I really wish I could find it but I can't! Many years ago there was a comparison between digital and film pictures of some things I really knew the look of. It was a laugh really, the digital picture was a very good representation of the item, the film was -nowhere near- not even close.
In 2005 we had a holiday in Iceland. We were doing a fair bit of hiking so I took my Mamiya 7 6x7 film camera. I also took the Canon EOS 1Ds Mk2 which I had by then been using for perhaps 8 months. Even using the somewhat mediocre 16-35mm Canon zoom lens my prints from the Canon were surprisingly close to the results from the Mamiya. This is clearly subjective.
When you talk of image fidelity what aspects? There has -never- been a film with particularly accurate colours. The dynamic range of any film I used to use is exceeded by the digital camera I now use. The tonal gradation is much smoother in digital too. The best digital sensors exceed the resolution of most of the lenses available for them too, although resolution of both film and digital are adequate for me for the size of prints I produce. I can even use my vintage lenses on my M8 and get the "look" whenever I want, B&W or colour.
cheers, Frank On 12 Jan, 2009, at 17:46, austin.franklin@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Hi Frank,For medium format or what used to be called "miniature format" when I started photography this is not true.You're putting an Allard with a Cortina in one sentence... For medium format, no commerciall available full frame (as opposed to scanning) digital imaging system that I know of can match the image fidelity ofmedium format (except perhaps in some circumstances 645). For 35mm, in most circumstances, I agree, digital has equal to or higher image fidelitythan film. But it is interesting that you said:The fact that some people prefer the sound of analogue is not evidence that it is betterThe same is true of digial imaging. Because some prefer digitallyoriginated images (as in shot using a digital sensor, as opposed to scanned film printed digitally) to film does not mean they are "better". Peopleseem to prefer distortion...OK, that explans why lower fidelity analog recordings are preferred by some...and with digital, some people thinksharpness is an indication of a "better" image. A sharper image does not mean the image has higher image fidelity. The sharpest image you can get in fact has quite low image fidelity...a pure black square next to a pure white square. Well, that is unless you happen to have taken a picture of apure black and white square that is. Regards, Austin -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web --- Rollei List - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org- Online, searchable archives are available at //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
--- Rollei List - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
