thanks, jco. you have made your point again. I don't think I need further iterations. Jostein
On 12/14/06, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
