In a message dated 4/18/2002 George S. writes:
<< This is not meant to criticize, I respect and enjoy your work, I
certainly
do, but I get the feeling that the digital shots just don't have that
"snap"
that the film shots do. I do hate to do comparisons on a computer
monitor,
but... The bokeh, color, and saturation all are much better in the film
shots. Digital is improving, and getting closer and closer, but it's not
there just yet. Just my two cents... >>
Actually, I encourage and appreciate criticism when constructive since
it helps me improve. That said, I'm always my own worst critic ;) Thank
you for your kind words. While I always love praise (and the $1500.00 PO
I just got today for usage of four images from an ad agency in Texas
even more), I need constructive criticism too and I really respect the
opinions of everyone here.
While I tend to agree with your points, the (Provia F) film shots I got
last Sunday are flat too. The weather really sucked. It was a gloomy,
foggy overcast combined with LA smog that makes for about as bad as it
gets shooting conditions. The E-10 bokeh isn't the best, gets better
with the TCON-14b extender (200mm equiv.) though. The color and
saturation on my Provia F slides taken there is not very good either
(I'll post the link once I get them scanned for comparison).
I agree, digital is not there yet. While you'll always get a huge
argument to the contrary from someone who plunks down $5k+ per body for
a EOS 1D, or D1X, etc. I am of the belief I can get better results with
my OM gear on Provia F than I can with any field use digital available
today. Studio digitals OTOH are very much there now for still life type
work, product shooting, etc. That's exactly why I'm using an E-10 to get
my feet wet and supplement my film work. Hopefully soon Olympus will
introduce their much anticipated DSLR system that gets closer to "there"
(and by then hopefully I'll have enough of those nice fat POs rolling in
to justify the cost). Meanwhile, I'll keep shooting film.
BTW, scrolling ahead in this digest (yes, I'm a "digester") I'll add a
couple thoughts. (And yes, I still tend to agree with George's
observations.) I have never shot in Texas, never even been there except
changing planes in Houston ;-) The Laguna Seca CART "Sneak Preview" is a
good comparison, though I was still on the steeper end of the E-10
learning curve (and I didn't have the TCON-14b yet). I have since found
that to get the best results out of this camera I must treat it like a
digital OM-1, everything manual most of the time. The E-10 lens is
actually an exceptional lens and the TCON-14b is the best bargain in
Olympus glass I have ever bought. You can't zoom with it, but you wind
up with a very fast 200mm that I believe rivals my Zuiko 200/4 (in an
apples to oranges comparison of course).
Lastly, due mostly to laziness, I do no post processing of the digital
files from the E-10. Frankly because I'm not very good at it and don't
have the time. The digital is/was supposed to be a time saving tool
after all. I know from seeing other people's E-10 images that the files
can be enhanced to look much better. I have looked at 11x14 lab
processed prints from the E-10 and Provia F side-by-side and the quality
was *much* closer than I would have thought, so close in fact that I was
stunned. No worries though, nobody is taking away my OMs and my fridge
is stocked with Provia F. NASCAR at CA Speedway here we come next
weekend :) Thank you again George for your constructive reply.
Mike Veglia
Motor Sport Visions Photography
http://www.motorsportvisions.com
< 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 >
|