Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] (OT) G12 vs OM Film

Subject: Re: [OM] (OT) G12 vs OM Film
From: Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 08:11:37 -0500
> First of all, I truly doubt that anybody shoots (and prints in the
> darkroom) nearly as much B&W film through Olympus OM gear on this list as
what I
> do. When you extend this to any type of film (e.g. colour) Ken Norton
either exceeds
> my volume, or gives it a good go, in anyway.

I think there is another person here on the list that is known to push a wad
of film through their cameras too. I'm not alone, but it is probably true
that you and I are vocally the keepers of the flame.


> Over the past two years, it has by far become my primary imaging
> medium, I do not own any digital cameras anymore....

I wish I could say the same, but I do use digital for when digital seems to
just make more sense--which is, unfortunately, more often than not.


> Now, this is where you need to re-read my original statement - I said
> "cleaner" image.

OK, this is where I'm going to go off the reservation. If you compare a
digital-camera image to an unprocessed scanned 35mm picture, you are
absolutely correct. I've been able to do some RAW file conversions lately
which allow me to really bypass the bulk of the noise-masking that is going
on in image-conversion. It is simply amazing just how grungy even Canon
files can be! Well, if you apply similar (with obviously modified radius
settings and such) processing to a scanned slide or negative to one of these
seemingly fantastic digital cameras of today, the playing field is greatly
leveled. I think most people would be stunned by how good of quality a 35mm
negative of Portra 160NC is. Even Portra 400NC would simply blow their
minds.

Can the process of noise reduction in scanned images be automated and hidden
from the user like digital cameras do? Unfortunately, I'm going to have to
say no. A digital camera's noise isn't quite as random in nature as film
"noise" is. The digital camera noise is easier to whack, that is for sure.
But a skilled person, using techniques derived from reverse-engineering
today's in-camera processing, can achieve exceptional results from film.


> It pains me that, no matter what I do, not matter which film I use, I
> have never been able to match the cleanness / smoothness of this amateur
digital shot in a
> darkroom print.

I have to agree with you because it is impossible to match the processing in
the darkroom what software is doing to the digital image. Fortunately, there
are techniques available to mask much of the noise and diminish it greatly.


> Now, my experience is limited to B&W film, because I have no way to
> print colour film. However,
> the slide film (Provia, Velvia) that I have shot and scanned at high
> resolution, and viewed
> at high magnification on-screen, tells me that even there, the film
> loses out in smoothness to
> even a P&S digital shot at Base ISO.

At base ISO with the processing that goes on? Sure. But once you start
processing the slide film in a similar manner to what the digital camera is
doing? Pretty similar results.

At the beginning of the Canon DSLR revolution, the common comparison was
between Fujichrome Provia and digital. Even the lowly D30 slammed Provia for
many things. However, two factors come into play:

#1. Provia is NOT the sharpest film available. In fact, Provia is pretty
horrid in resolving ability. There are two specific reasons for that, which
I'm not going to get into now, but it's such a howler that the
great-and-mighty photographer-writers of the time (Michael Richtmann for
one) didn't realize what a dog Provia was in comparison to some other films.
But Provia did have specific advantages over the other films, but
sharpness/resolution wasn't one of them.

#2. The scanned images were not being processed in like manner to the
digital camera image. If you apply the latest techniques, the "noise/grain"
argument is pretty well nullified.

Sharpness and noise-free images from compact digital cameras, such as the
G12? Sure, absolutely. I can believe it. But that's under "ideal
conditions". Let's start getting away from the ISO 100, F8 at 1/500
settings. Let's shoot some high dynamic range images. Let's shoot at night
some 120 second exposures. Let's try to balance mixed light sources of
different color-temperatures. Let's see what is lurking in those highlights
and shadows. Let's try to do in digital this: Dodge and burn a B&W image
with five or more stops of adjustments and still make it look good.

Each medium does have advantages and disadvantages. For the bulk of
photographers, digital is better in every regard. It's really only us
oddballs which find the strengths of film and seek to exploit them.

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/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz