Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Film vs. Digital @ equivalent 9 x 6 print then cropped and en

Subject: [OM] Re: Film vs. Digital @ equivalent 9 x 6 print then cropped and enlarged
From: Thomas Heide Clause <T.Clausen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 19:36 +0100
Everybody else are being so rational and objective about this 
topis.....I'll see if I can counter that with a strictly emotional argument 
;)

I like using film....simply because I LIKE BEING IN THE DARKROOM. I spend 
all day in front of a computer, so the chance to get in to do something 
without one is, to me, important.

I like reeling the freshly fixed film off the roll and walk impatiently 
around until it's dry enough to print......or seeing the print emerge 
slowly from the developer. I like how to selectively expose the different 
parts of the prints through forming weird shapes with my hands, pretinding 
to immitate Ansel Adams (while knowing that to be a futile task).

Digital can never do that for me, so the "quality" of digital imageing is 
not satisfactory on that front. Can never be, since  the analog process is 
part of what I appreciate about photography.

I do have a digital camera -- a Pentax Optio S4. Smaller than a tin of 
mints, it can go with me everywhere. I stuff its SD-card in the appropriate 
slot of my HP PSC2510 printer, get a contact sheet out, on which I mark the 
pictures to print, stuff the contact sheet into the scanner and then go 
away while the printer does its own thing for a while. I don't know what it 
does, but a half hour later, and my prints are ready -- pure magic! Great 
for snapshots, when I travel for business and am tight on time (no planned 
days off for serious photography anyways) or space (damm work requires 
travelling with fragile stuff -- gos from the cabin-allowance). And 90% of 
the photos that I get out of there are probably still better than the 
average "casual snapshot", just by thinking a little on composition before 
tipping the shutter. That's consumption, I know. I've tried to sit down for 
a weekend and learn how to use gimp on my digital  photograps -- but it 
feels too much like work to be in front of a computer. No, give me  my 
MeOpta enlarger, my Nikkor-lens and my trays and chemicals, ensure that the 
CDFO is off somewhere ("Dear, you should go visit your parents this 
weekend....") such that I can occupy the kitchen non-stop (eat? 
Whatdayamean eat, we had dinner on friday, no?).

Each to his own. I am the first to recognize that C.H.Ling and others have 
done stunning work in digital. I am just not (yet) at the point where doing 
digital work brings me as much pleasure as analog stuff in the darkroom. 
And sine I am doing photography purely for my own pleasure, my choise is 
simple: I'll remain a dinosaur for a while longer....;) So I don't care if 
XXXXdpi gets YY% of the info out of a film, or if a 10Gpixel (that'd be 
gazillion-pixel) QMOS sensor has a higher resolving power than a 
Kodakchrome 25 or a Neopan 100.  I do care if the local pusher has Rodinal 
on sale, though....

There ;)

Cheers,

--thomas

(hanging around on his 4th consecutive  week on the road for work this 
summer, and longing for his home and darkroom)

...... Original Message .......
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 07:44:36 -0400 "Tom Scales" <tscales@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:
>
>Simon,
>
>I don't mean to be rude, but I don't believe you are speaking from 
>experience. Your comment that a 4000dpi film scan was not giving film a fair 
>advantage and your suggested approach suggests to me that you're new to this 
>topic.  4000dpi is one heck of a scan.  The Minolta will do 5400dpi, but I 
>would suspect the difference is small
>
>If you comparing (in your head) to a flatbed scanner, than, well, that's 
>just wrong.
>
>The amount of information in a film scan is clearly significantly greater. 
>The quality of the information in the DSLR is better.  Quality may be the 
>wrong word, but you get my drift.
>
>A lot of people here with years of experience in both media, including 
>myself, and I fear you're heading down the wrong path.
>
>Tom
>
>>
>> If this is the case, then it's a huge pity, and clearly DSLRs are going to 
>> come out ahead every time. Reducing the huge amount of data on a 35mm 
>> frame down to 6MP is absolute sacrilege.
>>
>> Maybe I need to switch to transparencies and get myself a projector so I 
>> can see my photos on a wall at 4' x 3'. It seems that this is the only way 
>> I could only appreciate the detail that films offers!
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Simon Worby
>> ==============================================
>> List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
>> List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>> ==============================================
>>
>> 
>
>
>
>==============================================
>List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
>List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>==============================================
>


==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

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