Le mercredi 04 Octobre 2006 16:58, Chuck Norcutt a écrit :
> AG Schnozz wrote:
>
> Sorry, the only one I hear these complaints from is you. Here's the 3MP
> D30 vs a high quality Imacon 3200 dpi scan of a Provia shot. Both look
> fine to me and pretty much equivalent. What small differences I see are
> of the same type that I might relate to a different type of film.
> <http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d30/d30_vs_film.shtml>
>
> I think your "positional" argument for film doesn't hold water. Things
> on film are positioned no more accurately than the size of the film
> grains which are actually pretty large. The analog nature of film
> begins to break down right there.
I disagree ; when I look at both pictures, clearly the digital one looks to me
flatter than the film one. In fact, I agree that when you just look at
details, both are equivalent, but when you look at the full frame, the film
image gives a better sense of volumes : the EDS letters, the ribs on the
white blob, they're all much better looking on film. This is a feeling that's
not resolution related, obviously.
I think we, human beings, need a certain level of "dirt" in our inputs to
enjoy something, be it music or images[*]. That's the soul of art. I don't
care if a picture is not surgicaly "clean". I want to feel life in it, and
digital brings me no life.
[*] I played the violin for some years, and we were taught to avoid playing
'empty strings' ; instead, it was advised we should seek to play the same
sound on the immediately lower string, with a finger on the adequate spot, to
bring 'life' in this sound.
--
Manuel Viet
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|