If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#171
|
|||
|
|||
Gordon Moat wrote:
[...] Maybe I chose a very specific example, but the reality is that colour issues are a big deal with direct digital imaging. Obviously, there are some photographers who only care about resolution, but in my work the colour is the primary issue. You're not trying to make us believe such colour issues are not a big deal with "direct film imaging" too, are you? |
#172
|
|||
|
|||
"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote:
Gordon Moat wrote: [...] Maybe I chose a very specific example, but the reality is that colour issues are a big deal with direct digital imaging. Obviously, there are some photographers who only care about resolution, but in my work the colour is the primary issue. You're not trying to make us believe such colour issues are not a big deal with "direct film imaging" too, are you? No, not at all, since mistakes or errors can be made with any imaging medium. Obviously colour issues are very important issues when using film. Different films even have different colour response, though most rolls of a similar batch are fairly consistent in response. Colour issues are also somewhat troublesome when scanning film, especially when many colours do not display on computer monitors. Then at least the transparency gives some guidance to the printing company to get a close match in the final prints. Scanning can also provide the opportunity to use a larger colour space than is possible with many direct digital cameras, which limits compression of shadow details. I should have elaborated more. In general, many looking at comparing digital to film largely only compare based upon resolution. There is a need for some of us to quantify differences, and resolution makes a handy comparison. I think it is tougher to visually see differences in colour, and difficult on a computer monitor. The other reality is that colour accuracy is less important than resolution for some photographers. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated! |
#173
|
|||
|
|||
"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote:
Gordon Moat wrote: [...] Maybe I chose a very specific example, but the reality is that colour issues are a big deal with direct digital imaging. Obviously, there are some photographers who only care about resolution, but in my work the colour is the primary issue. You're not trying to make us believe such colour issues are not a big deal with "direct film imaging" too, are you? No, not at all, since mistakes or errors can be made with any imaging medium. Obviously colour issues are very important issues when using film. Different films even have different colour response, though most rolls of a similar batch are fairly consistent in response. Colour issues are also somewhat troublesome when scanning film, especially when many colours do not display on computer monitors. Then at least the transparency gives some guidance to the printing company to get a close match in the final prints. Scanning can also provide the opportunity to use a larger colour space than is possible with many direct digital cameras, which limits compression of shadow details. I should have elaborated more. In general, many looking at comparing digital to film largely only compare based upon resolution. There is a need for some of us to quantify differences, and resolution makes a handy comparison. I think it is tougher to visually see differences in colour, and difficult on a computer monitor. The other reality is that colour accuracy is less important than resolution for some photographers. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated! |
#174
|
|||
|
|||
"Neil Gould" wrote in message link.net...
Recently, jjs posted: "Victor" wrote in message om... I'll add this to fuel the discussion: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...shootout.shtml Yes, that's a good article and thousands of words have already been spent discussing it. Frankly, I think it's a well done case and can stand As Is. Yikes. Where to start? Perhaps with the pair of images which supposedly illustrate grain issues? Look at the building on the right. What kind of windows does the building have? The Canon has completely mis-reperesented them, which to me means that it *lacks detail*. If you compare the 4 windows in each of the vertical groupings, those in the Canon shot are all about the same hue and intensity, whereas the film shot shows each window with a clearly different intensity, and a change of hue within each panel. To me, it looks like the Canon *lacks tonality*. If you look at the edges of high-contrast areas, you'll see evidence of over-sharpening in the Canon shot, where there is a light(er) stripe directly adjacent to the darker areas. This is visible in *all* of the areas of medium to high contrast. If that's the kind of image representation that one likes, then I guess those are "good qualities". I'll stick with MF film as being clearly superior in representation of details, tonality, and overall image quality. Finally, let's still not forget that the comparison is between direct digital and this individual's scanning abilities. Neil Also the choice of MF camera was not the best (Pentax 67). In my opinion Pentax 67 optics are not that good; nevertheless they give me a tonality better than any digital image I've seen. He should have compared the 1Ds to Hasselblad or Mamiya 7 J. |
#175
|
|||
|
|||
"Neil Gould" wrote in message link.net...
Recently, jjs posted: "Victor" wrote in message om... I'll add this to fuel the discussion: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...shootout.shtml Yes, that's a good article and thousands of words have already been spent discussing it. Frankly, I think it's a well done case and can stand As Is. Yikes. Where to start? Perhaps with the pair of images which supposedly illustrate grain issues? Look at the building on the right. What kind of windows does the building have? The Canon has completely mis-reperesented them, which to me means that it *lacks detail*. If you compare the 4 windows in each of the vertical groupings, those in the Canon shot are all about the same hue and intensity, whereas the film shot shows each window with a clearly different intensity, and a change of hue within each panel. To me, it looks like the Canon *lacks tonality*. If you look at the edges of high-contrast areas, you'll see evidence of over-sharpening in the Canon shot, where there is a light(er) stripe directly adjacent to the darker areas. This is visible in *all* of the areas of medium to high contrast. If that's the kind of image representation that one likes, then I guess those are "good qualities". I'll stick with MF film as being clearly superior in representation of details, tonality, and overall image quality. Finally, let's still not forget that the comparison is between direct digital and this individual's scanning abilities. Neil Also the choice of MF camera was not the best (Pentax 67). In my opinion Pentax 67 optics are not that good; nevertheless they give me a tonality better than any digital image I've seen. He should have compared the 1Ds to Hasselblad or Mamiya 7 J. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The future of 35mm | Dallas | 35mm Photo Equipment | 49 | September 1st 04 07:22 PM |
Canon A80: Will wide & tele lenses work with future cameras? | Fred B. | Digital Photography | 2 | August 31st 04 07:01 PM |
Message To America's Students: The War, The Draft, Your Future | [email protected] | Photographing People | 0 | April 11th 04 11:26 PM |