Ruey >I am going to bale out of this forum for a while. It is not the best format to present an idea. Ed, this has rarely been a place where people agree on anything and things can get pretty heated, but as a person who likes to hear all sides to a point I've found it invaluable. >Not having an ability to provide pictures and drawings makes it too difficult to explain an idea leading to excess verbosity and disagreement through misunderstanding. Might I suggest you maybe upload images and text where necessary to illustrate your points and direct people to these pages? It's something i've done from time to time when words alone (or numbers) don't cut it.. I'm still working up a page to show why the nyquist limit on resolution for digital cameras should be seen as 1/3 rather than 1/2 (since cameras are used to capture data at angles to the x, y plane ;) and no matter how many words or photos I use, only a diagram using blocks is really going to show it >"Although more direct methods of making color prints have become available, the Kodak Dye Transfer Process continues to have important advantages in many professional applications. It offers unique possibilities for the control of color balance and contrast, as well as unexcelled photographic quality." hey, ilfochrome was vasty superior to RA4 paper.. so a lot of people shot chromes and yet were dissapointed when he tonal range scaled poorly to the print or they shot to a range which would print acceptably - yet Ilfoflex RA4 paper was avaialable, yielded better tones, was cheaper and easier to have photos printed on it - so why had so few people even heard of it or used it? Now Ilford have the same polywester based 'papers' available for inkjets (it has been around for a number of years now) and they exhibit a very close look and feel to the ilfoflex / ilfochromes of yesteryear - but who uses it? I've seen none used in exhibitions, even though the tonal richness, the depth and the clarity is exquisite. <clipped> (Linear resolution comparisons can be estimated by taking the squareroot of the ratio of mexapixels. So a 60 Mpixel camera is about SQRT(60/10) = 2.4 times or SQRT(60/12) = 2.2 times better in linear resolution than a 10 or 12 Mpixel camera. but even that is only when examining linear resolution.. ;) It is generally accepted that 10 to 12 Mpixel cameras are comparable to good 35mm film results. By this standard the very best of non scanning digital cameras, a Hasselblad H4 using Phocus 2 software, is roughly comparable to a good 6x7 cm film image result in resolution making 8x10 film an over 3Xs higher resolution choice with the added benefit of more accurate color, at a far more attractive cost and with the advantages of more archival image storage. So, film is not quite dead yet and I hope B&W film will remain available for many years because it is capable of unexcelled photographic quality. ; ) that's my hope too =D karl
