John Morton wrote:
> From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
> ........
>
> Since I got the 5D, there is no comparison on issues of detail
> resolution and noise, film loses. I'm leaving aside here issues of
> "look" color qualities, etc."
>
> <<<<>>>>
>
> I'm still enjoying my Oly OM-4 T, although with a much narrower range of
> film choices than when I started using it. I do tend toward slower, finer
> grain film; Fuji NPS 160 is about as fast and grainy as I will comfortably go
> (although I will throw in a roll of 800 or 1600 if needed). I don't have a
> problem with grain; but I do have a preference for detail so that tends to be
> the main criterion upon which I make my imaging decisions.
>
My favorite is Kodak Portra 160NC, very similar to the Fuji in intent,
at least. But I like teles and shoot out in nature, so that's often not
enough speed. I finally got my samples of the new Portras, which are
supposed to have finer grain and scan better, but haven't tried them
yet. If you like detail... well I've already said more than enough about
a certain FF DSLR.
>
> >>>><<<<
>
> "We must live in different universes. Current high end inkjets ........
> No where do I see color laser used for the highest quality photographic
> work."
>
> <<<<>>>>
>
> Someone once asked me if I thought that "the universe has messages for
> people". I told her, "The universe is always saying everything, all at the
> same time - that is why it is called a 'universe'. What can be heard varies
> according to where you are within it."
>
Great response, I think I'll borrow the first line. I'll replace the
second with "What you hear depends on how you listen." It means the same
thing to me, but I find people tend to literalize "where you are within
it" to mean that space-time location makes a difference, rather than
inner "where I am." Not that the literal journey to special place(s)
doesn't alter the inner landscape as well, but it's an option, not a
requirement. Necessary for some, and not for others, so I try to avoid
statements that imply it's necessary for all. The I Am is present in all
places at all times, waiting for me to recognize it.
>
> <snip stuff of historical interest. :-) >
>
> >>>><<<<
>
> Personally, I simply disagree. My digital darkroom and inkjet printer,
> both scanned film and digital capture, allow me to produce better
> prints than I could ever buy, let alone do myself. Suddenly, I can make
> prints
> that are at least the equal of a friend who is a master
> Ciba/Ilfo-chrome printer who sells hundreds of his prints a year. Whatever
> "inherent
> shortcomings of inkjet printers" you may have encountered are either
> cheap printers or old printers.
>
> Moose
>
> <<<<>>>>
>
> I think we would both agree here, that a digital darkroom is much more
> versatile and effective than a conventional one. I guess what I have been
> thinking - and maybe not saying clearly - is that, when I first began to
> experiment with digital imaging technologies, I found that the quality I was
> use to seeing in film-based imaging was missing.
No, you have been quite clear. Our experience simply differs.
> Not a big surprise - people like convenience, and I still see lots of xeroxed
> photo-posters around that would look much better if a halftone had been used
> as the original - but I guess that I would like to be fairly certain that
> such quality problems have been rectified before I shift completely toward
> digital.
>
I haven't completely shifted. Film images are different from digital,
not just grain, but subtler things for which I don't have names I find
sufficient. Although I like digital a great deal, I am still shooting
some film and scanning and rediscovering many old film images. There are
so many old images that I overlooked or discounted before that come
alive with scanning and processing.
>
> The bottom line for me can be summed up in a comment made by a very
> talented newpaper photographer I was discussing digital equipment with late
> last year; when I mentioned that i still shoot 35mm film, he said: "Nothing
> wrong with that!"
>
Nor is there, except when one wants to do something that film can't do
and digital can.
>
> So I suppose that I would really rather assure myself that there is nothing
> wrong with the alternative before I embrace it whole heartedly!
>
Good luck, "The Truth is Out There."
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|