[rollei_list] Re: [OT] film vs digital (National Geographic)

  • From: "Robert Meier" <robertmeier@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 19:56:45 -0500 (CDT)

The writing in NG is still good. There are lots of interesting and well-written articles, and on subjects that other publications don't cover.
----- Original Message ----- From: "ERoustom" <eroustom@xxxxxxxxxxx> 
To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 7:52 PM
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: [OT] film vs digital (National Geographic)


Interesting. What I saw when last looked at the most current issue of
the NG Magazine was poor quality (mass-distribution style) presswork
and cheap thin paper. I'd be surprised if the switch from slide to
digital has anything to do with it. Taking a color photo and breaking
it into process colors, is digital RGB to digital CMYK regardless of
origin, and something is lost there, and then again when the ink hits
the paper. Commercial printing, if anything, is what digital
photography serves best. But even the most talented professionals
using the most compatible tools and processes can't stand up to the
forces of the marketplace.

What should be commented about are the heroics of National Geographic
photographers, and the magazine's outstanding production standards -
in the 70s 80s and the 90s - even the writing was good!

E.


On Aug 6, 2007, at 8:23 AM, Frank Dernie wrote:
I used to shoot Velvia and Kodachrome 64 in 35mm film and Velvia and Astia in 120. Velvia produces exaggerated rather than accurate colours, most people love it. One of my professional friends changed from Velvia to digital this year. He has a "Velvia" plugin which gives his preferred colour exaggerations to his digital files, he bought it from a vendor somewhere, I may get it myself too. 
I also used to subscribe to NG but don't now.
Frank

On 6 Aug, 2007, at 12:51, Carlos Manuel Freaza wrote:


Yes Frank, it was my point about the slide, but the
way you use a slide for publication is different
regarding the way you do a Cibachrome or Ilfochrome
print, for a magazine or book and the like the slide
offers a pattern to control and to maintain the same
colors along the process up to the final product
inclusive, the final image quality depends about the
original quality and about the pre-press and press
processes quality.

Publications like National Geographic magazine
published photographs on the basis of 35mm slides for
a 90% and a few of MF and color negative and B&W film,
but from two years ago the images became 90% digital
and only one of the regular photographers use film for
his work, as NGM collector from several years ago, I
couldn't perceive any improvement for the images
quality, in the other hand I find most images lost
bright and vividness and I miss those deep and bright
colors you can find in images from a Velvia 50 for
example.
I bought NGM every month for the images mainly, now I
onoly buy it if a I think some article could be
interesting.-

All the best
Carlos

--- Frank Dernie <Frank.Dernie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
escribió:


It is true that slides are for projection originally
but for the
latter period I used 35mm film, and now in medium
format, slides are
the requested medium for publication - though there
are only a tiny
minority of professionals still using film.
Movies are a different thing altogether. Our eyes
are much more
tolerant in moving pictures - try looking how awful
a frozen movie
frame looks. In addition the cost of re-equipping
many thousands of
cinemas with new equipment when the existing stuff
is good enough for
the quality required doesn't make much sense.

I completely understand the personal preference of
an individual for
the film medium for storage reasons. I still use
film for the fun of
using my older cameras. I use digital for quality
and flexibility.
Frank

On 6 Aug, 2007, at 11:07, Carlos Manuel Freaza
wrote:


Slides were made to project them on a screen using

an

analog projector and for traditional no digital
graphic arts, could you project a digital image

using

an analog projector?, no, you couldn't do it.

Prints

from slides are an exceptional use.
Digital and film have reached and surpassed the

human

eye limits to distinguish an improvement for the

image

if both means are well processed and manipulated,
there are personal preferences and necessities and
situations to choose one of them, I still prefer

film

in general because it's a very stable and reliable

way

to keep my images, it does not mean I can't use a
digital camera for some reason sometimes.
BTW, most of the cinematographic industry still

use

35mm film, most of the theaters owners don't see

an

advantage for the digital projection, if they

adopt

the digital projection some day, the reason

wouldn't

be the quality.

All the best
Carlos



--- Frank Dernie <Frank.Dernie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
escribió:


Certainly the convenience of digital was its

first

attraction to me.
I hesitated for a while because the web pundits

said

it was not very
good, even though I suspect that, like me, they

had

never used it and
were referring to some theoretical shortcoming.
When I borrowed a digital P&S, purchased to

record

wind tunnel model
shots as an aide memoire to the technicians, I

found

I got results
way better than I would have believed possible

had

the pundits been
right. I still have a print from one of the shots

I

did with this
camera hanging on a wall.
This piqued my interest.
In summary I would say that the results I get

from

my EOS 1Ds Mk2 are
much better than 35mm slide film in every way.

The

dynamic range is
comparable, every other aspect is easily visibly
superior.
The results I get from my Rolleiflex and Mamiya 7
are visibly
superior, though by less than I would have

expected.

Producing a
satisfactory print from a Rollei or Mamiya slide
takes me very much
longer than from the digital. I now have a Leica

M8

which may be
superior to all of them, the prints are fabulous,
but I haven't
bothered to compare yet.
FWIW.
Frank


On 6 Aug, 2007, at 05:37, Peter J Nebergall

wrote:



Convenience is God here.  Everyne is in a hurry,

and anything that can

get the job done faster, and with the paying for

less labor, will

please
the bean-counters.

PJ Nebergall

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 07:59:10 -0400 Douglas

Nygren

<dnygr@xxxxxxxxxx>

writes:

Yes. Superior in what sense? The answer will

depend on what one

considers superior.

Doug


On Jul 21, 2007, at 7:30 AM, Frank Dernie

wrote:



Wrong. Different yes, better demonstrably not.

That some prefer

either

is a matter of taste not superiority of one or

the other.

Frank

On 20 Jul, 2007, at 23:20, Eric Goldstein

wrote:



film and vinyl are and will continue to be...


---
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











_____________________________________________________________________ _




=== message truncated ===
_____________________________________________________________________ _______________ 
¡Sé un mejor ambientalista!
Encontrá consejos para cuidar el lugar donde vivimos.
http://ar.yahoo.com/promos/mejorambientalista.html
---
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



---
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:

  1. Home
  2. rollei_list
  3. Archive
  4. 08-2007