Re: digital prints
- From: John Turco <jtur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 02:26:00 -0500
"Mr.Bolshoyhuy" wrote:
Comparing P&S, no cropping or re-touching, 35mm prints are by far
better quality than digital ones no matter which studio or printer I
use.
You could easily spot the pixels on digital prints (4x6) especially on
curves, faces, eyes, or any non-straight surfaces.
Yes, you do have to look real close and have perfect vision, or a
magnifying glass.
I have printed from a 4mp, 5mp, 6mp, 10mp P&S, pro-sumer, and pro
cameras.
DSLR prints do look better, but not by that much that I wouldnt be
able to tell if the photo is made by a film or digital camera.
You could enlarge or crop 35mm prints (ISO100 or 200), and still not
notice pixelation. I wouldnt try going above 4x6 prints with a P&S
digital camera.
However, viewing on the monitor, I certainly cant tell if a digital
pic was taken with a 4mp or 10mp camera.
Hello, Mr.Bolshoyhuy:
Well, I don't know what your particular issues are, but I've been
very satisfied, with my (relatively few) digital prints. Here are
the digicams involved:
Kodak DC3200 (1 megapixel)
Kodak DX3900 (3MP)
Kodak V603 (6MP)
Norcent DC-1020 (10MP)
The vast majority were done, at local stores. My old Epson "Stylus
Photo 825" inkjet cranked out a handful of them, also, and they were
nearly as good as the commercial ones.
Cordially,
John Turco <jtur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
.
- References:
- digital prints
- From: Mr.Bolshoyhuy
- digital prints
- Prev by Date: Re: Did I buy the worst two Nikon cameras (or are they all this bad?)
- Next by Date: Re: Emailing photo attachments (file size)
- Previous by thread: Re: digital prints
- Next by thread: Re: digital prints
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
