At 12:12 PM 2/11/2003 +0200, you wrote:
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?
Thank you very much. Sincerely, Brian Blankenship B & N Graphics http://www.bngraphics.com
