On 25 Oct 2010, at 1:07 PM, John Hudson wrote:
>> Hi John,
>>
>> If you throw certain possibilities of image "aesthetics" out of the
>> window (such
>> as shallow DOF, very wide or narrow angles of view, etc) it is my
>> opinion (and
>> I hate to say this, since I won't touch the little thing...) that a
>> G12 will
>> yield an infinitely cleaner printed image at large-ish sizes, than
>> almost any
>> film Olympus OM shot.
>
> This is the biggest piece of hogwash I have ever, repeat ever, read
> on this
> internet discussion list.
>
> jh
Dear John,
First of all, I truly doubt that anybody shoots (and prints in the
darkroom)
nearly as much B&W film through Olympus OM gear on this list as what I
do.
When you extend this to any type of film (e.g. colour) Ken Norton
either exceeds
my volume, or gives it a good go, in anyway.
Over the past two years, it has by far become my primary imaging
medium, I do not own any
digital cameras anymore. I shoot, process, and print (selections from),
two to three 36-exposure rolls per week, every week. I have used
almost every conceivable type
of B&W film. I have used and owned OM-1, 2 and 3 bodies, and have used
a number of the top OM lenses.
I should hope that, by all standard definitions of the term, I "know
what I'm talking about"
even though I admit to only having shot OM cameras for about two and a
half years.
As a test, I have had made (some years ago) a ~ 100cm x 80cm high
quality print
of this image (not otherwise great, but technically at the limits of
what was achievable
in 2002 with a compact digital camera):
http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs10/i/2006/115/3/b/Progressive_by_philosomatographer.jpg
Now, this is where you need to re-read my original statement - I said
"cleaner" image.
It pains me that, no matter what I do, not matter which film I use, I
have never been able to
match the cleanness / smoothness of this amateur digital shot in a
darkroom print.
Resolution - sure, as soon as you go to ISO 100 or faster films, the
film out-resolves the
little digital, but always in a sea of grain at that print size. Even
Ilford Pan F shot at ISO 32,
developed in diluted D76 for fine grain, printed through a diffusion-
sourced enlarger, shows tons
of grain in a 100cm print. This is just the nature of film, and why we
have larger formats.
Now, my experience is limited to B&W film, because I have no way to
print colour film. However,
the slide film (Provia, Velvia) that I have shot and scanned at high
resolution, and viewed
at high magnification on-screen, tells me that even there, the film
loses out in smoothness to
even a P&S digital shot at Base ISO.
Again, of course, resolution, dynamic range, colour gamut etc. is
usually vastly
superior in the film shot. But you contested my saying the digital
image is always "cleaner".
This is like contesting the fact that even the cheapest, nastiest CD
is "cleaner" that the
best vinyl record. Sure, the vinyl sounds a hell of a lot better than
the CD, but it sure
ain't cleaner, unless you're playing it with a laser-based player in a
perfect vacuum or
something. I thought the problem of today was that we were losing the
texture of things?
John, do you seriously still believe that I am wrong? If so, please e-
mail me a grainless
B&W film scan of at least 3MP off-list so that we can discuss? Then I
am obviously doing
something wrong.
regards,
Dawid (luckily loves grain)
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
