you have made your point. I'm not going to bother anyone with my views in ths matter, since it is completely irrelevant to the issue we were discussing.
However, after a recent foray into my archives, with subsequent PS work to clean up old scans, I must say I don't miss film for all the grains in the world! :-) Jostein On 12/14/06, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No, low contrast (normal) color negative film has much more dynamic > range capture > than slide film so its better than slide film for average & contrasty > scenes even if you dont need a negative ( used just for scanning ). > I stopped using slide film about 10 years ago and went nearly > all color neg film for scanning about 5 years ago. Color neg > film is also much easier to develop yourself and get developed > cheap and fast at labs. So I do NOT agree that the only reason > to shoot color neg film is if you need a neg. The way I see it > today with scanning it that unless you actually want to project the > image > in a projector, its ususally better to go with neg films for the other > reasons stated too, not just for a "look" not available in slide films. > jco > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Jostein Øksne > Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 5:42 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: The "Film Look" > > > 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 > > > -- > 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
