JCO, maybe you were referring to neg film. You wrote only "film" in general, so I couldn't know, could I? :-)
Your arguments has a flip side that goes: If you don't need negatives, there's no point in shooting negative film either. Unless you want a certain "look" that is not available in slide film IMHO. Without any further substantiation, those claims seem quite futile to someone coming from the-other-kind-of-film. But that's not the point. You ask about dynamic range in digital versus films. Back in 2002 (seems like ages ago, doesn't it...) people on this list maintained that slide film had, on average, about five stops latitude between highlights and deepest shadows. Agfa slide films were reputed to have about half or one stop more, resulting in more details in the highlights. Colour negative film was much debated, and dynamic range varied more among brands and types than did slide film. IIRC, an average figure was about eight stops of latitude. B/W negative film was towering above everything with about 10 stops, depending on brands and types, and very much on development technique and chemicals. >From my personal experience with *istD, I would say that the latitude is around 6-7 stops for a raw file, placing it firmly between slide and colour negative film. To your question about producing slides from digital, the answer is yes. I believe it is possible to produce colour negatives from digital as well. A negative film would contain the dynamic range of a raw file, while a slide film would not. Jostein JCO wrote: > I was reffering to color or BW neg film. > Can you > get slides from digital files and are > they any wider dynamic range than shooting > slide film in the first place? > If you > dont really need slides, then there > isnt much point in shooting slide film > unless you really want a certain "look" > not available in neg films IMHO... > jco Rhetorics aside, > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Jostein Øksne > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 4:28 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: The "Film Look" > > > I take it you never shot slide film, JCO. > I did, and the dynamic range of the *istD was a welcome increase. > > Jostein > > > On 12/13/06, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You may be able to undo the "knee" on > > the film captures but its going to be > > impossible to undo the clipping on > > the digital capture when the dynamic > > range of the scene exceeds the digital system's > > (sensor) recording capability. > > jco > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > > Of graywolf > > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 11:21 AM > > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > Subject: Re: The "Film Look" > > > > > > Luckily we can adjust that in Photoshop. It does help some. > > > > > > J. C. O'Connell wrote: > > > But the "look" is similar. I forgot to > > > post that in either of these cases > > > the film grain is NOT an issue. Its more > > > the tonal range captured and the look > > > of the extreme highlights. Film captures > > > more but the curves are not straight, > > > there is a knee on the hightlights. Whereas > > > digital can't capture as much range but there > > > isnt a knee, its straight right up to > > > the point of clipping... > > > jco > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > > > > Of Jack Davis > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 9:15 PM > > > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > > Subject: RE: The "Film Look" > > > > > > > > > I've had the same experience. Stills, by their nature, may lend > > > themselves to more scrutiny. > > > > > > Jack > > > --- "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> My interpretation of the "film look" is like > > >> watching a high quality movie ( 70mm print ) > > >> vs. a high defintion live video broadcast > > >> ( more like the "digital" look ). > > >> jco > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > >> PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________ > > > __ > > > __ > > > ____________ > > > Do you Yahoo!? > > > Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. > > > http://new.mail.yahoo.com > > > > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
