Yeah, I kinda thought it wasn't that objective of a comparison. he also kind of
blew off the possiblity of camparing to a conventional darkroom print. It kind
of impressed me that the guys mind was already made up! Maybe this is just not
of
interest to the rest of the list, I am VERY interested in continuing the film
thread myself, so will pick up on that one.
Jim Couch
Jim Sharp wrote:
> I just wondered what anyone else thought.
>
> Even though the guy kept saying how every thing he did should give the
> advantage to film, I just didn't see it that way.
>
> He scanned the film at a so-so resolution ( 3200 DPI ) for starters,
> using the default scanner software settings. Then he ran both image
> files through another piece of software, again using the default
> settings. I guess if I was going for the best result in each case, I'd
> have tried to optimize each image...
>
> He also claims that the digital camera image has colors closer to "how
> he remembers them". If you take a look at the brown/red building in the
> lower left, it's clear the difference between digital and film. The
> building in the digital shot looks to be all one color, as if painted on
> the picture. The same building on the film shot has a gradient from end
> to end that looks far more real given the lighting, even if "he didn't
> remember it" that way.
>
> You do bring up point about the color balance of print films that I'd
> like to discuss though. I think I'll start a different thread on that
> though. Looks like this one bored everyone else to tears...
> :-)
>
> --
> Jim
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|