Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Bad digital/film comparison attitudes and Various Rants

Subject: [OM] Bad digital/film comparison attitudes and Various Rants
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 02:24:43 -0700
I finally worked my way through all the posts so far in these threads, 
and have a few random thoughts and observations:

What were significant and interesting questions are less important now. 
Whether a 30D is better or worse than film, in resolution or any other 
aspects; whether the E-1 is better than film or some specific other 
older camera in resolution, etc. etc. really don't mean much any more.

Specifically with the 5D, and probably with other 10+mp cameras, 
resolution is equal to or better than any films that are ordinarily used 
for day to day photography by anybody here that I know of, using methods 
normally available to us to get them into the digital realm.

For an increasing number of photographers, the preferred medium of 
display of their images is a screen, not a print or a slide. Arguments 
about the appearance of the final prints as determining which capture 
medium is better aren't meaningful to them.

Testing lenses against each other with the same film, films against each 
other with the same lens, etc., is relatively straightforward, 
especially when using slide film. Comparing digital sensor systems 
against each other gets trickier, as the amount and kind of processing, 
both in camera and post, has such a huge effect. It gets even worse with 
film, with scanners involved or the need to compare prints. Test images 
in JPEG from from two cameras may show one as the winner and 
standardized RAW processing give the reverse result. Then RAW and post 
processing done by the same person to get the best possible result from 
each RAW image may again reverse the result, or not. I honestly don't 
think any absolute result is possible, at least at this time.

Just as MF film could resolve more detail than 35mm, MF and LF digital 
backs will continue to be able to out resolve FF 35 mm DSLRS. However, 
this occurs on a plateau enough higher than with film that there will 
fewer specialist practical reasons to use the larger formats.

We all grew up with film grain. Some of us simply like the way it looks 
and will never be really satisfied that digital is as good as film for 
that reason alone, whether we are aware of it or not. Others see the 
lack of grain and low noise of digital as removing the veil of grain 
between them and the image. This is a matter of internal taste not 
subject to the appeal of reason or argument, although it may be subject 
to change with time and experience.

Digital has some other qualities that are simply different than film, to 
date not identified and quantified, that appeal to some and don't appeal 
to others.

I'm pretty sure that one of these differences is color linearity. The 
response curves of the color layers in film are not the same, so the 
same color in the subject, in varying brightness of light, will vary 
subtly in color on film. This seems to me to be a difference 
conceptually related in some way to the phase shift problem AG talks 
about, but in this case favoring digital. IT8 profiling for scanning 
should reduce this effect, but it is neither common nor applicable to 
all our old films.

Whatever these differences are, they make a significant difference in 
prints. When I bought my first digicam, a 2mp P&S, after much research 
and thought, and with some trepidation, I was shocked! I was hoping it 
would make half decent 4x5 prints. Instead, 8x10s, even with significant 
cropping, were wonderful! Look at them close up, and the detail is 
clearly limited. Look at arms length and they look great. Put them up on 
the wall along with some prints from film and ordinary folks seem drawn 
to then and comment on how good they are.

Undoubtedly, some here would hate them, but that's show biz. In any 
case, there is a difference that goes beyond resolution.

To an amazing extent, the advent of the digital darkroom has led to a 
revolution in what the ordinary photographer can do to realize their 
vision of the image they captured. In that sense, whatever the other 
aspects of the digital image revolution, it is a golden age for many 
people. To the extent that it leads to results that don't follow the old 
norms, it will not be pleasing to some and will be a step forward for 
others.

Moose

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

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