Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 17:15:07 +0800
From: Albert <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [OM] Digital vs. Film, grain
One thing that digital will never do that film will do, is grain. Some
grain looks great. Digital however has "pixelation" which is horrible.
Albert,
That's simply not true....what digital photos have you been looking at?
If anything, the "noise" than constitutes "grain" in digital cameras
is often less
disturbing to my eye than film grain. The one thing that I am struck about most
digital photographs is their complete LACK of grain.
Take a look at these and see if you see ugly pixelation...
http://www.jsfotografie.de/zepeople/index.htm
http://www.jsfotografie.de/portzeland/index.htm
B&W pics, low resolution or using ISO1600 film, you get a lot of grain,
but I'd have to say it's great character. Pixelation is just flat out
ugly..
????
There is also another problem with digital that is not mentioned. 35mm
replacement, sure. But making optics that will take up a 4x5 or a 8x10
plane, is all but impossible or would cost more then most 3rd world
countries. So digital is "here" vs. the 35mm camera, but compared to
say 6x6, or 4x5 or 8x10, no way.
Sorry, don't agree. You can get digital backs for Mamiya's, Blad's
and Contax's now that will probably produce absolutely superb quality
images in a "medium format".
I remember I was tempted to buy a copy of playboy (for the articles!!)
;-) But in all seriousness, there was an article about the amount of
work needed to do a centerfold. That's taken on an 8x10 large format.
You are almost looking at a contact sheet. Digital has a long ways to
go before Playboy switches. Interesting articles.
I would doubt that Playboy is shooting film anymore. In fact, I would
be quite surprised if they are...they are probably shooting 645 or
'Blad with a Kodak digital back.
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 17:36:05 +0800
From: "C.H.Ling" <chling@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [OM] Re: olympus-digest V2 #3761
> I was shooting some beach/surf scenes at
Bodega Bay last weekend during a sunset, and shot both with my OM-2S
and the D60. The OM-2S did not get any exposures right (shot on
"Auto" ; it was pretty dark), but the D60 nailed the exposures
> bang-on.
I think most of you know I'm not a anti-digital guy, but your example
looks a little poor, it simply means you don't understand exposure and
the characteristic of your tools (the average metering of OM2sp in
auto mode). Beach scenes need exposure compensation and it is well
known, you can't simply shoot at auto.
C.H.Ling
C.H.,
Well, you may well be right in that it wasn't a good example.
However, I must take exception to your comments. I am fully aware of
the center-weighted averaging metering of the OM-2S, it's
limitations, and what the exposure compensation dial is for, and how
to use it. I was conducting an experiment between the two cameras,
and I thought I had taken the center-weighted metering into account
when I took the photo(s). Turns out I made a mistake in my use of the
camera in that particular setting and photograph. You know what?
That's okay....we learn from trying things and making mistakes, and
seeing what works and what doesn't. I made some mistakes using the
C*n*n that day, too, and learned from those mistakes as well. No
offense meant here, C.H. I respect you as a person and as a
photographer, but to state that I don't understand exposure or the
characteristics of my tools is inaccurate and incorrect. I might not
be as good a photographer as you, but I'm not a hack, either.
-Stephen Scharf
--
2001 CBR600F4i - Fantastic!
< 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 >
|