Replies

Um, right, "no problem". As long, that is, as there's "no problem" with snapshot quality prints of 8x10 or smaller

Your a little out of touch when it comes to digital photography. Most newer 3 MegaPixel cameras in the highest quality mode can produce up to 16 x 20 size prints with no Pixelation and can be up sized to as large as 20 x 30 with the same print quality as 35mm film. And today's 3 megapixel cameras are quickly being replaced by 4, 5, and 6 megapixel cameras.

Just because a photograph is produced by digital means, does not make it an inferior photograph. It is the content of the photograph that matters. The digital photographer is still 'painting with light'.

If you really believe that, your concept of "quality" vis-a-vis must be based on disposable P&S "cameras".

Hint: there's a lot more than "4, 5, [or] 6 megapixel[s]" of information in a good 35mm image.

To put it in perspective, my 2700 DPI film scanner, which translates to ~10.9 megapixels -- doesn't approach what the medium is capable of delivering.

There's a lot of instant ex-spurts spouting nonsense as if it was gospel, with their ideas of reality filtered through the fifty cent molded plastic lenses of toss-away cardboard cameras.

Sad, but at least it proves my point about the tragic defining-down of photographic standards.

PS:

"Just because a photograph is produced by digital means, does not make it an inferior photograph. It is the content of the photograph that matters."

Where have I heard this before?

Oh, yeah -- it's the battle-cry of legions of Diana and Holga "artists".

*chuckle*

"The digital photographer is still 'painting with light'."

So in other words, a kid with fingerpaints is capable of blowing Rembrandt out of the water. After all, they're both still "painting with paint".

Get back with me after you've seen some real professional quality silver halide based photographic work. Any kid with an oatmeal box and a pinhole can make fuzzy impressionistic crap, although I'll grant it's easier to churn out with a Diana, but -- call me old-fashioned -- I prefer what the "paint-with-paint" boys call "photo-realism".

Very discouraging that it's becoming an increasingly alien concept to the "paint-with-light" bunch.

Um, yeah, I'm "out of touch". Um-hum, sure. Whatever.