Our respective views of digital and film are highly colored by how we
use our cameras. I shot over 600 images yesterday at a bat mitzvah.
200 of those will likely be culled due to technical problems... out of
focus, bad exposure, etc. since a large part of it was shot with flash
in semi-darkness. Of the remaining 400 about 100 or so will be chosen
to be shown to the client. Some of the key images will get some
retouching before the client ever sees them; meaning there's no
guarantee those images will sell. Many more of the final choices will
also get retouched.
It wouldn't be feasable to work like this using film. And spending
$25/pop on a drum scan is simply out of the question even if it could
produce a much better image which I think is now questionable. As to
the utility of drum scanning you might want to read this:
<http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml>
For the way you work and especially for black & white, film continues to
make sense. It certainly makes sense for you economically and quality
wise for black & white. But I think when it comes to color that film
has already met its technical match. It has most certainly met its
economic match for the way I often work.
Chuck Norcutt
Bruce Nolting wrote:
> An interesting read. His best digital images seem to be neck and neck
> with his best 35mm images to me. And the medium format images blow them
> both away, of course. It seems to me that the performance of the 35mm
> images is due more to scanner limitations than film limitations. I
> suspect that if he had sent good slides over to West Coast Imaging and
> had them scanned on the Heidelberg Tango drum scanner he would have
> quite a pleasant surprise. Yes, that costs more money than processing a
> RAW file in PS, but so what. I can process a heck of a lot of E-6 and
> send the best slides to West Coast for scanning for the many thousands
> of dollars it would cost me to convert completely to digital (and then
> keep up with the new models every year as the old ones malfunctioned).
> I'm quite sure John H. will be able to keep my OM's running until I'm
> too decrepit to use them. My old Yashica TLR is still almost like new
> after 40 years and my 4x5 was made in 1938 or thereabouts - both of them
> will probably last my grandkids to the end of their days. I'm not
> anti-digital, I use it all the time and there are certainly areas where
> it works best. I couldn't run my web biz without it. I just find that
> film gives me both better quality and better value when it comes to my
> "serious" photography - primarily landscapes and nature stuff. That's
> for color work. For black and white there's still nothing that even
> comes close to a well done FB print toned in selenium (IMHO, of course).
> The fact that I like getting in there and playing with the chemicals
> much more than sitting in front of a screen is just a bonus.
>
> Anyway, digital is certainly here to stay. So, I might add, is film.
>
> Just my 2 photons worth.
>
> Bruce
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx
>>[mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Chuck Norcutt
>>Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 4:07 PM
>>To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
>>Subject: [OM] Re: When digital is no good...
>>
>>
>>Try reading the following:
>>Part 1:
>><http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html>
>>Part 2:
>><http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7A.html>
>>Comparison of several digital cameras with film:
>><http://www.gnyman.com/Digital%20Cameras%20comparison%20with%2
>>0Film.htm>
>>
>>In theory, 20MP may be correct but, in practice, when you
>>scan with that
>>much resolution whatever is there tends to be masked and
>>hidden by the
>>grain. Sometimes the grain even gives the impression of
>>detail that's
>>really not there.
>>
>>Chuck Norcutt
>>
>>
>>Bruce Nolting wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I seem to recall reading somewhere that in order to match the
>>>information content (resolution, color depth, etc.) of a
>>
>>professional
>>
>>>grade 35mm slide (one taken on pro-grade film such as Velvia, using
>>>good equipment and technique) it would take at least a 20
>>
>>mp sensor.
>>
>>>I haven't seen anything that leads me to doubt that, yet,
>>
>>either. Now
>>
>>>to go try and dig up the reference...
>>>
>>>Bruce
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>As regards detail on digital and film, an 8Mp Canon 20D clearly
>>>>>surpasses what you can record on 35mm Provia.
>>>>
>>>>I'm afraid that absolutely nothing I have ever read or seen
>>>>suggests to me that that might possibly be true.
>>>>
>>>>Regards,
>>>>
>>>>Simon
>>>>==============================================
>>>>List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>>>>List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>>==============================================
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>==============================================
>>>List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>>>List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>==============================================
>>>
>>
>>
>>==============================================
>>List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>>List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>>==============================================
>>
>
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|