As you all will recognize, I've been both participating and lurking on
this list for a very long time ... 10 years?
Anyway, I'd like to weigh in on the film / digital stuff.
As you may remember, I took a long trip in May/June through Utah and
California. I carried an E-3 / 12-60 and 70-300, and three OMs. (2n and
2s; I have had reliability problems with 4 and 4ti's.) With them I used
21 2.0 and 100 2.0 primarily, though the 50 MIJ was used a fair bit as
well. I am a Kodak Ultra fan, using 100UC and 400 UC. I took every
photo both in digital and in film, bracketing both. It drove my wife
nuts. About half I did Raw for the E-3; the other at max JPEG.. Overall
I took maybe 1000 images - which works out to about 200 unique images. I
since used primarily Elements 6 in post processing, and scanned the film
on an Epson 700. Why you ask? Because I was interested in the quality of
the final image in a digital context. Ultimately this is not a major
point since I find getting high quality prints (at least that will satisfy
me) from film directly (e.g., Adorama, Costco, etc.) is not hard. On
the other hand, I find home printing on my Cannon 999 good to be able to
do.
(As an aside: i tend to reject doing much post-processing other than
minor sharpening and cropping as needed, though that's really is minor --
I got my early training on transparencies where you get the image right in
the viewfinder and exposure right as well.)
So what you ask?
I haven't had time to complete a serious comparison. As promised, I will
do so. But here's the preliminary ..... I regret to report that the
results are fairly complicated.
1. Digital
A really convenient and effective platform. The immediacy of image review
is wonderful. The quality is pretty good.
2. Film
Frankly, the images are better. Quite a bit better. Why? Dynamic range
is one thing. Still, sharpness is another. But really, the subtlety and
bite of the color -- due to both Z glass and film -- is the key factor in
my opinion.
3. OM vs. E-3
I'll tell you - having both around my neck - going from the relatively
heavy E-3 and relatively tube-like image, but powerful tools like
stabilization, to the brightness and impact of the OM - it was really
significant. Sure - the E-3 in a photo taking context was superb ...but
the contrast in being able to see the image was startling.
4. Processing
It's not gone unnoticed that the work involved in bringing a digital image
to a final result is a lot more (in my view) than with film. I mean -- it
might be fun to work through all of the software and processing needed --
but man oh man, I get tired of it real quickly.
Bottom Line
I, like AG, am reverting to film. I simply get better results. I just
hope film will survive.
But ... I will continue to use both platforms for all images. It seems
clunky, but it's really helpful to have both available - digital for its
immediacy, film for it's (in my view) quality.
And if I had to choose one over the other? Frankly, I choose film. But
I prefer having both available.
Bob Benson
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|