Don't Like Digital

Hawaii Five-O · Aug 3, 2008

I think Alpha knew this thread would wind down pretty quick with his "inflammatory title" to attract more people and tell them to bugger off at the same time, but yet didn't really want them to respond. Its more of a rant thread I think.lol:thumbdown:

peterbj7 · Aug 3, 2008

Obviously doesn't have enough interest in his life.

reg · Aug 3, 2008

C677T said:
Its more of a rant thread I think.

about time somebody understands it....

Iron Flatline · Aug 3, 2008

I am late to this conversation, and may have missed this point... but there is another reason digital MF is superior for Alpha's needs: 16-bit color depth. When you need nuanced gradation of subtle tones (like skin, for example) you need as much color information as possible - especially if you're forced to edit in post-production. Most of the high-end dSLRs (ignoring sabbath's correction for the moment) don't have that kind of color information.

Jedo_03 · Aug 4, 2008

... fuel to the fire...

12.8mpx in RAW converts to 34.9 mpx in TIFF...

and there is little improvement to print quality once you get over 300dpi...

and a full scale print (life-size) of a model would (surely) be produced to be viewed from a distance - say a shopping mall or a shop window, so would not need to be 110% flawless...

and if alpha wishes to be derogative of 35mm DSLR's and their proud users then I suggest it is he who should bugger off and register with an MF or LF forum who may cater more to his professional and ego-istic requirements - and leave us to strive towards the level of perfection he assumes to have achieved.
Jedo

Village Idiot · Aug 4, 2008

Alpha said:
Yes, we do go as far as editing pores. On head-and-shoulders closeup, you can get in close enough to take care of skin well, but on a full-length portrait, things start pixelating FAST when you zoom in on, say, a face. Just because the photo itself isn't of the face only, doesn't mean you don't have to retouch the skin nearly as well.

For other work, maybe you guys are right when it comes to big enlargements. But with 13MP I would NOT feel comfortable printing something like a poster. Once I break about 16x20, skin starts looking bad.

I haven't read past this post yet, but I had a 30x45 print ran for a client. The file that was sent to WHCC was a 1-2mp jpg that was converted from an 8mp CR2 RAW file. It looked amazing. Needless to say, I had to make sure the image was very tight in editing, but the results were worth it. Somthing 12mp would have given me a lot more room to work with.

Alex_B · Aug 4, 2008

Alpha said:
That "troll extraordinaire" title was not my doing. It's out of my control.

Is that true? All us other trolls decided actively for troll in our title

Alpha · Aug 4, 2008

Jedo_03 said:
12.8mpx in RAW converts to 34.9 mpx in TIFF...

That's like saying a 1DSII coverts to a 1dsIII if you add a third I.

terri · Aug 4, 2008

Alex_B said:
Is that true? All us other trolls decided actively for troll in our title

It's true: Alpha isn't a subscriber, so I can tease him with titles as I see fit, and he can't change it. :lol:

I lifted his current title from his own words in a completely different thread, as a joke.

The amount of pointless jabbing at the OP is disturbing. Who cares why he started the thread? This member is allowed to comment, rant, or toss things out for discussion as much as any other member. If you don't like the thread, then don't comment in it. Move along!

I also see where Bifurcator has apparently overlooked the OP's "NOT OK to edit" and posted his own edit of an example offered up by the OP. He has politely asked for that edit to be removed. I'd really rather not have to be the one to do it - but I will.

Seriously, people. Some common courtesy would be a welcome addition to this thread. Most of you are only making yourselves look petty. :thumbdown:

Bifurcator · Aug 4, 2008

terri said:
I also see where Bifurcator has apparently overlooked the OP's "NOT OK to edit" and posted his own edit of an example offered up by the OP. He has politely asked for that edit to be removed. I'd really rather not have to be the one to do it - but I will.

No, I did not overlook it at all. I checked his name and there was nothing there. not an "OK" and not a "Not OK". Maybe he didn't set it or maybe you bumped it off while you were adding his extra title.

Then 10 messages later he changed it to "Not OK".

Bifurcator · Aug 4, 2008

I notice quite a few members with older join dates (his is Mar 2005) have no status at all by their names.

terri · Aug 4, 2008

Bifurcator said:
No, I did not overlook it at all. I checked his name and there was nothing there. not an "OK" and not a "Not OK". Maybe he didn't set it or maybe you bumped it off while you were adding his extra title.

Then 10 messages later he changed it to "Not OK".

No hon, I didn't "bump off" anything.

And lose the edit as you were asked, along with your attitude. Who cares when it was added; you were asked yesterday to remove it.

Alex_B · Aug 4, 2008

calm down everyone please.

Bifurcator · Aug 4, 2008

Really, be calm. I have no attitude here. At least none that I'm aware of.

terri · Aug 4, 2008

Bifurcator said:
Really, be calm. I have no attitude here. At least none that I'm aware of.

Why, I'm very calm, but thanks for caring. I removed the edit since you refused to abide by the OP's request. Check your PM's, and run along and play nice. :sun: