Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 17/09/2008 4:24 PM:


This is the kind of scene that is good for a test, bright light on the
highlight and very deep shadows.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/103253296/original

Yeah, I know:
http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/art/...mp-02-91534639
is an example. Once again, Superia 400. Not even Velvia
or Astia!


If you load that into photoshop and adjust so that you expand the
bottom 20 levels to go from 0 to 255 you will see that there is a lot
of detail in the shadow in those bottom 20 levels.

With the detail there I can, if I wish, pull the detail out of the
shadows with a bit of dodging.


Or if you scan for shadows and correct curve for highlights
like I did in the above example, you end up with detail in all
of it. That's DR compression and is what negative film has
been doing for eons.
"compression", because most srgb monitors and printers have
difficulty showing more than about 5-6 EIs, even though
8-bit colour video cards can *theoretically* show 8.



The only real way to compare film vs digital is to shoot the exact
same scene, having someone skilled with digital shooting the digital
shot and someone skilled with film doing the film shot.

Absolutely. Why do you think I have a D80 and film?
I *did* such comparisons regularly. And quite frankly,
there is simply no difference. With film, saturation
is easier to accent. With digital, you get less noise
problems. Overall, DR is the same in both. Medium
format is different, though. I still haven't worked
that one out, still trying to get it under control.

I reserve my opinion on this for raw files from the new
crop of dslrs, like the D700 and the 5D2: 14-bit colour
DR is some really serious stuff! If nothing else,
the resulting compression range will be amazing.


I think some negative films could do very well, if they were exposed a
couple of stop passed where most people tend to expose there film.
Slide film would not have a chance IMO.

Actually, I disagree here. Negative films can do very well,
but need proper placement of exposure in their dynamic range.
Usually this means correct zone system placement, rather than
just the usual "open up 1 stop". Slide film will cover 5-6
EIs easily, which if exposed properly is *more than enough*
for the VAST majority of monitors and printers out there.
Although of course dynamic range compression is less the
if the scene is more than 6 EIs, you gotta do some trickery
to get slides to cover it.


Over all I don't think DR is a large problem for either film or
digital, but the film fans that keep using the high DR of film as a
reason to shoot film often don't have a clue about what they are
talking about.

Exactly. In most cases it's not even high DR, it's just
different DR compression levels and ratios.
Most digital displays use 6-7 EIs at best and that's a physical
limit not easily overcome. Even less for most digital printers.
The workaround is to compress a higher DR into that range.
Which can be done with film or digital, it's just a means
to an end.