C.H. Ling's comparison is quite interesting for several reasons.
1. It is simply amazing how well a roll of RVP50 at 4000dpi holds up in
comparison to the current "affordable" digital state of the art. Yes,
digital has an edge, but not dramatically so. I can tell CH's technique is
impeccable.
2. There is substantially better color and tonal sublety, in my opinion, in
the film shot than the digital shot. You can see the differences too, in
how film handles the transitions in the highlights over in the upper-right
part of the picture.
Is digital "better"? In raw resolution, absolutely. But shots like this
prove that you don't have to shoot digital to be competitive. Frankly, had
Michael Richtmann used as good of technique as CH does, he wouldn't have
made those stupid comparisons several years ago when he declared the D30
superior to Provia.
I'm not going to declare that "film rules, digital drools", but comparisons
like this show that if the photographer really does give a rip about doing
things well, an investment of $12 USD is nearly equal to an investment of
$3000.
However, most of us choose to spend the money for the digital solution.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|