Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: film vs. digital

Subject: [OM] Re: film vs. digital
From: "Piers Hemy" <piers@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 09:57:09 -0000
Bill, I think you have hit on the head the particular nail that always
niggles me about digital images.  

The reference to video was helpful - it was always easy to spot the TV ad
which had been video rather than film originated - the sharpness saturation
and contrast were easy to spot.  And *that* is what (for me) is so
characteristic of digital still images.  For sure, a Velvia image is equally
'outstanding', and not always pleasant, but what really jars are the digital
images which look as if they have been 'developed' in some sort of
super-acutance developer, with haloes around each tone boundary.  And yet to
look at a portion of the image, you would not be able to see the expected
tell-tale pixellated signs of a digital image

I think your conclusion is spot on Bill - it isn't about analysing the
intricate detail of an image to determine whether digital can yet manage
film.  Rather, it's about the overall 'feel' of an image and the
impression/feeling it can convey.  You might just as well compare the
brushwork of Modigliani  and Monet.

Piers 

-----Original Message-----
From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of BllPear@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 09 February 2004 19:28
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] film vs. digital


-- snip

I've been thinking about this at least as much as any of you. What really
brought this to mind was when my lab went from a standard optical printer
for their machine prints to a scan and print system. There was something
that I didn't like about the results. They didn't look as sharp to me. Not
just my own images, mind you, but all I saw from the system. 

Under careful examination with a 12x loupe, the detail was all there. In
fact, images often presented finer detail than the optical prints, yet under
normal viewing, seemed soft. (bear in  mind that this machine isn't at a
minilab, it is in a pro lab that caters to commercial shooters, so all the
software enhancements were subdued at the very least.)

Those of you that shoot motion picture filim or video will see where I'm
going. I don't really care that much for video. Take your local TV station's
news broadcasts. These go directly from the video camera to your screen, and
in most cases, they look about as sharp as anything on the screen. Yet, I
know that the local station's cameras don't come close to the abilities of
an average 35mm MP camera.

When you look at the picture analytically, you can see that the video looks
sharper because the edges are crisp and well defined. The overall picture
has a snappy look as the colors are all well saturated. What's missing is
fine detail and a long tonal range. Well, grain is missing, too, and that's
how we get to my point.

Quite a few of you, and a great majority of photographers in general, find
two things essential in  your photos. Most important is a complete lack of
grain. (for us older folks, we either detest it or don't mind it, based on
our memories of such wonderful films as CPS) Another is well defined edges.
These are two things digital gives us in spades.

What I miss about digital is the apparent sharpness that we get from a
well-made, hand-made optical print from a fine grain film. There's something
about crisp fine grain that, to me, makes a print look really good.

-- snip


The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe

To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus 
List Problem"

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz