John A. Lind wrote:
>At 05:41 AM 5/9/2005, Moose wrote:
>
>>This time, I both compared downsampled film to 300D and upsampled 300D to
>>full size film scan.
>>
>>
>
>Moose,
>Scanning the film makes any comparison of the digital file that results
>with a pure digital photograph seriously flawed. It's no longer what the
>film recorded. It's a digital copy of it entirely at the mercy of the
>scanning method used.
>
As wet prints are entirely at the mercy of the enlarger, lens, paper,
etc. used to make them and the skill of the person or machine doing it.
Slides are likewise at the mercy of projector, lens, screen, and ambient
light. All of the forms are mediated before or in the process of being
viewed. The least mediated would be Pinhole images made directly on
paper and large trasnparencies viewed directly without loupes, but what
paper and what form of transillumination light? And those aren't ever
going to be mainstream media. All others are affected by several factors
on the way from film to image on the back of the eye.
You are simply used to and deeply understand the tools used to prepare
and present film images in the medium you prefer and leary of those used
in the digital processes. That's good and applaud your preferrence. I
also don't disagree with your point that scanning has an effect on what
comes from the film. However, to be fair, you should acknowledge that
the processes you use have an effect on what comes from the film too.
Nothing we end up seeing is purely what the film captured. And what the
film captured is never purely a reproduction of the light reflected or
projected by the subject. In the area of color accuracy, lab tests
regularly say that film is less accurate than digital. That's of little
consequence to me, as I happily alter color to match what I think I
remember I saw if the image looks wrong to me. Wet color printers do
that too, of course.
>It cannot be used to characterize what film versus
>digital is capable of producing.
>
>
Producing in what final medium?
>This should be (as a proper characterization of the evaluation):
>"My personal Film _Digital_Scanning_ vs. Digital Tests - II"
>
>
Sure, if you say so. I tend to think "Personal" is enough.
As Simon says :) , if the desired viewing medium is projection, film
wins hands down. If it is big prints, I don't know the answer. If it is
modest sized prints, I don't think there is a winner, both are capable
of outstanding results. AG says for B&W prints film is the winner and
who am I to argue with a master printer.
Since I am certainly never going to choose to have a color darkroom, my
personal tests are for use with a digital darkroom and digital printer.
I'm not satisfied I have given film scanning it's best shot yet, but I
think my overall approach is reasonable for my chosen presentation media.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|