[rollei_list] Re: FREE Tri-X
- From: "Eric Goldstein" <egoldste@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:23:00 -0400
I will agree that it was your original comparison that was apples to
oranges, and yes, that it was cavalier and off the cuff. Comparing a
$3000 dSLR to a 35 mm film camera you can buy on eBay for 50 bucks and
get very close to the same image results in many circumstances makes
no sense to me, and pulling digital technology into the discussion
was a "left field" move to begin with.
My point is to try to keep the information which is put out here
accurate. I have no interest in championing or trashing anyone's
method of image-making; I want to try to communicate accurately and
carefully relative to the strengths and weaknesses of various choices
so that we all give folks reliable information.
BTW I was very early in on digital imaging technology in commercial
work environments, as far back as the mid-80s... just in case you
think we are Luddites here on this side of the list ;-)
Eric Goldstein
--
On 4/30/08, Michael Eric Berube <pj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Will you agree with me that comparing APS-C sensor output and 4X5 negs is
> comparing apples and oranges?
>
> Kodak is sending me two rolls of TMax one will be 100 ISO and the other 400
> ISO, both will be 35mm. What I said was my D300 will blow these free rolls
> of new TMax away at 1600ISO in a 16X24 print. Sure this was a bit cavalier
> and off the cuff, but I will not back pedal from it as an exaggerated claim.
> I stand by what I've said. I've seen the quality of a D300 at 1600ISO and
> know the grain in a two stop pushed roll of TMax 400. A D300, properly
> exposed, will produce a better (sharper, cleaner, more defined and better
> colour/tones) image at 1600 ISO than any properly exposed 35mm film at
> 1600ISO on the market today or ever. Period. (and has the advantage of
> shooting in both colour and b&w at the same time.)
>
> You felt the need to add that a D300 image wouldn't stand up to a 4X5 neg
> at any sized print and something wonderfully macho about "kicking my ass
> around the room" and then suggested that I'd "back peddle and claim digital
> is faster and cheaper." I didn't (and wouldn't) try to claim that an APS-C
> DSLR could hold up to the quality of a 4X5 neg.
>
> Amateurs may think in your 'digital default mode' (Hel, most of them think
> that their 12MP digicam is "2" better than my 10MP D200!) but any working
> pro who has shot digital for more than one season realises that Digital
> capture is most certainly not faster, and in no way is it cheaper (again,
> for a professional.) Digital's primary advantage is its superior quality in
> low light use and the far greater control that it offers me over my final
> product. IF I were a hobbiest with a 'real job' or a Fine Art photographer,
> I may have all the time and money in the world to spend in a darkroom on one
> or two prints a day, but I am a Wedding photographer and occasional
> Photojournalist. I need to create consistent work in marketable quantity and
> quality usually from less than ideal lighting situations (dark churches, no
> flash allowed.) If I were still shooting film and relying on a lab to
> produce this work for me, it would definitely be faster (drop my film off
> and pick it up when it is done) and wouldn't cost me nearly as much
> (considering the time spent in post = lots of money) BUT I'd also have
> little to no control over two thirds of 'my' photographic process and my low
> light photos would not meet my or my client's quality expectations. Basic
> economics simply do not support souping my own negs and printing my own
> prints, nor even having someone else soup and scan the negs. In the quantity
> that I'm called on to produce from the available darkness that I'm called on
> to work in, using colour or b&w film in any format is simply impractical.
>
> I'm not here to bash film nor digital either. Nothing to feel threatened
> about or really to argue over.
> Digital capture feeds and clothes my family and I LOVE film in both my
> Rollei MX-EVS and my Leica IIIf RD (and Retina IIIC and Ziess Ikon...) My
> local lab does a decent job of souping and scanning negs for me to play with
> one or two rolls once in a while.
>
> I just can't feed my family using film in this market any longer as it
> doesn't meet my needs. That's all. :)
>
> Peace be with you,
>
> Michael Eric Berube
> ---
> 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
Other related posts:
