Richard
Thanks for your points. I accept that there are differences which make
comparison difficult. However, the narrower FOV of the digital shot
should have made it easier to cope with the contrast.
For me the result is clear: it is more difficult to make a decent
digital image in contrasty conditions than a film image. Therefore,
that suggests to me that the available range of exposures is limited
with digital when compared with film.
Chris
On 20 Jun 2004, at 19:58, Richard F. Man wrote:
> Hi Chris, thanks for the post. You should try to match the POV so it
> would
> be a fairer comparison... With digital, you have to be very careful
> not to
> overexpose even just a tad, otherwise you get cloudless sky and lose
> everything up there. I bet there are at least one stop of difference
> between the G5 shot and the OM4 shot, so again, it makes it difficult
> to
> compare.
>
> At 10:52 AM 6/20/2004, Chris Barker wrote:
>> Provia 400F:
>> http://www.threeshoes.co.uk/temp/A0442403_Ireland.jpg
>>
>> C*non Powershot G5:
>> http://www.threeshoes.co.uk/temp/D04680_Ireland.jpg
>>
>> I have not adjusted either shot, nor do I claim any artistic interest
>> in the composition; I took them solely for comparison. My conclusion
>> is that it is much easier to acquire an image which is pleasingly
>> exposed using film when there is a wide range of exposure values in a
>> scene. Digital, at least this digital, is ghastly when shot into the
>> light.
>>
>> However, I should be interested in your opinions.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
