[filmscanners] a bit OT, but still important...

["Bill Pearce" <bspearce@sbcglobal.net>]

The subject of 35 vs. MF or LF has reared it's ugly head on several lists
upon which I participate. You have finally got me to respond.

I understand that looking at raw numbers, 35 may have all that's needed for
Architectural Digest, or any other above average publication. For those of
you that look at numbers only, go to the next post.

I contend that anyone that is a reader of this list is sufficiently
sophisticated to be able to tell the difference. A 4x5 neg or chrome in AD
will be obviously different than a 35, no matter how many megs the scanned
file is. There is a difference, and, to the discerning eye, it is obvious.

This discussion is, I think, driven by the digital vs. film debate that is
overwhelming our business/hobby today. I can't total the number of times
that, as a working photographer, I've heard people say, "Are you shooting
that with a digital?" I'm inclined to say, "Sure, if that's all you want,
fine." The truth is, for lots of people, it is, indeed, fine. That doesn't
mean it's better.

There is something about a bigger negative that can be seen in a simple
halftone. Do the folks that shoot for AD use 4x5 just to increase their
gross? Perhaps, but sometimes we just have to please ourselves!

WOW! I may have just had too much of a good time at a xmas party, but time
would have only have made me more socially acceptable, and a bit more sober.

Bill Pearce

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body