Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] The film guys ....

Subject: [OM] The film guys ....
From: Bob_Benson@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 22:32:49 -0500
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
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz