On June 3, 2003 07:12 pm, Rob Studdert wrote:
> On 3 Jun 2003 at 16:28, Christian Skofteland wrote:
> > Film v digital: (tv, take note to what a Bethesda wedding photographer
> > has to say about digital's ability to hold detail in the highlights.
> >
> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60430-2003May30.html
>
> The other interesting quote was:
>
> "Philip Brookman, the Corcoran Gallery of Art's senior curator for
> photography and media arts, has his own complaint with the output of
> digital cameras. 'I think that digital images have a flatness to them, and
> you can see the difference if you're looking for it,' he said."
>
> This sounds like nonsense. I believe that apart from the occasional
> instances of excessive sharpening the digital look may simply be a function
> of contrast manipulation. If a digital image has a similar response and
> gamma to film (or has a film gamma transformation applied) then no one
> should be able to tell the difference.
Why do you think that? Film and digital are different. Even different films
look different. Or different B&W films in different developers. Why should
digital look like film? I'm not sure why you'd want it to. If you want film
look use film. If you want digital look use digital. Isn't that the best of
worlds? Two options?
Nick
