In article <j437km$6ot$>, jcdill
<> wrote:
> > these days, everything is digital because it's so much more
> > capable and learning photography is *substantially* easier and more
> > effective with digital.
>
> True, but that doesn't mean that there is nothing to be learned by also
> working with film, doing wet development. Many photo students are doing
> both.
very few, and knowing how to process wet prints is of no benefit to
future photographers. it's a skill they'll never use.
> > where are the side by side comparison images that support your claim?
>
> I don't need side by side comparison images - this is a well known fact
> about the difference in how images are recorded on film versus how they
> are recorded in a digital file.
how they capture is obvious. the problem is that you're saying one is
better than the other without any proof.
> > don't blow the highlights or block up the shadows and you won't lose
> > detail. don't blame the technology on poor technique.
>
> When the scene has a higher dynamic range than the media can record, you
> have to blow out something.
true, but since digital has a wider dynamic range than film, you may
not have to blow out anything.
> Film has a much greater ability to recover
> lost detail than digital. This is WELL KNOWN by all who understand the
> field. The fact that you are arguing this point merely highlights your
> ignorance of this topic.
digital has a much greater ability to not blow out detail in the first
place. this is also well known by all who understand the field (and
even many of those who don't).
> But since you claim to have worked with film video, maybe this shootout
> will educate you:
>
> <http://www.zacuto.com/shootout>
wtf is that supposed to prove?
> This entire sub-thread came because of a situation where the
> photographer couldn't be certain she could properly expose the scene, so
> she was advised (by a pro) to shoot with film (negatives), which was
> more forgiving and had a higher dynamic range than slides.
so instead of properly exposing the scene, which the pro presumably
would know how to do, he advocated being sloppy.
> No matter how much you "properly expose" the image, there is often
> information you can not record, deep shadows, bright highlights.
> Certain recording methods do better or worse in those situations.
not often, and there are cases when even digital can't capture the full
dynamic range of a scene. so what? if digital couldn't capture it, film
certainly wouldn't have been able to either.
> > digital also has a wider dynamic range than film, so you can capture
> > the highlights and shadows without needing to recover anything.
>
> Digital is not magically perfect.
nothing is perfect, including film, magically or otherwise.
> There are still many scenes where
> digital can NOT capture all the highlights and shadows, which is why the
> HDR technique has come into vogue.
the reason hdr has come into vogue is because it's easy to do in
digital and it has a look that some people like, even though it's
usually overdone and looks terrible.
> >> When evaluating image quality, film grain is FAR more forgiving than
> >> digital pixelation or noise. If you have to significantly crop the
> >> resulting image, you will get a much better image from an image shot on
> >> film than shot digitally.
> >
> > nonsense. modern digital cameras have more than enough pixels that
> > cropping is not an issue for most sized prints. also, your eye can't
> > resolve the individual pixels (think retina display) unless you print
> > really huge, much bigger than what most people ever will, and even then
> > there are ways to deal with problems.
>
> There is no way to "deal with the problems" when you don't have the
> detail recorded.
of course, but what if the detail isn't recorded on film? then what?
> Film enlarges MUCH better than most digital images
> (shots taken from most digital cameras - a few of the newest and most
> expensive DSLRs at ~25 MPs are *starting* to match film in detail
> quality).
nonsense, and 24 mp is not expensive. sony has a 24 mp slr for under
$1000 and canon has had an 18mp slr for about $600 for a while (and the
difference is not anything that will be noticed in most situations).
> Take a full-body portrait photo with the same lens with both
> a film and DSLR camera, then zoom in on the eye. Look at the detail in
> the eyelashes. With film you will still see clear eyelashes, in digital
> you will see soft (fuzzy) eyelashes. No amount of digital
> post-processing (sharpening, up-resing) can recreate the detail in those
> eyelashes to match the resolution captured in the film image.
once again, where are the comparison images that show this?
even if that were true (which is a huge stretch), if you zoom in to a
single eyelash from a full body photo (an insane amount), you will find
defects in *any* image. nothing is perfect.
> I don't have to prove I'm right on each of these claims
of course not. you just expect that others accept whatever you say as
true because you say so. sorry, but it doesn't work that way.
> - they are well
> known facts and if you worked in this field you would know them.
if they're well known facts, they must be documented somewhere. where
would that be?
how would someone new to the field learn about these facts, perhaps one
of those students you mentioned who picked up the free darkroom
equipment off craigslist?
> You can't see it on the web, because all images on the web are digital
> images. You have to look at actual PRINTS to see this.
so it's a problem that can't be seen. cool. this gets better all the
time. care to explain how if you can't see it on a computer display, it
will mysteriously appear on a print and only the print?
by the way, you do realize that prints from a lab are done digitally,
right?
> >> Color saturation effects achieved when shooting with certain films, such
> >> as Velvia, can't be duplicated exactly in digital.
> >
> > sure they can.
>
> Where's the side-by-side comparison? Show me a comparison where a
> brightly colored scene was shot on Velvia as well as digital, and the
> digital image was altered to match the Velvia in color, saturation, and
> detail.
<
http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/exchang...ensionDetail&e
xtid=1043401>
<http://makeshiftdarkroom.com/f-stops/digital_velvia.html>
<http://albertdebruijn.com/home/archives/24>
there are many other examples of matching velvia, for those who happen
to like that look. personally, i find that adding vibrance in camera
raw suffices, without the need of any plugins or lengthy procedures.
> Do you know who Bill Bachmann IS? Do you seriously doubt that his
> lifetime of shooting exceptional travel photos doesn't qualify him to
> judge if Velvia or digital is the better medium to capture an
> exceptional photo?
in other words, there are no comparison images. why am i not surprised.
> > because you say so, without one shred of evidence.
>
> I've been providing evidence, you just keep ignoring it because it
> doesn't match your ignorant views.
no you haven't and you've even admitted as much:
> I'm not going to indulge your nonsense by tracking down cites for what
> is commonly known by working photographers. Go do your own research.
that makes you a liar.
> > you have not provided any comparison images taken in the same
> > conditions that support your claims. you're just blowing smoke.
>
> You haven't provided ANYTHING.
yes i have, but you couldn't be bothered to read it, as you prove below.
> > fortunately, others have done that. here are some side by side
> > comparisons with sample photos, all using cameras that are outdated
> > compared to what's available today because the tests were done a long
> > time ago, which means that the difference is even *more* dramatic now
> > than these comparisons show.
> >
> > a *ten* year old 3 megapixel canon d30 versus canon 1v& provia film:
> > <http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d30/d30_vs_film.shtml>
> >
> > No one will be more amazed at the conclusion than I was. The D30's
> > digital image actually was better in almost every respect.
> >
> > an 11 megapixel canon 1ds versus pentax 6x7 medium format& velvia film
> > (which heavily favours film due to it being medium format plus he
> > locked up the mirror on the pentax and not on the canon, giving film
> > yet another advantage, and it still lost):
> > <http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml>
>
> If you are using Ken Rockwell as a source, it just shows how little you
> really understand in this field.
if you actually looked at the link (which you clearly did not), you'd
realize how utterly foolish your comment is. in fact, it's downright
hilarious.
here's a clue: that's not ken rockwell's website.
here's another clue: ken rockwell's site is his name, kenrockwell.com.
the above site is michael reichmann's site, luminous-landscape.com and
it has absolutely *nothing* to do with ken rockwell whatsoever.
what it does show is that you jump to conclusions and blindly rant
without knowing what it is you're ranting about. it's not really too
surprising you didn't bother to read the links, since you aren't really
interested in any actual evidence.
here's a suggestion: try reading the links before you spout off again
and make yourself look even more ridiculous.
> To an ignorant ammy, Ken looks like a genius. But once you get some
> real experience in the field, you come to find out that Ken is the
> ignorant ammy, and working pros know he's frequently blowing smoke in
> his "shootouts" and reviews and that he often presents "facts" that he
> has absolutely no evidence to back up.
ken admits he is full of ****. read his about page, where he says his
entire site is a joke and he makes up stuff just for kicks.
> It's about understanding how something really works, rather than taking
> the word of Ken Rockwell. If you really knew about photography and
> physics you wouldn't be citing anything from KRs site to back up your
> arguments.
good thing i didn't cite anything from ken rockwell, isn't it?
you might try reading before you go off ranting again.
Similar Threads
