I find these comparisons between digital and traditional photography
pointless because you're not comparing like with like.
Compare cameras with similar sensor size - e.g. Nikon's D100 with the
F80 and equivalent lenses working at similar ISO values.
Would you compare a Leica with a Linhof? Different tools different jobs.
Would Cartier-Brresson have swopped his Leica for a Speed Graphic?
Or Ansel Adams his LF for a Leica?
Howard
Robert M wrote:
Digital is not always junk. Some traditional prints and images are pure
junk. Some digital is junk. And some traditional images will never be
surpassed by digital. So, digital photography is good and bad; as is
traditional photography.
That being said, most digital does not come near some traditional images. I
am bothered by those that believe it does. It might at some point, but not
now. Digital does make some people lazy because they can rely not on
t
Bob
