On 3/19/03 12:33 PM, "Stephen Scharf" <scharfsj@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> If you read the review article, by Jay Abend, of the Canon 1Ds in
> the March issue of Shutterbug (and if you have any doubts about the
> quality of digital, you should), the author, who is a long-time
> working pro, says that the Canon 1Ds produces image quality that is
> as better than medium format sheet film. In fact, his printer, who
> sees *everything* in the way of high-end work from the top digital
> backs every day with respect to producing image quality, came back
> with proofs and has asked him "Are these digital shots?" When Jay
> said they were taken with the 1Ds, the printer said, "Well, they're
> gorgeous!". [Andrew Dacey, take note :-) ]
Yes, I should point out that my comments about digital were a combination of
factors. I did say one of them was quality but that's probably more
accurately stated as the combination of cost/quality. We are starting to see
digitals which offer exceptional quality but it's still at a significant
cost. The other issues I mentioned were size, weight, and dependence on
batteries. Last summer the battery in one of my OM-1N's died when I was just
playing around finishing off a roll of film. Of course I was still able to
use the camera and I decided to finish the roll with guessed exposures to
see how well I could do. Granted, I was using B&W film and not slide at the
time so I had some latitude but I found that my estimates were pretty good.
Battery life is improving and with fuel cell technology beginning to become
a reality, I think this will significantly improve this. However, I still
have concerns over the size and weight of a system as well. My C*n*n Elan II
looks like a monster compared to my OM's and it's much smaller than the 1Ds.
Not to mention the size and weight of the lenses. The 4/3 system has some
promise in this as well as Pentax's new digital body, I'm very excited to
see how either of these pan out.
I do definitely see myself switching to digital within the next few years
(possibly as early as next year). Personally though (and this is a personal
decision, other people have very different criteria) I think my next major
photographic purchase will be a better slide scanner so that I can get
better scans out of my existing shots as well as anything I shoot in the
future.
I would like to say though that I love using digital for working with film.
If I want a slide printed I can scan it and make any adjustments I want
(mostly just dust cleanup and a bit of sharpening) and know that when I get
it printed the results will match what I set up on my screen. My local pro
lab offers digital prints at extremely attractive rates. They now allow
users to submit their digital files for printing online and the prints will
be ready within 2 days or can be mailed out. I love this convenience and the
cost can't be beat (I can get 8x12's done for $5 CAD).
You had also mentioned the use of interpolation for increasing the
resolution of a file. One thing I haven't seen is a comparison of the same
shot, 1 film and 1 digital enlarged to the same large print size using
interpolation (such as the 30" x 40" size you mentioned). Most of the
comparisons I've seen were using interpolation on the digital file to match
the resolution of the scanned film image. I think I had read somewhere that
digital files lend themselves better to interpolation than scanned images
but I'd still like to see the results. The big advantage that film would
have would be that it started at a higher resolution so it wouldn't need as
much interpolation, but the better suitability of digital for interpolation
might still win out.
--
Andrew "Frugal" Dacey
frugal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.tildefrugal.net/
< 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 >
|