It's more than likely the paper. The Monograph was on a very smooth matte paper while the new portfolios, including Namibia, are on Han Fine Art Rag, a paper with a courser texture.
I also have learned a lot about sharppening in the past five years. I no longer do it quite as aggressively.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=93710\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That satisfies my curiosity and also makes me learn that, quite often, too much sharpening (or, really, too much technological perfection) makes you miss focus from the artistic values (the real protagonist) towards the technology, that should be hidden and transparent to the viewer.
Regarding what Palu sais regarding that 'je ne se quoi' that digital has, I've experienced the same during the two years that I've been shooting in parallel analog and digital (Dimage A2, 8Mp)
What I've experienced is that in digital, things close to the camera (about 1 to 5 meters) are extremely well defined and sharp (unnaturally sharp I would say). But by the contrary, things far from the camera, although perfect in focus, if they are complex and out of the sensor or lens resolving power, (pine leaves far from the camera, for example), appear pasted and sharpening only make thigs worse.
In analog, things out of the resolving power of the film o lenses have a more pleasant (at least for me) aspect, and sharpening tend to enhance it a bit, instead of increase the pasting.
In film, images are more even, and degradation towards the resolving limits is more continuous than in digital, where there is and abrupt transition from an incredibly sharpnes to almost total pasting.
At least that is my experience with hundreds of similar photograps taken, without moving the tripod, with a Minolta Dimage A2 and a Minolta Dynax 800Si with original 24-85mm lenses and Velvia 100F, and cannot tell if this can be extrapolated to the high end digital cameras.
I'm willing forward Canon decides to replace the 5D to make the final transition to digital, anyway.
Manuel
