hey hey, boring question No2 for today...
Digital - at least to me - looks better. not only in screen but at some
prints (1600 ISO film and digital 6x9 prints)
when it comes to close ups, i enjoy the crisp edges and the shinny surfaces
of palstic and mettalic materials
and i can vividly remember 2 digital roses in Pf gallery that loook so 3D!
so is it only me?
and...
why is that so?
i am only theorizing, but does it have to do with the pixels being so well
distributed in the surface?
i mean either digital or film, it is sambling of the image we are making,
getting a sample of the oh so millions of molecules of its surface.
in digital photography, sampling is done with well organized samplers, while
on film it is performed by unevenly distributed emulsion grains. i
hypothesize that few grains are side by side...i feel they mosttly overlap
leaving gaps between them, gaps that are not always "covered" by grains in a
lower emusion "layer"...
is that so?
===============================================
so... no matter what, CHEER UP MY FRIENDS! Life is too precious to jump the
other side of the fence...
kostas papakotas / clenched teeth photography
http://groups.msn.com/clenchedteethphotography/home.html
'COS SOMETIMES IT IS BETTER WITH CLENCHED TEETH!
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
