Future of MF

Gordon Moat wrote:

[...]

Maybe I chose a very specific example, but the reality is that colour
issues are a big deal with direct digital imaging. Obviously, there are
some photographers who only care about resolution, but in my work the
colour is the primary issue.

You're not trying to make us believe such colour issues are not a big deal
with "direct film imaging" too, are you?

"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote:

Gordon Moat wrote:

[...]

Maybe I chose a very specific example, but the reality is that colour
issues are a big deal with direct digital imaging. Obviously, there are
some photographers who only care about resolution, but in my work the
colour is the primary issue.

You're not trying to make us believe such colour issues are not a big deal
with "direct film imaging" too, are you?

No, not at all, since mistakes or errors can be made with any imaging medium.
Obviously colour issues are very important issues when using film. Different
films even have different colour response, though most rolls of a similar
batch are fairly consistent in response. Colour issues are also somewhat
troublesome when scanning film, especially when many colours do not display
on computer monitors. Then at least the transparency gives some guidance to
the printing company to get a close match in the final prints. Scanning can
also provide the opportunity to use a larger colour space than is possible
with many direct digital cameras, which limits compression of shadow details.

I should have elaborated more. In general, many looking at comparing digital
to film largely only compare based upon resolution. There is a need for some
of us to quantify differences, and resolution makes a handy comparison. I
think it is tougher to visually see differences in colour, and difficult on a
computer monitor. The other reality is that colour accuracy is less important
than resolution for some photographers.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated!

"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote:

Gordon Moat wrote:

[...]

Maybe I chose a very specific example, but the reality is that colour
issues are a big deal with direct digital imaging. Obviously, there are
some photographers who only care about resolution, but in my work the
colour is the primary issue.

You're not trying to make us believe such colour issues are not a big deal
with "direct film imaging" too, are you?

No, not at all, since mistakes or errors can be made with any imaging medium.
Obviously colour issues are very important issues when using film. Different
films even have different colour response, though most rolls of a similar
batch are fairly consistent in response. Colour issues are also somewhat
troublesome when scanning film, especially when many colours do not display
on computer monitors. Then at least the transparency gives some guidance to
the printing company to get a close match in the final prints. Scanning can
also provide the opportunity to use a larger colour space than is possible
with many direct digital cameras, which limits compression of shadow details.

I should have elaborated more. In general, many looking at comparing digital
to film largely only compare based upon resolution. There is a need for some
of us to quantify differences, and resolution makes a handy comparison. I
think it is tougher to visually see differences in colour, and difficult on a
computer monitor. The other reality is that colour accuracy is less important
than resolution for some photographers.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated!

"Neil Gould" wrote in message link.net...
Recently, jjs posted:

"Victor" wrote in message
om...
I'll add this to fuel the discussion:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...shootout.shtml

Yes, that's a good article and thousands of words have already been
spent discussing it. Frankly, I think it's a well done case and can
stand As Is.

Yikes. Where to start? Perhaps with the pair of images which supposedly
illustrate grain issues? Look at the building on the right. What kind of
windows does the building have? The Canon has completely mis-reperesented
them, which to me means that it *lacks detail*.

If you compare the 4 windows in each of the vertical groupings, those in
the Canon shot are all about the same hue and intensity, whereas the film
shot shows each window with a clearly different intensity, and a change of
hue within each panel. To me, it looks like the Canon *lacks tonality*.

If you look at the edges of high-contrast areas, you'll see evidence of
over-sharpening in the Canon shot, where there is a light(er) stripe
directly adjacent to the darker areas. This is visible in *all* of the
areas of medium to high contrast.

If that's the kind of image representation that one likes, then I guess
those are "good qualities". I'll stick with MF film as being clearly
superior in representation of details, tonality, and overall image
quality.

Finally, let's still not forget that the comparison is between direct
digital and this individual's scanning abilities.

Neil


Also the choice of MF camera was not the best (Pentax 67). In my
opinion Pentax 67 optics are not that good; nevertheless they give me
a tonality better than any digital image I've seen. He should have
compared the 1Ds to Hasselblad or Mamiya 7

J.

"Neil Gould" wrote in message link.net...
Recently, jjs posted:

"Victor" wrote in message
om...
I'll add this to fuel the discussion:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...shootout.shtml

Yes, that's a good article and thousands of words have already been
spent discussing it. Frankly, I think it's a well done case and can
stand As Is.

Yikes. Where to start? Perhaps with the pair of images which supposedly
illustrate grain issues? Look at the building on the right. What kind of
windows does the building have? The Canon has completely mis-reperesented
them, which to me means that it *lacks detail*.

If you compare the 4 windows in each of the vertical groupings, those in
the Canon shot are all about the same hue and intensity, whereas the film
shot shows each window with a clearly different intensity, and a change of
hue within each panel. To me, it looks like the Canon *lacks tonality*.

If you look at the edges of high-contrast areas, you'll see evidence of
over-sharpening in the Canon shot, where there is a light(er) stripe
directly adjacent to the darker areas. This is visible in *all* of the
areas of medium to high contrast.

If that's the kind of image representation that one likes, then I guess
those are "good qualities". I'll stick with MF film as being clearly
superior in representation of details, tonality, and overall image
quality.

Finally, let's still not forget that the comparison is between direct
digital and this individual's scanning abilities.

Neil


Also the choice of MF camera was not the best (Pentax 67). In my
opinion Pentax 67 optics are not that good; nevertheless they give me
a tonality better than any digital image I've seen. He should have
compared the 1Ds to Hasselblad or Mamiya 7

J.