De: Frank Dernie <Frank.Dernie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Asunto: [rollei_list] Re: OT Ancient Computers (was Re: Re: Rollei -
Singapore) now analogue versus digital
Para: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fecha: martes, 13 de enero de 2009, 5:38 am
The grains in the emulsion are not that thick. The 3
dimensionality
you see is, in my opinion, more likely to be an optical
characteristic
than anything to do with grains verses pixels, which I do
not think
differ as greatly as you imply.
I still get a great 3 dimensional look to my pictures using
my Leica
M8 like I did with my M6 on film. IMHO it is a lens
characteristic.
Pity I can't get a digital image from my 3.5f to
compare!
best regards.
Frank
On 12 Jan, 2009, at 21:01, Carlos Manuel Freaza wrote:
The limit to appreciate the image quality is the human
eye capacity,
film and digital means have surpassed the human eye
capacity to
appreciate sharpness differences widely, f.e. the
human eye can't
distinguish in the monitor screen a digital image at
24 bits and at
48 bits, the human eye can't distinguish a printed
image denser than
X lines per mm. The issue is the way the observer
perceive the image
and there is a real difference for grain and pixels,
it is difficult
or impossible to see in the monitor screen in general,
however a
well worked analog image has a three dimensions
quality due to the
grains physical structure absent in the pure pixel
image.
Carlos
--- El lun 12-ene-09, Frank Dernie
<Frank.Dernie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
escribió:
De: Frank Dernie
<Frank.Dernie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Asunto: [rollei_list] Re: OT Ancient Computers
(was Re: Re: Rollei -
Singapore) now analogue versus digital
Para: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fecha: lunes, 12 de enero de 2009, 5:21 pm
Carlos,
I have been taking pictures since I was 11, in
1961. For
most of that time I have had my own darkroom. I am
quite
aware of what one can do with film, and obviously
better
technicians that I can get better results than I.
However
the dynamic range of readily available digital
sensors
exceeds that of colour films now. The non linear S
shape to
the characteristic curve of films does allow more
detail to
be seen in either highlights or shadows if so
manipulated.
Similar manipulations are possible on digital
files if
desired.
There is a potential for Moire effects when there
is detail
in a scene and resolution in the lens high enough
to exceed
the resolution of the sensor. Anti-aliasing
filters are the
normal way to avoid this effect, in electronics
too. In the
case of photography there are sensors which exceed
the
resolution of all but a few of the most
specialised lenses
available for the camera. The anti-aliasing filter
is
probably not necessary in those cases since the
function is
carried out by the lens. My Leica M8 does not have
an anti
aliasing filter and I have yet to be unable to
deal with any
unfortunate artefacts due to this. Quite the
opposite in
fact, I get better results from it than I do from
my
theoretically superior Canon EOS 1Ds mk2, thought
that is
probably the better lenses.
Sharpening can certainly be overdone, but it is
not
commonly the case, and I certainly would advise
not to
over-sharpen :-)
On digital one eventually gets to individual
pixels, like
on film one eventually gets to individual grains.
There is a
difference but just a question of how you deal
with it, this
difference between film and digital is not IMHO
significant.
The only area where I have found digital a bit
more
difficult than film is in focussing. My M8 is so
much
sharper than my M6 with Kodachrome that any small
focussing
errors, either due to myself or the dreaded focus
shift on
stopping down, are much more troublesome than were
revealed
by the somewhat more forgiving softness (and
perhaps
variations in flatness???) of film.
best regards,
Frank
On 12 Jan, 2009, at 19:55, Carlos Manuel Freaza
wrote:
Frank, I really can't imagine the way you
use your
film cameras to obtain those conclusions.
Films have personality; DSLRs don't. While
many
DSLRs let you dial in higher or lower saturation
and
contrast, those crude adjustments can't
compare to the
richness of film, whether Velvia's crisp,
saturated look
or the delicate tonal shoulder of Tri-X.
(Black-and-white is
a particular challenge for digital, especially
in-camera.)
Film can be manipulated to soak up even more
of a
scene's tonal extremes. You can rein in
highlights by
"pulling," or shortening, the
development of
b&w film. You compensate for this by adding
exposure
when shooting, improving shadow detail. You can
overexpose
color negative film by as much as four stops to
increase
shadow detail and reduce contrast, without
damaging
highlight nuances.
Some super-duper digital backs claim to match
or
exceed the range captured by film. If you can
afford them,
go for it -- and bring along your laptop.
You can sharpen a digital image in software.
And with
most DSLRs you must, because images are
considerably
softened by anti-aliasing filters that keep their
sensors
from recording jagged edges and moiré patterns.
Yet if you
overdo your sharpening, the image can take on a
distractingly "crispy" appearance. The
sharpness
you get from film is more natural looking.
(Some parts above were taken from a Pop Photo
article
by Russell Hart)
Digital is very practical to use for a lot of
situations and well balanced images look very nice
in the
monitor screens, but most of them don't show
the detail
richness and tones subtleties you can obtain from
a neg or
slide for prints, magazines, projection, books
etc. and
I'm talking about a 35mm format.
Carlos
--- El lun 12-ene-09, Frank Dernie
<Frank.Dernie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escribió:
If you shoot large format that can be
true.
For medium
format or what used to be called
"miniature
format" when I started photography
this is
not true.
The only film parameter which has the
potential be
better
than digital is -perhaps- resolution, but
only
very slow
black and white films in ideal exposure
conditions.
In all other respects digital is superior
- in my
experience.
My Rolleiflex 6008i is not capable of
producing
colour
pictures to match those from several of my
digital
cameras.
35mm has been behind for years.
I am not aware of -anybody- with in depth
experience of
both who would agree with you.
Perhaps I am going to get the first
convincing
information
as a result of this email!
best regards,
Frank
I am comparing Velvia, Provia, Kodachrome
in
Canon, Leica,
Rollei and Mamiya film cameras (up to
6x7cm) with
digital
from Leica M8, Canon EOS 1Ds mk2 and Nikon
D3.
Most recently
I have been trying a Nikon D3x but have
not formed
any
conclusions yet since I have not shot with
it
enough.
On 12 Jan, 2009, at 16:13, Carlos Manuel
Freaza
wrote:
--- El lun 12-ene-09, Frank Dernie
<Frank.Dernie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
escribió:
In all practical ways digital has
exceeded
the
capability
of film for some time. Certainly
if there
is an
effect which
one wishes to achieve, using a
vintage LF
lens for
example,
film may have to be the choice but
that
does not
make film
better, just an appropriate choice
in some
circumstances.
Film is the best choice when you need
the
highest
image quality.-
Carlos
Yahoo! Cocina
Recetas prácticas y comida saludable
http://ar.mujer.yahoo.com/cocina/
---
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
Yahoo! Cocina
Recetas prácticas y comida saludable
http://ar.mujer.yahoo.com/cocina/
---
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
Yahoo! Cocina
Recetas prácticas y comida saludable
http://ar.mujer.yahoo.com/cocina/
---
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
