I guess that my next camera system won't be a medium format but
a 4x5. Gotta do what you have to do to stay ahead of digital.
<g>
I'm concerned that we keep comparing to a 4000dpi scan of
ProviaF-100. Does it ever occur to anybody else that 4000dpi is
NOT the ideal sensor resolution for Provia? I find it
interesting that I've seen mammoth scan/prints from Provia done
by a skilled drum scanner operator at 8000dpi where the grain
disappeared again. At 2700dpi the grain is invisible, at
4000dpi it's pretty robust and at 8000dpi it's gone again.
Also, is grain necessarily a bad thing? I'd personally rather
not have grain, but I'd rather have a sharp grainy picture than
a sharp pixely picture.
Digital capture is coming. I was part of the push of replacing
analog audio in broadcast and recording studios with digital so
I'm well aware of the advantages (and marketing methods) of
digital in both mediums. It is just a matter of time before
digital imaging technology will match or exceed all of the
advantages of a film-based capture system.
This goes full-circle to my other posts about lens-quality.
Digital "quality" is exceeding that of film. Why stick with
film? Is there really something more to photography than shear
specifications?
In the movie industry, 35mm film stock has remained a primary
capture method. Why? The specifications of video capture far
exceed that of film. There is a "look" to 35mm that only
recently has anybody been able to duplicate in video production.
The pendulum is swinging now, but it's only been 20 years since
film was written into the grave.
Specifications vs. Character. Film has character. Always has,
always will. In digital you can pretend to create character,
but it's not the real thing.
I'm staring at an 8x10 glossy (from the S9000) of a Velvia
slide. The photograph is a closeup of a Red Trillium (which are
actually a purplish pink). The colors are vivid, saturated
without being fakey and the background is coal-bin, half an ink
cartridge black. Accurate? Absolutely not. A DC would have
kept detail in the background no matter what I would have
tried--possibly even creating all sorts of noise. Are the
colors accurate, otherwise? Believe it or not, yes. Nature is
pretty intense. As good as it is, I long for a better scanner
to recapture this slide and be able to make mammoth
enlargements.
Technology keeps advancing. I can always get a better scan of a
slide or negative. With DC, you are stuck with whatever
resolution and compression you captured it with. It can NEVER
be improved upon later. Just like my B&W work, there are
negatives that will be years until they are printed--I just
don't have the experience/knowledge/tools to print them today.
My scanner will give me 25mb files, but I can safely say that
under no circumstances have I ever come close to capturing even
"most" of the detail stored on a slide. How can anybody claim
that a DC with similar file sizes match the capability of a
quality slide film or negative. It might be for 900f all
uses, but it's the remaining 10% that I'm concerned about.
Will digital give you that "Leica Glow"?
AG-in danger-Schnozz
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com
< 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 >
|