Well, dont forget there is much more to film than just lowly 35mm. I now use mostly LF, some MF, and some 35mm (mostly only fine grain BW for 35mm). you simply cannot get the picture quality of LF film with any digital systems that dont cost more than a new car! And thats why color neg is good for LF film if you want color, its easy to develop at home and there are very few local labs (actually none in my area) that will do it. Color slide films on the other hand are difficult to devolop as easily and consistantly as color neg at home and why I have pretty much abandoned them completely, even for 35mm because I dont use my projector anymore. Last time I used them for 35mm in any quantity was a trip to SF back in '96 if I recall correctly. But, I do remember one thing, I shot some 8x10 fujichrome test shots & once you see that on a light table, everything else looks like total doo doo...but it was a real hassle to develop and extremely critical on exposure for direct viewing. jco
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jostein Øksne Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 9:53 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: The "Film Look" 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 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
