Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 17/09/2008 2:36 AM:

In the first one
http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/...e%20wheels.jpg
You can see the film struggling, the sky is full of noise, even with
the reduced size image.

Actually, it's called clouds. Not noise.
And exactly which detail do you expect to see in clouds in
the sky? But let's not allow reality to get in the way of
a good anti-film rant, shall we?

The shadows have gone to close to black and there is no detail in
them.

Actually, the shadows have no noise and are full of detail in the
high rez version. But of course shadows are shadows: if you
expect to see pores in the bricks then it might be a good idea
to actually take a photo exposed to said bricks?
Also: I'd love to see what a dslr would do to that corrugated
iron roof. Most likely it'd be full of moiree...

If you like the high contrast look that is fine, but it does not show
much DR at all.

Doesn't it? Prove it: demonstrate to me where is it that
you can see high DR? Of course, do not come back to me
with an example where all tones are the same intensity:
that is just the drap watercoloured digital mush that some
folks call "high dr". And no: an image made out of multiple
raw stitched together is NOT high DR: it is just another
example of watercoloured drab, non-constrasty, non-saturated
digital mush.

The other two photos don't show any more DR.

Really? Why? Did you look at the shadows in the verandas?


I am not saying the low DR makes them bad photos, just that they don't
have much DR. A whole lot of good photos have been taken over the
years with reversal film, and I have very small DR.

Like I said: demonstrate what you call high dr.
Just claiming that everything in sight is not high dr because
it is not digital is pretty poor form. And no: a drab old
non-contrast dslr image with washed out highlights
and shadows smeared out of existence by the anti-noise processing
is NOT an example of high dr.


Now before you get all mad, I have to say that Bret's photo also is
not good at showing high DR, is has some whites in it but no good
shadows that are in focus. Would the 40D have done better on your
scene, hard to know.

Exactly. Problem is: I do have a D80 which has taken a photo
in the same place, same lens, same exposure parameters.
I won't post it because it might shock Rita...