Tom, Your painting analogy is a good one. Comparing digital to film is like comparing Van Gogh to Botticelli. Bottecelli is less grainy, but Van Gogh has more emotion come through his work. And brighter colours, too. Does any of that mean anything? No! You look, you experience, you like (or dislike) each artist for what he did, without need to compare to the other.
All the test shots in the world don't necessarily tell us which format is better than the other. Obviously, film does some things really really well. Digital does some things really really well. For most photographic requirements, film and digital fill the bill quite nicely (except that digital does it faster, in terms of no processing). If I may be permitted another comparison (maybe one the JCO also has much knowledge about). In audio, CD's test way better than vinyl, in virtually every way. Yet there are those who say that vinyl still sounds better, despite it's wear, surface noise, pops and clicks, etc. There are some that like CD's better. Who's right? Bottom line is, it doesn't matter what the tests say, it's the real world listening that's important. It isn't the winner of an artificial test that is necessarily going to produce the best image ~for the purposes required~. For my purposes, I'll continue with your economics, Tom. I've already paid for my cameras and lenses. $2500 (*istD Canadian street price) buys a lot of film and processing... cheers, frank graywolf wrote: > What I would like to see is a good continuous tone print from both film > and a digital camera to compare. Me thinks I shall have to wait a while > on that non-digital print from the digital image though. > > Hey? Lets compare paintings. I suggest spray paintings are far better > than oil paintings done with a brush. After all those brush strokes are > real distracting just like photographic grain. > > Why can't it simply be agreed that film makes pretty good images, and > digital makes pretty good images. 5 years ago the comparison was rather > ludicrous, but that was 5 years ago. > > I personally do not prefer the cartoon look of digital, but that is a > personal preference and I would prefer tha convience of digital for > photography for hire. > > 2+ years ago I was defending high-end digital on this list and eveyone > was telling me I was crazy. Now I find I have to defend film on this > list and everyone is telling me I am crazy. Nah, it is you bandwagon > riding non-thinking nuts who are crazy <GRIN>. Right now film v. digital > is a non-issue. 5 years, who knows? A $1000 6mp is not much competition > for a $300 SLR. A 6mp DSLR for $300 is going to hurt film. > > Lets see, $100 for an MX, $1 for a roll of film, $4 for processing, $70 > for a 6mp film scanner (what I paid in the past few months); or $1500 > for a *istD. Not too hard to figure with my finances. However if $1500 > was a week or two's pay to me I would not hesitate to go the other way. > > For B&W I still feel film rules and will for a long while. After all > traditional art is best done with traditional materials. > > However if everyone really feels it necessary to jump on that bandwagon, > I have a kettle-drum I will trade for an istD. > -- "What a senseless waste of human life" -The Customer in Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch
