RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercialphotography

["Austin Franklin" <darkroom@ix.netcom.com>]

> > A 6M pixel camera, assume 2000 x 3000, will give you a very
> nice 8x10-11x14,
> > but that's about the limits unless you use Genuine Fractals you
> won't get
> > very good looking images above that.  For general reception
> (candid) shots,
> > a digital "35mm equivalent" should work OK, but I certainly
> would not use it
> > for formals.
>
> the arithmetic doesn't tell the whole story with digital files.
> They blow up
> far beyond what you would expect.

Yes, and no.

> the reason is almost entirely to do with
> the lack of noise in the image. For example, I would be happy to print a 6
> Mpx file up to 20x16. The lack of grain fools you almost completely. It
> makes you realise how much noise there is even in MF 100 asa film, and how
> this affects our perception of the image.

Take a good look into areas with detail.  Digital cameras do hold edges
quite well, but they lack in detail.  That isn't noise or grain...but
missing detail!

I have a digital camera, both a 3.3M pixel and a Hasselblad back...and yes,
they do look quite good, when the prints are small.  But, they both pale in
comparison to real MF film.