Wow, I'm back only a week and already we're back to that old discussion! Here's
two thoughts, one old, one new.
First, I really, really, really, really, really object to the now standard of
comparing a digital photo with a scan of a slide. That's just plain wrong.
Aside from the question of mode of viewing (many who make that comparison view
on a monitor, not exactly a way to see fine differences), you have just
introduced an additional step in the film end of things. What you should be
comparing is a print of the digital file (inkjet or silver, don't care) with a
print of the slide. The differences would then be obvious. I'm not saying that
you will necessarily prefer one over the other, just that you will have given
each medium its own best opportunity to show what it can do. You will not be
trying to squeeze one into the other's box.
I've been thinking about this at least as much as any of you. What really
brought this to mind was when my lab went from a standard optical printer for
their machine prints to a scan and print system. There was something that I
didn't like about the results. They didn't look as sharp to me. Not just my own
images, mind you, but all I saw from the system.
Under careful examination with a 12x loupe, the detail was all there. In fact,
images often presented finer detail than the optical prints, yet under normal
viewing, seemed soft. (bear in mind that this machine isn't at a minilab, it
is in a pro lab that caters to commercial shooters, so all the software
enhancements were subdued at the very least.)
Those of you that shoot motion picture filim or video will see where I'm going.
I don't really care that much for video. Take your local TV station's news
broadcasts. These go directly from the video camera to your screen, and in most
cases, they look about as sharp as anything on the screen. Yet, I know that the
local station's cameras don't come close to the abilities of an average 35mm MP
camera.
When you look at the picture analytically, you can see that the video looks
sharper because the edges are crisp and well defined. The overall picture has a
snappy look as the colors are all well saturated. What's missing is fine detail
and a long tonal range. Well, grain is missing, too, and that's how we get to
my point.
Quite a few of you, and a great majority of photographers in general, find two
things essential in your photos. Most important is a complete lack of grain.
(for us older folks, we either detest it or don't mind it, based on our
memories of such wonderful films as CPS) Another is well defined edges. These
are two things digital gives us in spades.
What I miss about digital is the apparent sharpness that we get from a
well-made, hand-made optical print from a fine grain film. There's something
about crisp fine grain that, to me, makes a print look really good.
Yeah, I know many of you disagree with me on grain, and that's why I think a
lot of us disagree on what's better, film or digital. That's also why I think
the debate will never reach a final resolution, at least until all us
old-timers are long gone.
Bill Pearce
"Hi, my name is Bill, and I don't hate grain." "Hello, Bill, welcome to Grain
Lovers Anonomynous!"
__________________________________________________________________
New! Unlimited Netscape Internet Service.
Only $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register
Act now to get a personalized email address!
Netscape. Just the Net You Need.
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|