[pure-silver] Re: Comparing the Image Quality of Film and Digital
- From: "bobkiss @caribsurf.com" <bobkiss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 14:32:56 -0400
DEAR MARK,
Surely you jest! (I know, don't call you Shirley!). All seriousness
aside, I miss Kodachrome all the time. It was my standard 35 mm film for
fashion and advertising during my 20 years in NYC. And I shot lots for
personal work as well. I think I went through 3 or 4 300 roll cases per
year (900 to 1200 rolls). Though I loved E6 in my 'Blad, Kodachrome was
king for 35 mm.
CHEERS!
BOB
On Tuesday, December 30, 2014, <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Well after researching this to my little heart is content, I find two
> things that seem to apply after I boil it down.
>
> First you will never get an accurate picture of film vs digital from
> numbers. With some numbers film is much better, but the data you capture
> from digital seems to be a much cleaner data. That gives you very
> different advantages. Film I believe still does some things much better in
> a perfect world. Yet how often do we live in the perfect world? You might
> make the perfect portrait on film, but on that day he subject has a pimple
> on their nose. How many people can go back by hand and perfectly match the
> print and retouch by hand that pimple to the point that there isn't a trace
> of it ever being there. Some here probably can, but they are few and far
> between, its becoming a lost art, its time consuming and expensive. That
> means its going to usually wind up digital. Even with landscapes and such,
> who hasn't been frustrated by a road sign that's in the way or a power line
> that gets in the way.
>
> Technically the film with a wet print might be better by the numbers, but
> no one really wants that pimple on their nose. The question becomes, is it
> really better print if the distraction remains? It also begs the question
> is different always better? Leaving the question of the pimple aside,
> there is no doubt film and a wet print will produce a different print than
> a digital print, but is it practically a better print? Yeah you can
> probably find lab results to support either argument, but lab results don't
> react. People do.
>
>
>
> The other thing I seemed to find is that technique is really secondary to
> the talent and insights of the photographer. A good photographer that
> understands lighting can work effectively in either medium. My experience
> though is a good film photographer has a much easier time adapting to
> digital, than a digital photographer has adapting to film If it were up to
> me, every student of photography would start out with something like a
> Pentax K 1000, all manual, a couple of lenses, some plus X or Tri X film
> and a few rolls of kodachrome.
>
> But sad to say they done took my Kodachrome away. Have to settle for some
> E 6, but the principles are the same. Anyone else miss kodachrome?
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Comparing the Image Quality of Film and
> Digital
> From: "bobkiss @caribsurf.com" <bobkiss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bobkiss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx');>>
> Date: Tue, December 30, 2014 6:32 am
> To: "pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx');>" <
> pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx');>>
>
> 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
>
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 12:36 AM, Peter Badcock <peter.badcock@xxxxxxxxx
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','peter.badcock@xxxxxxxxx');>> wrote:
>
>> On 23 December 2014 at 04:54, Eric Nelson <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx');>> wrote:
>>
>>> I found the last photo interesting to think about.
>>> http://petapixel.com/2014/12/18/comparing-image-quality-film-digital/
>>>
>>>
>> Thanks Eric. Just the other day I was chatting with somebody at work
>> about any obvious benefits of film over digital, with the main one being a
>> better dynamic range. It is good to know that film can still out-do
>> digital on the basis of similar costing equipment (rather than the criteria
>> of similar sensor & film size).
>>
>> Dynamic Range
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_versus_film_photography#Dynamic_range>
>> "Carson Wilson informally compared Kodak Gold 200 film with a Nikon D60
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_D60> digital camera and concluded
>> that "In this test a high-end consumer digicam fell short of normal
>> consumer color print film in the area of dynamic range."[14]
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_versus_film_photography#cite_note-14>
>> The digital camera industry is attempting to address the problem of
>> dynamic range. Some cameras have an automatic exposure bracketing
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_bracketing> mode, to be used in
>> conjunction with high dynamic range imaging
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imaging> software"
>>
>> Regards
>> Peter
>>
>>
> 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:
