Miscellaneous ramblings about digital and film
----------------------------------------------
Digital cameras can take really nice pictures.
They apply color balance and sharpening in the camera firmware before
you see the picture.
They can look better on a computer monitor at 1024x768 or smaller size
than a high rez scan of 35mm that is inexpertly downsampled to that size.
A decent .8mp (1024x768) or better camera's image will look better on
the screen than a flatbed scan of a 4x6 consumer print.
I love my Canon S110 and have made beautiful 8x10 prints from it.
However,
There is much more detail in even a 2700dpi scan of 35mm (~2500x3800,
9.5mp) than current prosumer digital cameras.
Film, at least negative film, has greater dynamic range than digital so
far. It's easy to blow out highlights on many digital cameras. I usually
have the Canon set to -2/3 EV to avoid this.
Current digital technology has real problems with angles of view wider
than about the equivalent of a 28mm lens on 35mm.
And,
Scanning is not difficult for *everybody*. I suspect those who speak up
are those having trouble while those for whom it is working don't say
anything.
Scanning automatically processed 4x6 prints will seldom produce good
results Doesn't matter how good the scanner is, the detail and dynamic
range of the image on the print is the limiting factor. Also, automated
printing equipment makes brightness and contrast descisions optimized
for snapshots of people. I have awful looking 4x6 prints of negs from
which I have taken wonderful digital images. Sky and cloud detail in
landscapes is usually washed out to undifferentiated bluish white in
automated prints.
My Canoscan 2710 has worked flawlessly on color slide and negative film
from the time I installed it.
I also use Vuescan for the additional capabilities it brings over the
Canon scanning software.
My only complaints about film scanning are that it is time consuming and
I sorta wish I'd waited until 4000dpi was cheaper (but then I'd need a
new computer, too!)
I prefer negative film for scanning for 2 reasons. First, the greater
exposure latitude compressed into a lower Dmax gives considerably more
flexibility in producing the final image (and covers more exposure
errors). I have been known to intentionally underexpose a stop to get a
faster shutter speed, which doesn't work with slide film. Second, noise
in the scanner CCDs often requires multiple scanning passes to eliminate
noise in dark areas when scanning slides. Careful comparison shows that
this is not the case for the dark parts of negatives (light parts of the
positive image), at least for skies and clouds on my setup, so only a
single pass is needed for negatives, which speeds things up considerably.
About that picture,
It is well exposed and the color is nice. I see a subtle yellow cast in
the skin tones that may not be natural/accurate, but it could be my
monitor.
Tweaking can often improve pics from digital cameras. 'course, I don't
have to scan them first.
The depth of field isn't bad, but the father's hair and the girl's
forward elbow are both noticeably out of focus. However, this has
nothing to do with digital vs. film, the same result may be achieved
with either, depending on the degree of control afforded to and used by
the photographer by the particular camera.
Digital is very cool, and I love the immediacy, but there is nothing
about this picture that a Stylus, IS-anything, or any OM with a T series
flash shouldn't do as well or better.
With a fast lens and/or fast film, and/or tripod, no flash needed and a
better picture without all those highlights on the skin.
Moose
Brian Swale wrote:
Hi Zuiks,
A person in Thailand I am getting to know recently sent me a photo of
himself and his two kids.
I was amazed at the quality of what he sent, and mentally pictured me trying
to do the job with my OM gear.
I asked him what camera he used for it and he said his lab has just got a
digital camera for research purposes and he is using it as much as possible
to get to know it. I'm pretty sure he doesn't use any software to modify the
image. So what you see is what the camera took.
The shot can be seen at the link below. Be warned; it is a 275kb download
about.
http://homepages.caverock.net.nz/~bj/images/TB-family.jpg
Ignoring for the moment that there is no modelling sidelight etc; it's all
front-
on lighting, the things that stand out to my mind are
1) fine detail (in Opera browser I can set the screen magnification to 2000r
300% and it still looks pretty good)
2) good colour
3) no extra tweaking required
4) very good depth of field.
5) Probably very quick.
When you consider the problems *everybody* seems to have with scanning -
I'm a lurker in the ScanWit group, and the pain that I see people there go
through to get a decent scan - to get the darned scanner to work even, is
quite unreasonable.
Here he gets a pretty good result with NONE of that BS.
Consider also how important electronic transmission and display of images
has already become and can only get more so. So trouble-free digitalisation
of images becomes very important.
Regarding the photo above, many of us would struggle mightily to get the
same detail, DOF and colour in a scan of this subject with a film camera.
Many / most would not get there, I suggest. Me included.
I've noticed too the DOF and good colour of many of the better advertising
shots on eBay, and once or twice I have asked the vendor what they used.
Invariably, digital.
I'm not sure where this train of thought is leading; it's only half developed. I
guess my subject title says it all.
Brian
< 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 >
< 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 >
|
