[pure-silver] Re: Film Still Wins ... Even Compared To Leica 18MPix
- From: "Edward C. Zimmermann" <edz@xxxxxxx>
- To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 10:51:27 +0200
The "gag" is that he is comparing a camera representative of the current
generation of digital imaging capable of capturing lower light images with
slow speed "underdeveloped" microfilm. The microfilm used in Nanospeed
Orthopan UR has a different spectral sensitivity than the sensor and the
developer provides a maximum speed of under 25 ISO. Its apples and koala bears.
But also correct.. sharpness is a cognitive quality not directly tied to
resolution or gain size. Heribert Schain--- the chemist behind the Nanospeed
developers (and also once partner with Detlef Ludwig in "Gigabit Film" where
he also formulated its first generation developer)--- has also written about
this. Detlef Ludwig did so as well...
People have, of course, been mucking about with "underdeveloping" high
contrast films (micro and document films) to tame its contrast for decades.
Back in the 1950s Beutler experimented widely with document film and nearly 40
years ago H&W control even sold developer and film kits based around
microfilm. These products failed to be widely accepted because they were very
finicky and prone to exposure "errors". The big advance that Heribert has
provided with his SPUR formulations is somewhat higher speed and better
development latitude.
I think for fine art and self documentation (pictures that are intended to
last which includes also baby photos and all those "memory" snapshots that
Kodak used to market to) film still wins.. by a large margin.. but the issues
are less, I think, the resolution or sharpness but the ease and cost of
archiving and the availability and cost of technology for its reproduction---
We've seen over the last few years not just tapes and floppy disks but also
magneto optical drives and media discontinued by their makers. Much of the
images digitally captured today by people shall against their will or intent
turn into "goo" as did the video films that replaced their 8/16mm films in the
mid to late 1970s... The minimum technical demands to "save" digital images is
horribly underestimated. Most of us in this list, by contrast, widely
overestimate the minimum effort to maintain film archives. Negatives and
prints tossed into a shoe box seem to survive relatively well...
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 10:45:30 +1000, Peter Badcock wrote
> The author claims that
>
> "We know that there is a tight correlation between the recording of fine
detail and the sharpness of the edge of major subject outlines. The more
resolution you have, the better the edge contrast and thus the overall image
sharpness. "
>
> I thought Barry Thornton debunked that myth in his book Edge of Darkness.
> Barry has example photos using Kodak Technical Pan 25 ASA film exhibiting
less sharpness than higher ASA films. Of course Technpan has more
resolution/finer grain.
>
> rgds
> Peter
>
> On 2 June 2010 06:45, Tim Daneliuk <tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> http://www.imx.nl/photo/Film/page169/page169.html
>
--
Edward C. Zimmermann, NONMONOTONIC LAB
=============================================================================================================
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:
