>
> I think the raging Film vs Digital debates on photo.net have recently
> proven quite conclusively that 35mm Ektar film has better resolution
> and dynamic range than any DSLR to date, provided you exercise very
> careful technique, especially in scanning.
I haven't been following the photo.net threads, but on www.apug.org we've
been chugging along acting as though digital doesn't even exist. Instead of
playing the "I can pee farther than you" game, we are just pushing our
technology and ourselves farther than we've ever pushed before.
>From what I've been seeing, Ektar and Velvia 100 are extremely close
together in effective resolution. Dynamic range is obviously better in the
Ektar, but lacks the artistic punch which I like in my images. I'd be
shooting Ektar, except for the storage and workflow issues which I discussed
previously.
The underlying premise, though, is "careful technique". Honestly, I find
that digital masks poor technique better than film shooting does. One reason
is image-stabilization, another is improved shutters that don't shake the
camera as much, overshooting helps too, but I believe the main reason is
post-processing. We ALWAYS sharpen digital images with some flavor of USM.
Careful technique for shooting, scanning and post-processing film images is
much more difficult and potentially time-sapping than digital capture.
But why is this always a Film vs. Digital debate? Why don't we happily
embrace both? I'll admit that my shooting film has less to do with the
image characteristics of one over the other, but because I happen to prefer
using the film cameras! With today's films and scanners I can easily shoot
film and process the images alongside digital capture images. Aren't the
digital images cleaner? Yup. Aren't they faster to work with? Yup. Isn't
it more convenient? Yup. Then why do I shoot film? Because I want to.
Sure, there are certain image-quality characteristics in film that as an
artist I like to exploit, but for me it's really more of a case of "having
options". It doesn't hurt me to shoot film and it's hard to beat a
well-outfitted OM kit. And a "collector-quality" OM-3Ti is still less
expensive than a 5DMk2 or D700.
In terms of DR/Resolution, the
> E-3 is far from state of the art, so I imagine Ektar will be leaps and
> bounds ahead of the E3 sensor.
>
At base ISO and careful technique, I think the E3 sensor is actually
extremely close to the out limits of 35mm film. But to beat Ektar, you have
to have everything in your favor.
> I have never seriously shot colour negative film, but my recent
> experimentation (of which I've posted here) did show than an OM-1 +
> Z90/2.0 Macro with Ilford FP4 has greater resolution in a print than an E-3
> +
> ZD50/2.0 Macro, albeit with grain of course.
>
FP4 has a lot of acutance which gives a natural sharpening to the image.
> So your OM's will more than "Give the E3 a run for its money" - it will
> wipe the floor with it if you're careful.
>
"Wipe the floor" might be overstating it a little bit, but depending on film
and post-processing technology (darkroom, optical enlargement or scanning)
will meet or exceed. The great leveler is the scanning process. I have
yet, even at 4000dpi, to be able to extract everything I want off of a slide
or negative. Portra 160NC is EXTREMELY fine grained and sharp and does scan
exceptionally well.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|