> When the 5D (not the 5D2) was introduced, several owners opined that its
image quality approached 6x4.5. (You can find these remarks in the posted
reviews.) The 5D has a lousy 12Mp.
For most general-purpose applications, I would say this is mostly true.
However, the latest versions of Portra 160NC and Portra 400 have altered
things a bit. When properly processed and scanned, these two films make 35mm
film as good, if not better, than 645 of less than ten years ago. (possibly
five). I actually consider using Fujichrome Velvia to be an invalid
equivalence for testing these days. The film resolves quite well, but the
sharpness curves work against it in comparison to digital. The new Portra
films are actually quite a bit better and have dynamic range that blows any
digital camera out of the water. These two new films are so good that I can
shoot 35mm for nearly any application and get results I used to need
medium-format for. I'd also throw Ektar 100 in the mix, although it has some
unusual color curves to battle.
> The confusing thing about silver vs digital is that digital is many times
better than theory predicts it "should" be. I've never seen a satisfactory
answer to this seeming paradox. Nor have I seen anyone attempt to rationally
address the question.
So, what I've been doing is scan my negs and slides, apply a noise removal
process, then downsize to about the same as an 8-10MP camera. The results
are pretty much indestinguishable from the digital camera image.
Inotherwords, if I apply the same effective processing techniques to the
scan as the cameras and raw converters apply to the sensor image, the
results are the same. Digital beats film when you don't apply current
technique to the old technology. The downsized, cleaned and processed image
can then be upsized to whatever print size you want and it handles pretty
much like a digital camera file.
A while back I called it DDC (Delayed Digital Camera). The film is just an
intermediate step in the process. I'm still shooting and processing
digitially, but the only difference is that I'm temporarily storing the
analog scene in an analog technology until I get to digitize it later. The
benefit of the analog storage technology is that it does allow for the
compression of the dynamic range to fit within the limits of the digitizing
technology. The other added benefit, which is HUGE, is that I get to choose
cameras and lenses which fit my working style better. (B&W darkroom work
being another discussion)
> The belief that digital is inferior to silver is wishful thinking.
Depends on the terms of the comparison. I can think of as many reasons why
film is still superior as to why digital is superior. Resolution and
noise/grain? Digital wins. But there are many other criteria which may be of
importance to the individual. As a wedding photographer, I value dynamic
range and skintones. Oh, and mixed lighting. The new Portra 400 easily beats
any digital camera in this application. However, then you have to consider
cost-convenience. Instead of shooting 2000 images per wedding, just maybe
you need to back off to a reasonable 500. The cost isn't all that bad when
you consider that the typical digital wedding has a loaded cost of about
$200 for the photographer. I shoot, have the lab scan and I get the files by
Wednesday.
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/
|