Re: istD test needs doing.....
Hi! g Why can't it simply be agreed that film makes pretty good images, and g digital makes pretty good images. 5 years ago the comparison was rather g ludicrous, but that was 5 years ago. I subscribe to that. It is better both ways, isn't it? Just like W Robb and probably many others said - each tool has its merit and value, and, fortunately, there is no ultimate tool that tops them all. Thanks. Boris
Re: istD test needs doing.....
Tom, Your painting analogy is a good one. Comparing digital to film is like comparing Van Gogh to Botticelli. Bottecelli is less grainy, but Van Gogh has more emotion come through his work. And brighter colours, too. Does any of that mean anything? No! You look, you experience, you like (or dislike) each artist for what he did, without need to compare to the other. All the test shots in the world don't necessarily tell us which format is better than the other. Obviously, film does some things really really well. Digital does some things really really well. For most photographic requirements, film and digital fill the bill quite nicely (except that digital does it faster, in terms of no processing). If I may be permitted another comparison (maybe one the JCO also has much knowledge about). In audio, CD's test way better than vinyl, in virtually every way. Yet there are those who say that vinyl still sounds better, despite it's wear, surface noise, pops and clicks, etc. There are some that like CD's better. Who's right? Bottom line is, it doesn't matter what the tests say, it's the real world listening that's important. It isn't the winner of an artificial test that is necessarily going to produce the best image ~for the purposes required~. For my purposes, I'll continue with your economics, Tom. I've already paid for my cameras and lenses. $2500 (*istD Canadian street price) buys a lot of film and processing... cheers, frank graywolf wrote: What I would like to see is a good continuous tone print from both film and a digital camera to compare. Me thinks I shall have to wait a while on that non-digital print from the digital image though. Hey? Lets compare paintings. I suggest spray paintings are far better than oil paintings done with a brush. After all those brush strokes are real distracting just like photographic grain. Why can't it simply be agreed that film makes pretty good images, and digital makes pretty good images. 5 years ago the comparison was rather ludicrous, but that was 5 years ago. I personally do not prefer the cartoon look of digital, but that is a personal preference and I would prefer tha convience of digital for photography for hire. 2+ years ago I was defending high-end digital on this list and eveyone was telling me I was crazy. Now I find I have to defend film on this list and everyone is telling me I am crazy. Nah, it is you bandwagon riding non-thinking nuts who are crazy GRIN. Right now film v. digital is a non-issue. 5 years, who knows? A $1000 6mp is not much competition for a $300 SLR. A 6mp DSLR for $300 is going to hurt film. Lets see, $100 for an MX, $1 for a roll of film, $4 for processing, $70 for a 6mp film scanner (what I paid in the past few months); or $1500 for a *istD. Not too hard to figure with my finances. However if $1500 was a week or two's pay to me I would not hesitate to go the other way. For BW I still feel film rules and will for a long while. After all traditional art is best done with traditional materials. However if everyone really feels it necessary to jump on that bandwagon, I have a kettle-drum I will trade for an istD. -- What a senseless waste of human life -The Customer in Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch
Re: istD test needs doing.....
Well, I think it goes beyond that. It's obvious that there's also a lot of overlap. So, not only does either system have it's strengths, both do ~most~ things just as well, if not a bit differently, than the other. cheers, frank Boris Liberman wrote: Hi! g Why can't it simply be agreed that film makes pretty good images, and g digital makes pretty good images. 5 years ago the comparison was rather g ludicrous, but that was 5 years ago. I subscribe to that. It is better both ways, isn't it? Just like W Robb and probably many others said - each tool has its merit and value, and, fortunately, there is no ultimate tool that tops them all. Thanks. Boris -- What a senseless waste of human life -The Customer in Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch
Re: istD test needs doing.....
This was done years ago by people who take pictures, an not of eye charts, for a living. They now shoot with DSLRs and don't scan film. The vast majoriety of normal people don't examine photographs under microscopes. At normal viewing distances, for normal people, digital pictures cna be made to look better and sharper because of the lack of grain.. BR From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] What I would like to see is a (scanned) film vs. digital output of the *istD using a really good lens at a good fstop and really good film like tmax 100 or fuji provia 100f.
RE: istD test needs doing.....
I'm of the opinion you can't explain this to people. I didn't actually believe or understand it until I'd had a dslr for a month and had looked at a dozen or two 8x10's, 11x14's and 16x20's. People just don't get it unless they see prints. tv -Original Message- From: Bruce Rubenstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 11:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istD test needs doing. This was done years ago by people who take pictures, an not of eye charts, for a living. They now shoot with DSLRs and don't scan film. The vast majoriety of normal people don't examine photographs under microscopes. At normal viewing distances, for normal people, digital pictures cna be made to look better and sharper because of the lack of grain.. BR From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] What I would like to see is a (scanned) film vs. digital output of the *istD using a really good lens at a good fstop and really good film like tmax 100 or fuji provia 100f.
Re: istD test needs doing.....
What I would like to see is a good continuous tone print from both film and a digital camera to compare. Me thinks I shall have to wait a while on that non-digital print from the digital image though. Hey? Lets compare paintings. I suggest spray paintings are far better than oil paintings done with a brush. After all those brush strokes are real distracting just like photographic grain. Why can't it simply be agreed that film makes pretty good images, and digital makes pretty good images. 5 years ago the comparison was rather ludicrous, but that was 5 years ago. I personally do not prefer the cartoon look of digital, but that is a personal preference and I would prefer tha convience of digital for photography for hire. 2+ years ago I was defending high-end digital on this list and eveyone was telling me I was crazy. Now I find I have to defend film on this list and everyone is telling me I am crazy. Nah, it is you bandwagon riding non-thinking nuts who are crazy GRIN. Right now film v. digital is a non-issue. 5 years, who knows? A $1000 6mp is not much competition for a $300 SLR. A 6mp DSLR for $300 is going to hurt film. Lets see, $100 for an MX, $1 for a roll of film, $4 for processing, $70 for a 6mp film scanner (what I paid in the past few months); or $1500 for a *istD. Not too hard to figure with my finances. However if $1500 was a week or two's pay to me I would not hesitate to go the other way. For BW I still feel film rules and will for a long while. After all traditional art is best done with traditional materials. However if everyone really feels it necessary to jump on that bandwagon, I have a kettle-drum I will trade for an istD. J. C. O'Connell wrote: What I would like to see is a (scanned) film vs. digital output of the *istD using a really good lens at a good fstop and really good film like tmax 100 or fuji provia 100f. A good scanner wouldnt hurt either, 4000ppi? I would like to see an exteme crop blowup of the same detailed subject taken with same lens on a rock solid tripod please My hunch is the digital will be far smoother less noisier/grainy but not as sharp as the film image, overall probably better looking than 35mm film... JCO
