[pure-silver] Re: Comparing the Image Quality of Film and Digital
- From: "" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender "kironkid@xxxxxxx" for DMARC)
- To: "pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 21:33:08 -0800
A &I was in North Hollywood. I would drop my Kodachrome off by 3:00PM, and have
my slides by noon the following day.
"A photograph that mirrors reality, cannot compare to one that reflects the
spirit"
On Dec 30, 2014, at 9:04 PM, "Eric Nelson" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
(Redacted sender "emanmb@xxxxxxxxx" for DMARC) wrote:
> Ross-Ehlert Lab had a Kodachrome line in Chicago as well back in those days.
> I think it came about because Kodak had closed their own lab there that it
> became feasible. It was such tricky & expensive process that it had to be
> closed down after a time. I don't recall any pros' comments on the film back
> then other than sharpness, but it was "the thing to do" as it was new-ish,
> snip tests were available, and processing could be done in a reasonable
> amount of time. Kodachrome had always been held in higher regard than
> Ektachrome. Given the large quantity of common, pedestrian subjects in
> commercial work, ektachrome was fine for most shootings.
> I don't know how my chromes or B&W's are doing at this moment as I haven't
> gone to the storage area to look at them in over a year. Also taking them
> out of their protective bags will only invite problems till I have a
> permanent home for them. Our house has been going thru a year-long needed
> update and refurb so storage was the only answer. :(
>
>
>
> On Dec 31, 2014, at 3:56 AM, bobkiss @caribsurf.com wrote:
>
> DEAR RICHARD,
> Don't forget, Kodak also had a Kodachrome processing lab in Fair Lawns,
> N. J. which was where they offered us pros overnight Kodachrome processing.
> I seem to recall a 5:30 pm pickup.
> HOLIDAY CHEERS!
> BOB
>
> On Tuesday, December 30, 2014, Tim Daneliuk <tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 12/30/2014 06:32 AM, bobkiss @caribsurf.com wrote:
>>> DEAR PETER,
>>> If color neg still has a wider dynamic range than digital color images
>>> (raw files I assume) then at the risk of comparing gray apples and colorful
>>> oranges, black and white neg film must tromp raw files as, even with
>>> "normal"
>>> processing, it has a greater dynamic range and, with "N Minus" it can
>>> greatly
>>> exceed raw files. Further, b&w neg can record this wide SBR in one
>>> exposure but
>>> digital requires multiple exposures and post exposure image processing just
>>> go
>>> get a similar effect.
>>> But, as you said, the manufactures are working on extending the range.
>>> Further, from what i understand, the D600 does not produce the same raw
>>> file as
>>> the top of the line Nikon or Canon DSLRs which, allegedly, do produce a
>>> wider
>>> dynamic range raw. Not as good as film yet but it is just a matter for
>>> time.
>>> Then again, I don't think anything will touch the image quality I get
>>> with
>>> my 8X10 for a while! LOL!!!
>>> HOLIDAY CHEERS!
>>> BOB
>>
>> Bob -
>>
>> My experience is that with care in exposure and a good highlight compensating
>> developer like PMK Pyro, I can get a usable SBR of 15+ stops out of a piece
>> of film.
>>
>> Digital cannot remotely do this, but that's not really the whole story. Film
>> is an analog medium that represents *(effectively) continuous* tonality,
>> albeit in a
>> nonlinear way (i.e., The tones are not spaced equally on a log-log HD curve.)
>>
>> Digital presents a *sampling* of the tonal space is a fairly linear (log-log)
>> way. This means that film will capture and reproduce more tonal
>> "information"
>> than digital will.
>>
>> For example, even a 14 bit camera (which is what most of the higher end ones
>> are these days, Hassy excluded), you get get only about 16 thousand or so
>> discrete tonal values (per color). I'd argue that this is where the real
>> difference shows up. Suppose the 0-th value represents complete blackness
>> and the 16 thousandth-value represent the brightest part of a 15 stop SBR.
>> Yes, you'll see both ends of the dynamic range, but a lot of information
>> between them is going to get lost because there are just not enough bits
>> to encode the subtleties of tonal gradation that film can hold.
>>
>> Then there's the problem that all those teeny sensor lenses
>> create diffraction effects way earlier than a pure optical system. This
>> is the reason most digi point-n-shoots hardwire their apertures at about
>> f/5.6 or so because below that you can see diffraction taking place,
>> especially with very dense sensors which have very small individual
>> taking surfaces.
>>
>> Then there is the issue of resolution. The best pro DSLRs are a worthy
>> competitor to 35mm film when it comes to resolving power. But there is
>> nothing even close to a decent medium format neg - again the Hassy H-series
>> probably come closest - and forget trying to render what a decent 4x5 neg
>> can resolve. The silver grains are packed together so tightly that it is
>> going to take a quantum breakthrough in sensor design to begin to hold that
>> kind of detail.
>>
>> But that's not going to happen ... because it doesn't need to. DSLRs are
>> more
>> than good enough for the majority of commercial shooting encounters.
>> Pictures
>> of people don't need huge dynamic range and no one wants detail down to
>> the pore when shooting fashion. Product photos are largely intended for a
>> web display that is (relatively) low resolution. The market for
>> really fine detailed, long SBR images is very small (it's us :) and does
>> not justify the money it would take to build a 4x5 equivalent sensor and
>> A/D converters to hold the equivalent amount of tonal information.
>>
>> Then again, when you see the Photoshopped dreck that is masquerading as
>> art, one could argue that the capture medium is irrelevant in any case. And
>> this too has precedent. I was working in a recording studio some time the
>> first Moog synth became widely used. Everyone was whining about how this
>> would be the death of "real" instruments, the planet was doomed, blah, blah,
>> blah. Well, guess what? Steinway still makes fine pianos and people still
>> learn to play them. The early excesses of synth music were soon surpassed by
>> real musicians making real music irrespective of instrument type. Electronic
>> music (which I largely do not care for) went on to become its own, distinct
>> genre. I think this is what is happening to photography, at least
>> photography
>> as art. The digital world is becoming a hybrid of captured and constructed
>> (in the computer) images. The film world remains a separate artform.
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Tim Daneliuk tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>>
>> =============================================================================================================
>> To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
>> account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you
>> subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
>
Other related posts:
