Sure it is Paul. Just because most people do it these days doesn't mean the film image isn't being degraded substantially along the path of digital output. Let's just forget about using good scanners and good equipment for the time being, how difficult is it to get slide film properly processed and then viewed through a good projector onto a good screen, as transparencies were meant to be viewed?
What we have is the dumbing down of quality, pure and simple. And because it's easier and cheaper to do things in such a way, it's become more acceptable. What you seem to be saying is that digital compares favorably with a degraded film image. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Paul Stenquist > It's not bogus. Its a comparison of what is accessible to most > photographers working with a normal budget. I can get nice drum scans > of film images at the local pro lab -- for $150 a pop. Optical prints, > on the other hand, are almost extinct. It's hard to find a lab that > doesn't work from a scan. Yes, you can probably find them in San > Francisco or New York. But even here in Detroit, where a lot of working > pros produce a lot of commercial photography, optical printing is > pretty much a thing of the past. The results that the typical advanced > amateur can achieve with digital are better than the results he or she > can achieve with film. And we've only just begun. > Paul > On Apr 30, 2005, at 4:09 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > Methinks this is a bogus comparison. Herb is comparing the results of > > scanned film to original digital output. In another post Godfrey is > > comparing the results of scanned film to original digital output. > > Once the > > image on a piece of film has been scanned, it's degraded. The pixels > > react > > with the film grain, the quality of the scanner and the quality of the > > scan > > come into play as well. The skill of the person doing the scan enters > > the > > equation, as does the quality of other hardware and software along the > > chain to the final print or output. Then there's the conversion of the > > scanned image into a JPEG for web use or other use. It's not a > > realistic > > comparison. > > > > How about comparing the digital output that has been adjusted and > > printed > > to a properly exposed and carefully processed original film image that > > has > > been reproduced directly to, for example, an Ilfochrome or a high > > quality > > optical print, or viewed as a slide. > > > > I just makes me smile, and sometimes laugh aloud, to see how many > > people > > degrade their film images by scanning them on mediocre scanners (and > > the > > high end Nikon, Minolta, and other consumer brands generally used here > > and > > by most people who do their own scanning are mediocre and pale in > > comparison to the Heidelberg Tango and Imacon scanners) and then > > compare > > the results to what is essentially original digital output. > > > > Shel > > > >> On Apr 30, 2005, at 2:40 PM, Herb Chong wrote: > >> > >>> i have found that Velvia scans at 4000dpi, good technique, and top > >>> quality lenses are still better in detail, but that anything less > >>> than > >>> the best technique and lenses and the *istD is better, when using the > >>> same lens. > > > >> Godfrey wrote: > > > >> I find that prints made from digital capture are generally about the > >> same quality as 35mm film scans when output at 50-75% the density. > >> 2000x3000 pixels produces about the same quality 13x19" print as your > >> 5300x3400 scan. This is due to the lack of grain, grain aliasing, and > >> other emulsion/analog->digital defects induced by the scanning > >> process. > > > >
