Re: Digital versus film
it is less grainy than Provia 100F in my scans. Herb... - Original Message - From: Brendan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 11:23 PM Subject: Re: Digital versus film yes Velvia is rather grainy for a 50 iso film, but the colour saturation is well, you know, saturated. --- Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i think Velvia is unacceptably grainy at 4000dpi.
Re: Digital versus film
- Original Message - From: tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 3:45 PM Subject: RE: Digital versus film Since I've started shooting digital, I've had about 30 or 40 meetings with prospective clients, and only one turned me down due to the fact that I used digital (that I know of). The groom was an art conservationist and was worried about archivalness. My signup rate is the same as it was before digital. the groom didn't do their homework. the best archival quality silver halide print media is rated at half the life of Epson archival media and inks. if you are giving them the files too, then the images are as archival as they are willing to make them. Digital taught me a lesson about resolution - it's overrated. I'll take sharp and grainless. It's a lesson I only learned because I actually started shooting digital and making prints. agreed. i've been using a digital camera since 1998, back when they were hopelessly outclassed by the average PS. Herb
Re: Digital versus film
On 13/9/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: It's not which technology is better it's the application of the technology that makes the difference. I just thought we should see that again. As often as possible, actually. How true! Just look at Apple and M$ While the MAC OS is leaps and bounds better and more stable than anything MS has thrown at us, they are better at marketing. And before we start a PC vs MAC war, I make a living engineering and supporting Windows based networks and PC. Too late. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Digital versus film
That's because they crash and go down so bloody often, it has spawned an entire industry! How many tech head are making their living doing Mac support? C. JCO posted: It's not which technology is better it's the application of the technology that makes the difference. I just thought we should see that again. As often as possible, actually. How true! Just look at Apple and M$ While the MAC OS is leaps and bounds better and more stable than anything MS has thrown at us, they are better at marketing. And before we start a PC vs MAC war, I make a living engineering and supporting Windows based networks and PC. -- Later, Gary
Re: Digital versus film
Well, what strikes me is the lack of detail in the digital print. On the second site I only got as far as noticing that they were showing images of newsprint. If your are going to do that why not compare a copier image to a copy film image. However the contrast in the film images is better. I am getting real tired of digital vs. film arguments by people who have no idea what they are comparing. Digital has reached the point where it is professionally acceptable (ask TV if his customers have any complaints). If quality is the issue film still is better. You say your ultra high res digital is equal to 35mm, I raise you 120 film. When you match 120 film, I raise you 4x5 film. When digital equals 8x10 film it will be too inconvenient to compare larger formats, but there are a few 20x24 cameras out there. Furthermore, I hope everyone here is aware that what is being compared on those sites are digital images of prints made from film and digital originals (at least on the first site). That is far far from comparing apples to oranges. It is more like comparing banana pudding made from apples to another banana pudding made from oranges (both sans the bananas). --- Paul Delcour wrote: This is interesting. What strikes me is the absolute smoothness of the digital images and the very very grainy film ones. If all this is correct I want the *ist! http://www.mindspring.com/~focalfire/DigitalvsFilm.html http://www.tawbaware.com/film_digital.htm :-) Paul Delcour -- --graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com
RE: Digital versus film
-Original Message- From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I am getting real tired of digital vs. film arguments by people who have no idea what they are comparing. Digital has reached the point where it is professionally acceptable (ask TV if his customers have any complaints). When I show them stuff side by side they prefer digital 95% of the time. tv
Re: Digital versus film
Ah! I thought TV was... Very nice photo's TV, just the way I like 'm. :-) Paul Delcour From: tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 14:53:48 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Digital versus film Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 14:50:59 -0400 -Original Message- From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I am getting real tired of digital vs. film arguments by people who have no idea what they are comparing. Digital has reached the point where it is professionally acceptable (ask TV if his customers have any complaints). When I show them stuff side by side they prefer digital 95% of the time. tv
Re: Digital versus film
TV, just for the record: why do people prefer digital 95% of the time? Any striking reason? :-) Paul Delcour From: tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 14:53:48 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Digital versus film Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 14:50:59 -0400 -Original Message- From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I am getting real tired of digital vs. film arguments by people who have no idea what they are comparing. Digital has reached the point where it is professionally acceptable (ask TV if his customers have any complaints). When I show them stuff side by side they prefer digital 95% of the time. tv
RE: Digital versus film
-Original Message- From: Paul Delcour [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TV, just for the record: why do people prefer digital 95% of the time? Any striking reason? They look sharper and they enlarge better. When you enlarge negs, there's a point at which the print starts falling apart. I always thought the sweet spot for 35mm was 5x7 or 8x10, for 645 it's 8x10 or 11x14, depending on the film. Beyond that, grain becomes intrusive, IMO. You can certainly do it, and I often did (and do), I just think those are the sweet spots. Digital doesn't suffer from this problem. You can go as big as you want, no grain, no pixels. You'll start losing detail at some point, but the space in between the details doesn't fill up with weird colored film grains, it's just space. When I go to appointments now, I have a couple of 16x20's in the car for folks who aren't sure about the quality of digital. They're always reassured - I don't think 35mm can't compete at that size. 645 can, but I can't get the same kind of shots. Since I've started shooting digital, I've had about 30 or 40 meetings with prospective clients, and only one turned me down due to the fact that I used digital (that I know of). The groom was an art conservationist and was worried about archivalness. My signup rate is the same as it was before digital. Digital taught me a lesson about resolution - it's overrated. I'll take sharp and grainless. It's a lesson I only learned because I actually started shooting digital and making prints. Oh, and my lab just got a Durst Theta which they're going to run real b/w paper through. Yippee! Anyone for selenium toned digital prints? tv -- Thomas Van Veen Photography www.thomasvanveen.com 301-758-3085
Re: Digital versus film
graywolf, All I can say, is that I am more than pleased with my 67 stuff - plenty of details (way more than 35mm or 6mp DSLR). I have my little Optio S for quick snaps. At some point I'm sure that I will get a DSLR, but for the time being, I'll stick with film and what it has to offer me (when quality is concerned). Bruce Friday, September 12, 2003, 11:44:03 AM, you wrote: g Well, what strikes me is the lack of detail in the digital print. On the gsecond site I only got as far as noticing that they were showing g images of newsprint. If your are going to do that why not compare a g copier image to a copy film image. However the contrast in the film g images is better. g I am getting real tired of digital vs. film arguments by people who have g no idea what they are comparing. Digital has reached the point where it g is professionally acceptable (ask TV if his customers have any complaints). g If quality is the issue film still is better. You say your ultra high g res digital is equal to 35mm, I raise you 120 film. When you match 120 g film, I raise you 4x5 film. When digital equals 8x10 film it will be g too inconvenient to compare larger formats, but there are a few 20x24 g cameras out there. g Furthermore, I hope everyone here is aware that what is being compared g on those sites are digital images of prints made from film and digital g originals (at least on the first site). That is far far from comparing g apples to oranges. It is more like comparing banana pudding made from g apples to another banana pudding made from oranges (both sans the bananas). g --- g Paul Delcour wrote: This is interesting. What strikes me is the absolute smoothness of the digital images and the very very grainy film ones. If all this is correct I want the *ist! http://www.mindspring.com/~focalfire/DigitalvsFilm.html http://www.tawbaware.com/film_digital.htm :-) Paul Delcour
Re: Digital versus film
The most recent DCCT has an article on one of the New Fuji print films by Ctein. He makes an interesting observation about scanning negatives. I put the interesting bit on my website at: http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/Ctein_art.html William Robb
Re: Digital versus film
- Original Message - From: Brendan Subject: Re: Digital versus film I have a 4000 dpi scanner, and not even 800 iso film looks that grainy! yes digital capture is cleaner but if you shoot 100 iso slide film like provia, or astia you'll not see any grain at 4000 dpi, I love these comparisons tho, you see how poorly these guys are at scanning. I think it shows that scanning film is a misapplication of technology. William Robb
