Well said.
Chuck Norcutt
Moose wrote:
> I finally worked my way through all the posts so far in these threads,
> and have a few random thoughts and observations:
>
> What were significant and interesting questions are less important now.
> Whether a 30D is better or worse than film, in resolution or any other
> aspects; whether the E-1 is better than film or some specific other
> older camera in resolution, etc. etc. really don't mean much any more.
>
> Specifically with the 5D, and probably with other 10+mp cameras,
> resolution is equal to or better than any films that are ordinarily used
> for day to day photography by anybody here that I know of, using methods
> normally available to us to get them into the digital realm.
>
> For an increasing number of photographers, the preferred medium of
> display of their images is a screen, not a print or a slide. Arguments
> about the appearance of the final prints as determining which capture
> medium is better aren't meaningful to them.
>
> Testing lenses against each other with the same film, films against each
> other with the same lens, etc., is relatively straightforward,
> especially when using slide film. Comparing digital sensor systems
> against each other gets trickier, as the amount and kind of processing,
> both in camera and post, has such a huge effect. It gets even worse with
> film, with scanners involved or the need to compare prints. Test images
> in JPEG from from two cameras may show one as the winner and
> standardized RAW processing give the reverse result. Then RAW and post
> processing done by the same person to get the best possible result from
> each RAW image may again reverse the result, or not. I honestly don't
> think any absolute result is possible, at least at this time.
>
> Just as MF film could resolve more detail than 35mm, MF and LF digital
> backs will continue to be able to out resolve FF 35 mm DSLRS. However,
> this occurs on a plateau enough higher than with film that there will
> fewer specialist practical reasons to use the larger formats.
>
> We all grew up with film grain. Some of us simply like the way it looks
> and will never be really satisfied that digital is as good as film for
> that reason alone, whether we are aware of it or not. Others see the
> lack of grain and low noise of digital as removing the veil of grain
> between them and the image. This is a matter of internal taste not
> subject to the appeal of reason or argument, although it may be subject
> to change with time and experience.
>
> Digital has some other qualities that are simply different than film, to
> date not identified and quantified, that appeal to some and don't appeal
> to others.
>
> I'm pretty sure that one of these differences is color linearity. The
> response curves of the color layers in film are not the same, so the
> same color in the subject, in varying brightness of light, will vary
> subtly in color on film. This seems to me to be a difference
> conceptually related in some way to the phase shift problem AG talks
> about, but in this case favoring digital. IT8 profiling for scanning
> should reduce this effect, but it is neither common nor applicable to
> all our old films.
>
> Whatever these differences are, they make a significant difference in
> prints. When I bought my first digicam, a 2mp P&S, after much research
> and thought, and with some trepidation, I was shocked! I was hoping it
> would make half decent 4x5 prints. Instead, 8x10s, even with significant
> cropping, were wonderful! Look at them close up, and the detail is
> clearly limited. Look at arms length and they look great. Put them up on
> the wall along with some prints from film and ordinary folks seem drawn
> to then and comment on how good they are.
>
> Undoubtedly, some here would hate them, but that's show biz. In any
> case, there is a difference that goes beyond resolution.
>
> To an amazing extent, the advent of the digital darkroom has led to a
> revolution in what the ordinary photographer can do to realize their
> vision of the image they captured. In that sense, whatever the other
> aspects of the digital image revolution, it is a golden age for many
> people. To the extent that it leads to results that don't follow the old
> norms, it will not be pleasing to some and will be a step forward for
> others.
>
> Moose
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|