[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 16:56:57 -0400
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:
