on 9/5/01 9:10 AM, Roger Wesson at roger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Jim Couch wrote:
As for the grain issue, I would disagree with that on two levels. The first
is that
there is more to life than fine grain, sharpness and acuity are
equally, and
maybe
even more important and most people give slide films an edge here. As for
actual
grain itself, I am not sure that print films have less grain than slide
films, the
best of both are excellent. It does seem that at very high speeds the grain
is less
objectionable in print films
I'd definitely agree with this, and not even at very high speeds. 400
speed slide film seems to me to have really chunky grain, far far worse
than 400 speed print film. A pro once gave me what seems like a
reasonable explanation - print film is vastly more popular than slide
film, and the most popular speed is 400, so 400 speed print film has
seen much more R&D than 400 speed slide film.
Roger
If you project that slide at 4" x 6" or 8" x 12" then the grain is hard to
notice... Part of the reason you see more grain in slides is that they are
usually projected at 30x or larger magnifications. Even a partial scan from
a negative, printed on large size paper, will only approach the typical
slide's projected magnification. The other fundamental difference is the
'reflected light' of viewing a print v/s the 'transmitted light' of a
projected slide. Prints can't be as luminous in the highlights as
well-exposed projected slides because the lightest highlight areas viewed
are still is less than the incidence light (prints not being printed on
mirrors).
I love slides, although most of my current pictures are in the 'cheap
consumer film, Costco development' category. I'm pleased to get 2 or 3 good
pictures from a roll of 24, which is a 'burn rate' probably similar to a pro
using someone else's film money... I am working toward setting up a 'digital
darkroom', so the list's observations on the Polaroid and Nikon scanners
have been very interesting.
For me, the digital camera is still a snapshot medium. As the technology
develops it may transcend that, but it will be a while before it can equal
film's image quality (integrating all factors of image quality). If the
current trends in electronic miniaturization, speed improvements, and cost
trends continue it might not be too long before digital catches up. The
image sensor size is fundamental, its still too small on most consumer-grade
cameras.
--
Jim Brokaw
OM-1's, -2's, -4's, (no -3's yet) and no OM-oney...
One interesting thing I have found with a digital camera is that the
LCD is on this particular camera(Sxxx) is not a good way to your
photo except for framing. On a close focus, still life photo I was
attempting I kept getting this horrible cartoonlike pastel over
exposure in the LCD. I kept messing with the settings including
flash strength and it kept coming out the same on the display. It
was not until I downloaded the picture to a computer that I saw the
effect of my changes in the settings. There is such effort to make
the display bright enough to be seen outside that it is essentially
useless for evaluating the exposure of your picture. I guess it is
all right for gross problems like non level horizons or cutting
someone's head off. It is interesting that framing in the viewfinder
does not correspond to the LCD on the back, sort of like a vestigial
organ like an appendix.
--
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|