http://www.tecphoto.com.au/example.htm
were shot with a Nikon D100 by a full time professional photographer who
didn't even use full camera resolution or RAW capture for the work. He
knows we could enlarge his images just as long as they were focused
correctly. Image sensor density has very little to do with image
quality. Just like it always has been, the camera only hold the lens.

The client of the photographer who took these images is ecstatic with
the sharp, clear, full resolution 24" x 36" posters we created, just
like all our clients are amazed and satisfied with our posters and
catalogues. Hi-end digital enlargements from cameras "targeted at
amateurs". Gives the comparison between film and digital a wee bit of a
different slant in the real world than the world of Alan Browne's mind.

You really do need to get out more Alan. The world of Professional
Photography is a lot different to the one in your mind. My digital print
centre does work for about 40, full time professional photographers and
two newspapers who use our facilities for printing their sales photos
larger than A4 size.

I'm the only one still using medium format gear and even then, I use
digital for 60% of my work too. The only grip I have with my "High end"
D20 and 1D is they can't handle the extremes of climate that my old
Mamiya's can. Oddly enough, my ratty old SD9 Sigma keeps going when the
Canon's die. Pity about the pics!

This post is not intended as a commercial post to a group whose charter
forbids it. I have provided the link above which has no advertising in
it except to promote the process we developed to enlarge digital images
and this process is not for sale. I simply demonstrates that you don't
need a $5,000 digital camera to be a professional photographer.

I felt so strongly that Alan Browne was providing wrong information to
people which has the potential to cause those people to spend hundreds
of dollars more than they need to when buying a camera, that I deemed
this link important in contradicting his statement, otherwise I would
have continued to withhold my identity and post under "invented" names
in the spirit of the charter of this group.

Doug
January 20, 2005 10:56:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <359d9oF4h30hbU1@individual.net>, ryadia@hotmail.com says...
> I felt so strongly that Alan Browne was providing wrong information to
> people which has the potential to cause those people to spend hundreds
> of dollars more than they need to when buying a camera, that I deemed
> this link important in contradicting his statement, otherwise I would
> have continued to withhold my identity and post under "invented" names
> in the spirit of the charter of this group.
>
> Doug
>
>

I have had one of my photos used as a 3' x 4' poster, and it was a crop from
a shot taken by an 8mp Sony F828. (probably about 6mp, I never checked)

The shot was made in poor light at the extreme end of the range of the flash
I was using.

20 minutes of post work later, it was (to me) only a "passable" 8x10, but the
Trainer of the horse involved was thrilled with it, and I gave her the photo
on a CDrom. (its is the only photo I have ever sold the copyright for, but I
was well compensated for that picture)

She had it made into a poster to hang at the "Ohio Quarter Horse Congress" to
help advertise the horse (the worlds largest/longest horse show, 35 thousand
horses shown over 21 days 24/7) last October. Most of the horses that go
there are intended to be sold while there.

The horse was sold for $122,000 during that show.(good price for a 3 year old
basicly un-proven mare) The trainer credits the poster for getting the buyers
attention.

Needless to say, I have been well advertised by "word of mouth" (and the fact
that she keeps showing that poster all over New England) and I have been
contacted by enough people to keep me busy this summer.

The poster was very sharp and very well done, with no noticeable changes from
my own post work in PhotoShop (my work was mostly curves, and levels, with a
(very) little unsharp masking) other than whatever algorythm they used to re-
size it.

I dont know who did the poster, but it proved to me that 8mp is enough, and
that the "Point and shoot" camera I was using can be "good enough" for
commercial work.

I intend to buy a good DSLR, but Im holding on waiting for one of leaders to
put "self cleaning" into a better camera than those available with it right
now (a couple of Olympus models). Horse Shows are a TERRIBLY dusty
environment, and I dont like to stop and clean the sensor every hour or so.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 10:56:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ryadia wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:
>
> <rubish snipped>
>
>>
>> Product photographers and others cannot do their work with less than a
>> MF camera (film or digital). The cameras that we talk about most here
>> in this ng are the 6-8 Mpix cameras that Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus
>> and finally K-M are targetting at amateurs of all stripes and 'lower
>> end' professionals who do not need large enlargements. Surely the
>> number of pixels will increase over time, but so it will for 'high
>> end' cameras. There will always be a gap, as there is in most domains.
>>
>
> <Rubbish snipped>
>
> The "product posters" at this link http://www.tecphoto.com.au/example.htm
> were shot with a Nikon D100 by a full time professional photographer who
> didn't even use full camera resolution or RAW capture for the work. He
> knows we could enlarge his images just as long as they were focused
> correctly. Image sensor density has very little to do with image
> quality. Just like it always has been, the camera only hold the lens.
>
> The client of the photographer who took these images is ecstatic with
> the sharp, clear, full resolution 24" x 36" posters we created, just
> like all our clients are amazed and satisfied with our posters and
> catalogues. Hi-end digital enlargements from cameras "targeted at
> amateurs". Gives the comparison between film and digital a wee bit of a
> different slant in the real world than the world of Alan Browne's mind.
>
> You really do need to get out more Alan. The world of Professional
> Photography is a lot different to the one in your mind. My digital print
> centre does work for about 40, full time professional photographers and
> two newspapers who use our facilities for printing their sales photos
> larger than A4 size.
>
> I'm the only one still using medium format gear and even then, I use
> digital for 60% of my work too. The only grip I have with my "High end"
> D20 and 1D is they can't handle the extremes of climate that my old
> Mamiya's can. Oddly enough, my ratty old SD9 Sigma keeps going when the
> Canon's die. Pity about the pics!
>
> This post is not intended as a commercial post to a group whose charter
> forbids it. I have provided the link above which has no advertising in
> it except to promote the process we developed to enlarge digital images
> and this process is not for sale. I simply demonstrates that you don't
> need a $5,000 digital camera to be a professional photographer.
>
> I felt so strongly that Alan Browne was providing wrong information to
> people which has the potential to cause those people to spend hundreds
> of dollars more than they need to when buying a camera, that I deemed
> this link important in contradicting his statement, otherwise I would
> have continued to withhold my identity and post under "invented" names
> in the spirit of the charter of this group.

Doug, Doug, Doug,

I know product photographers. Not shooting little ads for the web, but large
posters and large magazine layouts. And what are they using? Drum scanned MF
film and MF with digital backs. That's the only truth that counts.

I never suggested everyone must have "high end", the point was that 6 or 8 mpix
cameras are not "high end".

If a Canon 20D was adequate to commercial photography, then why, oh why Doug,
are these professionals using 22 Mpix cameras or MF film (or 4x5 for that
matter). Why are they still selling big weddings on MF?

As to your link above, it is laughable for us to expect to see if there is any
quality in those images in a 3" x 2" JPG. What a laugh!

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 11:55:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ed Ruf wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:13:40 -0500, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Alan
> Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>He's 'stiching' many smaller images together, so effectively increasing his
>>pixel count with each image. A very legitimate approach. However, his noise
>>figure must be high but I suppose that can be smoothed out with various algorithms.
>>
>>Such an approach has various obvious limitations so good work can result if one
>>works within those limitations. It does require talent.
>>
>>It is still better to begin with more native, low noise pixels than to post
>>process your way to an image.
>
>
> Maybe, the real point to you and TNT is that high end equipment is neither
> a sufficient nor necessary condition for high-end (quality) photography.

That depends on the end use of the photography. If it is for a newspaper photo
or a website, there is nothing to get too wrapped up about a fe Mpix. But
large, high quality prints demand fine detail.

So, it depends on what 'quantities' are associated with the word 'quality'.

An example, very fine photograph I use is: (not by me, snif!):
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2616953&siz...
Shot on a Canon 10D. Fantastic in all respects.
But, there is a limit to how far the original image can be blown up without
revealing artifacts. At 10x15@200dpi the image, viewed at a normal distance of
about 20 inches will look great. But as it is progressively made larger then
the usual artifacts of digital appear. And then larger and the interpolation
artifacts become more and more evident.

Then start with a camera like a 16.5 Mpix 1Ds Mk II and you can start much
larger with the same detail (25x17.5@200 dpi) and go larger before the image
fails to met whatever quality level you set. From this POV, it is all numbers.

The caveat is noise. Compare an 8 Mpix Sony 828 to a Canon 20D and it is not
surprising that the 20D with a pixel density 5.5x lower, has much less noise and
a cleaner image. The 1Ds Mk II had 2X as many pixels (as the Canon 20D) but
also more than 2.5X the surface area. (So many more pixels, yet less pixel
density than the 20D... and full frame.

Lower pixel density and associated noise.

You cannot make a large, fine quality print (for close examination as in a
gallery) using a 6 Mpix camera. (Well you _can_ but it pales in comparison to
an MF (film or digital) shot.

As to stiching techniques, the limits include portraits, nature shots
(wildlife), anything with action (a play, sports, etc.).

It has been said, and so it remains: quantity is a quality in itself.

Cheers,
Alan.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 7:19:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:
<snipped>
>
> You cannot make a large, fine quality print (for close examination as in
> a gallery) using a 6 Mpix camera. (Well you _can_ but it pales in
> comparison to an MF (film or digital) shot.
>
> As to stiching techniques, the limits include portraits, nature shots
> (wildlife), anything with action (a play, sports, etc.).
>
> It has been said, and so it remains: quantity is a quality in itself.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan.

You're talking rubbish Alan. Starting to look like someone clinging to a
5 year old myth that you have to print what the camera delivers.

Many of my photographs are from 10D and 20D, enlarged to 600mm x 900mm
and they exhibit in galleries right alongside my 6cm x7cm film
enlargement. Way too many viewers mistake the digital prints for medium
format prints to support your theory. Maybe a few years ago your beliefs
might have been plausible but they are certainly outdated now.

JD
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 7:19:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

James Douglas wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:
> <snipped>
>
>>
>> You cannot make a large, fine quality print (for close examination as
>> in a gallery) using a 6 Mpix camera. (Well you _can_ but it pales in
>> comparison to an MF (film or digital) shot.
>>
>> As to stiching techniques, the limits include portraits, nature shots
>> (wildlife), anything with action (a play, sports, etc.).
>>
>> It has been said, and so it remains: quantity is a quality in itself.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Alan.
>
>
> You're talking rubbish Alan. Starting to look like someone clinging to a
> 5 year old myth that you have to print what the camera delivers.
>
> Many of my photographs are from 10D and 20D, enlarged to 600mm x 900mm
> and they exhibit in galleries right alongside my 6cm x7cm film
> enlargement. Way too many viewers mistake the digital prints for medium
> format prints to support your theory. Maybe a few years ago your beliefs
> might have been plausible but they are certainly outdated now.


BWAHAHAHAAHAHAH. Methinks your 'viewers' don't know what they're looking at.

I've seen large enlargements from Canon 20D's as recently as last month side by
side with 6x7cm enlargements (Pentax 67 -> Nikon 8000 scans) by the same
photographer. The fine detail difference was obvious, esp. along contrasting
edges. It is these same results that are causing the photographer to put off
digital nature/landscape photography and to stick to E-6 for the foreseeable
future. The only difference in his workflow has been to give up Cibachrome for
a high end printer and scanner. I've also seen his E-6 images projected and
that is simply stunning. No digital camera of any kind comes close to that
experience.

The photographer in question is regularly published in a couple North American
nature and otehr magazines and has several covers.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 1:02:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> Cameras don't make photographs, photographers do.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan

You got that right. It's too bad more people don't realize this.
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 8:36:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:csr8p7$5d4$1@inews.gazeta.pl...

>
> BWAHAHAHAAHAHAH. Methinks your 'viewers' don't know what they're looking
at.
>
> I've seen large enlargements from Canon 20D's as recently as last month
side by
> side with 6x7cm enlargements (Pentax 67 -> Nikon 8000 scans) by the same
> photographer. The fine detail difference was obvious, esp. along
contrasting
> edges. It is these same results that are causing the photographer to put
off
> digital nature/landscape photography and to stick to E-6 for the
foreseeable
> future. The only difference in his workflow has been to give up
Cibachrome for
> a high end printer and scanner. I've also seen his E-6 images projected
and
> that is simply stunning. No digital camera of any kind comes close to
that
> experience.
>
> The photographer in question is regularly published in a couple North
American
> nature and otehr magazines and has several covers.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan
>

You can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
The part which is so amusing about your attitude is the way only you know
everything and anyone else is to be ridiculed. Par for the course on Usenet
I guess. Quite obviously neither you, nor your "photographer" has ever seen
a digital enlargement done properly. To ridicule people without any
substance in your reply is the mark of an idiot trying to justify what
cannot be justified.

For starters, there is not an optical, colour enlarger (condensers or
diffusion) made that can produce a ciba print from a 6x7 trannie as large as
I can make a Canon 10D image and rival the digital image for sharpness and
colour definition.

Secondly, no Nikon film scanner can produce a digital image from a trannie
of 6x7 cm which can be enlarged as big as I can enlarge a 20D file and
produce the same edge detail or freedom from grain. This is not an idle
statement. I put my entire life savings into a chain of digital print
centres which every day enlarge digital images to wall posters for
professional photographers. Some of whom borrow our cameras for the shoot
because they still have medium format gear which cannot equal our results
from pure digital.

So here's my offer to you Alan. Send me your snail mail address and I'll
enlarge a highly detailed image from a 20D camera to a 24"x 36" poster print
and post you (at no cost to yourself) the print, and CD with the original
file on it, with unaltered EXIF data. I'll also send the same to an
independent person from this group we both agree on so there can be no
suggestion of impropriety.

If you and the arbitrator still think, after seeing that print, what I and
others have already told you is wrong, I'll publicly apologise for calling
you an idiot... If on the other hand I prove my point. you'll have to
(publicly) apologise to me for trying to discredit my claims.
Incidentally... All you had to do to see a full screen image of the link I
offered you to see some of our work was click the "3"x2" jpeg" image you
complained about! The rest is up to you.

Doug.
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 8:36:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ryadia wrote:
> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:csr8p7$5d4$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>
>>
>> BWAHAHAHAAHAHAH. Methinks your 'viewers' don't know what they're
>> looking at.
>>
>> I've seen large enlargements from Canon 20D's as recently as last
>> month side by side with 6x7cm enlargements (Pentax 67 -> Nikon 8000
>> scans) by the same photographer. The fine detail difference was
>> obvious, esp. along contrasting edges. It is these same results
>> that are causing the photographer to put off digital
>> nature/landscape photography and to stick to E-6 for the foreseeable
>> future. The only difference in his workflow has been to give up
>> Cibachrome for a high end printer and scanner. I've also seen his
>> E-6 images projected and that is simply stunning. No digital camera
>> of any kind comes close to that experience.
>>
>> The photographer in question is regularly published in a couple
>> North American nature and otehr magazines and has several covers.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Alan
>>
>
> You can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

<snip>

>
> Doug.

Dear Doug,

It seems to me that reading and posting in Usenet groups is bad for your
health.

Sincerely,
--
Frank ess
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 8:36:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ryadia wrote:

> You can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
> The part which is so amusing about your attitude is the way only you know
> everything and anyone else is to be ridiculed. Par for the course on Usenet


I know what I see. And a print from a Canon 20D at 36" along the long edge does
not hold up to a print from the same printer, same photographer, same digital
workflow (other than scan v. in-camera) from a Velvia (I don't recall if it was
50 or 100, probably the former as that is what this fellow usually uses).

That's just plain fact.




--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 8:36:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ryadia wrote:

> So here's my offer to you Alan. Send me your snail mail address and I'll
> enlarge a highly detailed image from a 20D camera to a 24"x 36" poster print
> and post you (at no cost to yourself) the print, and CD with the original
> file on it, with unaltered EXIF data. I'll also send the same to an
> independent person from this group we both agree on so there can be no
> suggestion of impropriety.

Save yourself postage Doug, do this:

1) send me a reduced sized version of the whole image (say 1024 x 680 pixels), and

2) send me a crop of a detailed area of the same image at full 'camera' size
(again, about 1024 x 680 worth), and

3) send me the same crop of the image you use to print at 24 x 36".

alan dot browne @ videotron dot ca

For independant verification I would suggest:

Lewis Lang
Lionel
JPS
Mark^2
Gisle Hannemyr

Suggest your own referees as well.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 1:02:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:csrsaf$som$1@inews.gazeta.pl...

> Save yourself postage Doug, do this:
>
> 1) send me a reduced sized version of the whole image (say 1024 x 680
pixels), and
> 2) send me a crop of a detailed area of the same image at full 'camera'
size
> (again, about 1024 x 680 worth), and
>
>

Not a chance in the world of me sending you or anyone else even a portion of
a file my patented algorythm has altered. The reason you have not seen a
properly enlarged digital image to compare a cibachrome print with is
probably because there is no one in Canada whom you know who is using either
my process or a process derived from the same formula by a US firm. No
other process, including Genuine Fractals can maintain detail and resolution
during computation. I offered you a print and the original file, nothing
else. As for your choice of arbitrators... I would be looking for one with
professional qualifications in photography and experience in Medium format
in particular. That way they would be sceptical in the first place and
likely have the grounding to make a qualified judgement. Nice try Alan but
not working.

Doug
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 1:02:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 10:02:49 +1000, Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Not a chance in the world of me sending you or anyone else even a portion of
> a file my patented algorythm has altered.

Why not? It'd be much easier for anyone to get your algorithm from
the Patent Office than it would be for them to reverse-engineer it
from its output (especially since you'd not be providing the input).

Oh, wait, I forgot:

ahahahahaha.

There, that's better.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 1:02:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:35dj8gF4ilr82U1@individual.net...
>
> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:csrsaf$som$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>
>> Save yourself postage Doug, do this:
>>
>> 1) send me a reduced sized version of the whole image
>> (say 1024 x 680 pixels), and
>> 2) send me a crop of a detailed area of the same image
>> at full 'camera' size (again, about 1024 x 680 worth), and
>
> Not a chance in the world of me sending you or anyone else even a
> portion of
> a file my patented algorythm has altered.

Sounds familiar. You never responded to
<http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~gisle/photo/interpolation.html&...; as a direct
challenge to your claims, and Roger Clark asked for suggestions in
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=41E07E3C.4060207%4...;.
Both provide easy challenges for you, don't they.

And of course you can do better than what is attempted here:
<http://www.general-cathexis.com/interpolation.html&gt; (you wouldn't be
using "Jensen-Xin Li Hybrid" would you?) and you you surely can beat
any of these:
<http://www.americaswonderlands.com/digital_photo_interp...;

Bart
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 1:04:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:hZWdnUl2to2m_2zcRVn-3g@giganews.com...
> Dear Doug,
>
> It seems to me that reading and posting in Usenet groups is bad for your
> health.
>
> Sincerely,
> --
> Frank ess
>
You could well be right there Frank. Besides, I have other, more enjoyable
things to do than argue with a fool. It's likely to make me one too.

Doug
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 6:00:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

T.N.T. wrote:
> An H1 with a 22 Mpix back is both SLR and digital. Also it's arround
> where "high-end digital photography" should be at the moment. Higher-ends
> in consumer stuff is nowhere high enough for digital photography.
>

Don't forget about the H1D
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 8:12:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Gordon, pls see the bottom.

Ryadia wrote:

>
> Not a chance in the world of me sending you or anyone else even a portion of
> a file my patented algorythm has altered. The reason you have not seen a
> properly enlarged digital image to compare a cibachrome print with is
> probably because there is no one in Canada whom you know who is using either
> my process or a process derived from the same formula by a US firm. No
> other process, including Genuine Fractals can maintain detail and resolution
> during computation. I offered you a print and the original file, nothing
> else. As for your choice of arbitrators... I would be looking for one with
> professional qualifications in photography and experience in Medium format
> in particular. That way they would be sceptical in the first place and
> likely have the grounding to make a qualified judgement. Nice try Alan but
> not working.

You funny.

First of all, if your algorithm is patented, then you are protected.

Secondly, from an image file, one would be extremely hard pressed to
determine the algorithm used to make it. (Certainly I'd be hard
pressed, or rather completely unable).

But, I'll call your bluff and my mailing address is on its way to you.
I'll be seeing my nature photographer friend next month. Maybe he'll
want to purchase a licence.

Professional? One of the best qualified photographers around here is
Gordon Moat who has a fine-arts degree in photography, shoots digital
and film in MF and "35mm" size. His office is in LA. (I'm not sure he
follows this ng, he does follow others like rpe35mm and rpe.m-f).

I've BCC'd this message to him, and if he wants to get involved in the
process, he'll say so...

[Gordon, if you're interested, please follow this thread on Google where
Ryadia and I are having a little falling out... start the thread at
about: http://tinyurl.com/3qdlq ]

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 9:32:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Bart van der Wolf wrote:

>
>
> Sounds familiar. You never responded to
> <http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~gisle/photo/interpolation.html&...; as a direct
> challenge to your claims, and Roger Clark asked for suggestions in
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=41E07E3C.4060207%4...;.
> Both provide easy challenges for you, don't they.
>
> And of course you can do better than what is attempted here:
> <http://www.general-cathexis.com/interpolation.html&gt; (you wouldn't be
> using "Jensen-Xin Li Hybrid" would you?) and you you surely can beat any
> of these:
> <http://www.americaswonderlands.com/digital_photo_interp...;
>
> Bart

I have some respect for your knowledge Bart and none at all for your
attitude or the bait you use. Given that Gisle prodded me after I
suggested to someone else they could get better results using commercial
software than "Photoshop's interpolation"... He/she (does anyone know?)
then went about trying to discredit my statement with bicubic
interpolation examples which is like trying to say a 1600 cc BMW can out
drag a 7000 cc American sports car. Like Alan Browne, Gisle chooses to
believe only he/she is capable of judgment. Both are wrong.

I have no comment to make about Roger Clark. He can cast about for
information whenever he likes. Why should I be the one to respond? Why
not you? Perhaps you prefer to stand on the sidelines and fire off a few
timely remarks to reignite an argument. Disgusting habit, Bart.

As for Americas wonderland? I have no knowledge of the firm nor have I
seen their work. Certainly without seeing a 20"x30" print from a known
source, not you, Alan Browne nor I are in a position to pass judgment
about them. What sort of bait do you normally use, Bart, or do you like
lures better?

Doug
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 9:32:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:35fra1F4l891hU1@individual.net...
> Bart van der Wolf wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Sounds familiar. You never responded to
>> <http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~gisle/photo/interpolation.html&...; as a
>> direct challenge to your claims, and Roger Clark asked for
>> suggestions in
>> <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=41E07E3C.4060207%4...;.
>> Both provide easy challenges for you, don't they.
>>
>> And of course you can do better than what is attempted here:
>> <http://www.general-cathexis.com/interpolation.html&gt; (you wouldn't
>> be using "Jensen-Xin Li Hybrid" would you?) and you you surely can
>> beat any of these:
>> <http://www.americaswonderlands.com/digital_photo_interp...;
>>
>> Bart
>
> I have some respect for your knowledge Bart and none at all for your
> attitude or the bait you use. Given that Gisle prodded me after I
> suggested to someone else they could get better results using
> commercial software than "Photoshop's interpolation"... He/she (does
> anyone know?) then went about trying to discredit my statement with
> bicubic interpolation examples which is like trying to say a 1600 cc
> BMW can out drag a 7000 cc American sports car. Like Alan Browne,
> Gisle chooses to believe only he/she is capable of judgment. Both
> are wrong.

The way I read your comments at the time in a discussion about
interpolation, you stated that you can recreate equal quality output
from a small pixel size image compared to a large pixel size. Gisle
challenged you to prove the statement, and he provided a web page to
allow others to judge.

> I have no comment to make about Roger Clark. He can cast about for
> information whenever he likes. Why should I be the one to respond?
> Why not you?

I did, and provided an improved (IMO) interpolation result, as
requested, and Roger may add it to his site (or make the example
himself).

> Perhaps you prefer to stand on the sidelines and fire off a few
> timely remarks to reignite an argument. Disgusting habit, Bart.

Not my habit, I usually provide more info (incl. web-links if
appropriate) than anything else.

> As for Americas wonderland? I have no knowledge of the firm nor have
> I seen their work. Certainly without seeing a 20"x30" print from a
> known source, not you, Alan Browne nor I are in a position to pass
> judgment about them.

Changing one of the links I provided to
<http://www.general-cathexis.com&gt; allows to download a copy of the SAR
Image processor software, so you can try it for yourself. Only
restriction is you can't save the results (but for a small crop you
can make a screendump, of course). Printing a crop will save lots of
paper, allows samples to be placed side by side, and allows anybody to
make their personal judgement, or compare to other people's results.
Americas Wonderland Provides a nice overview of different methods.

> What sort of bait do you normally use, Bart, or do you like lures
> better?

You're misreading my intentions, see above.

Bart
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 8:04:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Not a chance in the world of me sending you or anyone else even a portion of
> a file my patented algorythm has altered.

*IF* you have patented your "algorythm", you surely can tell
us the patent office and patent number.

Anyway, your "patented algorythm" is described in the patent
claim, thus public, and you'll be secure, at least in all the
places where math can be patented.

If, however, you meant "trade secret", I understand your worries.
Trade secrets can be re-discovered independently, and you could
do nothing about it, since it is not patented. It can't be both,
a patent being public in itself, though you may have 2 distinct
parts, one patented, the other a trade secret.

You could, though, simply print the crop and scan it --- as can
any one else who aquires one of your enlargements --- and thus
have the very same safety as sending the physical enlargements.

> The reason you have not seen a
> properly enlarged digital image to compare a cibachrome print with is
> probably because there is no one in Canada whom you know who is using either
> my process or a process derived from the same formula by a US firm.

If you indeed patented your "algorythm", you need to make
sure the US firm either uses something completely different
or is a licensee of your patent.

> No other process, including Genuine Fractals can maintain
> detail and resolution during computation. I offered you a print
> and the original file, nothing else.

BTW, how mouch would one roughly need to pay for 24x36 feet from
8 megapixel, including shipment to Germany, and what payment
options do you accept? I might be tempted ... (probably
better answered via email.)

> As for your choice of arbitrators... I would be looking for one with
> professional qualifications in photography and experience in Medium format
> in particular. That way they would be sceptical in the first place and
> likely have the grounding to make a qualified judgement. Nice try Alan but
> not working.

Maybe Ken Rockwell (not a member of this group, but ...)?

-Wolfgang
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 3:28:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne- wrote:
> Gordon, pls see the bottom.
>
>
>
> [Gordon, if you're interested, please follow this thread on Google where
> Ryadia and I are having a little falling out... start the thread at
> about: http://tinyurl.com/3qdlq ]
>
> Cheers,
> Alan.
>

It seems Gordan Moat has probably decided this group is not a suitable
place to be seen if you have a clue about photography. I came to the
same conclusion after Alan Browne started his "I know Pros" dance. This
is my last post here. FWIW I have come to the conclusion all but a very
few of the posters here making statements about photography know what
they are talking about.

The group is attracting geeks who are here because it has 'digital' in
the name of the group are not photographers, just geeks looking for
intellectual stimulus.

Not much point in posting prints to Canada (they've been sitting in
mailing tubes for a week waiting for acknowledgment from Moat) when the
arbitrator has given up on the group anyway. So here is a link to my
page on the subject. The limitation of the Internet and those of a web
site are not my problem, deal with the medium any way you want.

I have done as much as I can to follow someone else's instruction on how
best to show the detail of one of my enlargements. If it's not enough,
tell someone who cares, I'll no longer bother to argue. I'm too busy
setting up a second print centre to be bother trying to educate those
who's only interest is to find an argument. Here's the link:
http://www.tecphoto.com.au/examples2.htm
January 26, 2005 3:28:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ryadia wrote:
>
> I have done as much as I can to follow someone else's instruction on how
> best to show the detail of one of my enlargements. If it's not enough,
> tell someone who cares, I'll no longer bother to argue. I'm too busy
> setting up a second print centre to be bother trying to educate those
> who's only interest is to find an argument. Here's the link:
> http://www.tecphoto.com.au/examples2.htm



That's approximately a 3000x1800 pixel image based on the detailed crop
at full pixels (a regular 6MP image). The box in the full image is drawn
at half the size of the enlargement. The enlargement shows the entire
flower center, the full view box encloses only 1/4 of the flower center.
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 3:28:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ryadia wrote:
> Alan Browne- wrote:
>> Gordon, pls see the bottom.
>>
>>
>>
>> [Gordon, if you're interested, please follow this thread on Google
>> where Ryadia and I are having a little falling out... start the
>> thread at about: http://tinyurl.com/3qdlq ]
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Alan.
>>
>
> It seems Gordan Moat has probably decided this group is not a suitable
> place to be seen if you have a clue about photography. I came to the
> same conclusion after Alan Browne started his "I know Pros" dance.
> This is my last post here.

Flounce?
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 3:28:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ryadia wrote:

> http://www.tecphoto.com.au/examples2.htm


Doug, what the hell is so special about that crop? 421 out of 3500 pixels wide?

Guffaw!! At 300 dpi, that little bit would print to a mere 1.4 inches.

That is to say, those same 421 pixels have to cover 421/3500 * 36 = 4.33 inches

That's 97 dpi at the print. Feasible indeed and will look fine if the viewer is
standing back a few feet. But up close?

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 4:23:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

paul wrote:
> Ryadia wrote:
>
>>
>> I have done as much as I can to follow someone else's instruction on
>> how best to show the detail of one of my enlargements. If it's not
>> enough, tell someone who cares, I'll no longer bother to argue. I'm
>> too busy setting up a second print centre to be bother trying to
>> educate those who's only interest is to find an argument. Here's the
>> link:
>> http://www.tecphoto.com.au/examples2.htm
>
>
>
>
> That's approximately a 3000x1800 pixel image based on the detailed crop
> at full pixels (a regular 6MP image). The box in the full image is drawn
> at half the size of the enlargement. The enlargement shows the entire
> flower center, the full view box encloses only 1/4 of the flower center.

I just Couldn't resist another "final post".
You try and take a small crop from an image and then go back to it and
mark where you took it from if you are so observant... Or you could tell
someone who actually cares. It wouldn't matter if I posted the whole
bloody 147 meg file, some idiot would come along and complain about
something. What exactly is your problem?
Doug
January 26, 2005 4:23:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ryadia wrote:
> paul wrote:
>
>> Ryadia wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I have done as much as I can to follow someone else's instruction on
>>> how best to show the detail of one of my enlargements. If it's not
>>> enough, tell someone who cares, I'll no longer bother to argue. I'm
>>> too busy setting up a second print centre to be bother trying to
>>> educate those who's only interest is to find an argument. Here's the
>>> link:
>>> http://www.tecphoto.com.au/examples2.htm
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> That's approximately a 3000x1800 pixel image based on the detailed
>> crop at full pixels (a regular 6MP image). The box in the full image
>> is drawn at half the size of the enlargement. The enlargement shows
>> the entire flower center, the full view box encloses only 1/4 of the
>> flower center.
>
>
> I just Couldn't resist another "final post".
> You try and take a small crop from an image and then go back to it and
> mark where you took it from if you are so observant... Or you could tell
> someone who actually cares. It wouldn't matter if I posted the whole
> bloody 147 meg file, some idiot would come along and complain about
> something. What exactly is your problem?
> Doug


The crop is a simple crop from a normal 6MP DSLR picture. There is no
enlargement shown.
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 7:03:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 09:11:46 -0500, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>Ryadia wrote:
>
>> http://www.tecphoto.com.au/examples2.htm
>
>
>Doug, what the hell is so special about that crop? 421 out of 3500 pixels wide?
>
>Guffaw!! At 300 dpi, that little bit would print to a mere 1.4 inches.
>
>That is to say, those same 421 pixels have to cover 421/3500 * 36 = 4.33 inches
>
>That's 97 dpi at the print. Feasible indeed and will look fine if the viewer is
>standing back a few feet. But up close?

Alan... who, other than retarded people, are going to try and stand
any closer than a couple of feet when looking at a print that is 36"
wide ?

97dpi is easily enough for this sized print.

The crop on my monitor is approximately 97dpi and looks great from 16"
away.

According to THX standards, a 36" wide (not diag) picture is best
viewed at 4.6ft which maintains the optimal viewing angle of 36
degrees. At this distance, a 1920x1080 HD display can still be
resolved fully (requiring 53dpi) , but 1 foot further, and it can't.

Although the THX standards were devised for moving images, so are not
perfect, they were intensely researched.

--
Owamanga!
!