on 9/5/01 9:10 AM, Roger Wesson at roger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Jim Couch wrote:
>
>> As for the grain issue, I would disagree with that on two levels. The first
>> is that
>> there is more to life than fine grain, sharpness and acuity are equally, and
>> maybe
>> even more important and most people give slide films an edge here. As for
>> actual
>> grain itself, I am not sure that print films have less grain than slide
>> films, the
>> best of both are excellent. It does seem that at very high speeds the grain
>> is less
>> objectionable in print films
>
> I'd definitely agree with this, and not even at very high speeds. 400
> speed slide film seems to me to have really chunky grain, far far worse
> than 400 speed print film. A pro once gave me what seems like a
> reasonable explanation - print film is vastly more popular than slide
> film, and the most popular speed is 400, so 400 speed print film has
> seen much more R&D than 400 speed slide film.
>
> Roger
If you project that slide at 4" x 6" or 8" x 12" then the grain is hard to
notice... Part of the reason you see more grain in slides is that they are
usually projected at 30x or larger magnifications. Even a partial scan from
a negative, printed on large size paper, will only approach the typical
slide's projected magnification. The other fundamental difference is the
'reflected light' of viewing a print v/s the 'transmitted light' of a
projected slide. Prints can't be as luminous in the highlights as
well-exposed projected slides because the lightest highlight areas viewed
are still is less than the incidence light (prints not being printed on
mirrors).
I love slides, although most of my current pictures are in the 'cheap
consumer film, Costco development' category. I'm pleased to get 2 or 3 good
pictures from a roll of 24, which is a 'burn rate' probably similar to a pro
using someone else's film money... I am working toward setting up a 'digital
darkroom', so the list's observations on the Polaroid and Nikon scanners
have been very interesting.
For me, the digital camera is still a snapshot medium. As the technology
develops it may transcend that, but it will be a while before it can equal
film's image quality (integrating all factors of image quality). If the
current trends in electronic miniaturization, speed improvements, and cost
trends continue it might not be too long before digital catches up. The
image sensor size is fundamental, its still too small on most consumer-grade
cameras.
--
Jim Brokaw
OM-1's, -2's, -4's, (no -3's yet) and no OM-oney...
< 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 >
|