[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 10:35:29 -0800
I still shoot 98% of my work on film :-)
"A photograph that mirrors reality, cannot compare to one that reflects the
spirit"
On Dec 30, 2014, at 10:32 AM, "bobkiss @caribsurf.com" <bobkiss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> 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>
>> Date: Tue, December 30, 2014 6:32 am
>> To: "pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <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>
>> wrote:
>>> On 23 December 2014 at 04:54, Eric Nelson <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
>>> "Carson Wilson informally compared Kodak Gold 200 film with a 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] The digital camera industry is attempting to address the
>>> problem of dynamic range. Some cameras have an automatic exposure
>>> bracketing mode, to be used in conjunction with 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:
