5 Megapixels vs Velvia vs Kodachrome + Microscope Views

I tell you whats funny about those film images. The Velvia had alot of
grain. I have shot a ton of Velvia and for some reason my slides don't have
that grain. Whether I print them or blow them up on a projector, you can't
see the grain. I guess I just bought grainless Velvia. Everytime I see one
of these comparisons, I always see the grain in the film so bad like it was
intentionally exposed to make it grainy. Funny however. When I see images
properly exposed on the net with Velvia, they don't have that sandpaper
look. And, on the subject of Velvia having to be exposed under certain
conditions, a proper photo made by a professional is going to be shot under
certain conditions. Most amateurs I see shoot in mid day lighting. Of
course you will have harsh shadows. My Velvia shots always come out great.
Just my opinion.

Roger

"Jim Davis" wrote in message
. ne.jp...
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 16:25:23 -0400, "Bowser"
wrote/replied to:

I was teasing, but since you brought it up, no, I never shoot anything at
that speed. If I did, I'd re-evaluate the tools, of course, and take a
long
look at the 10D. It's a really nice piece of machinery.

Yep, shooting even in bright sunlight, I'm often or usually at ISO 400
at a minimum, perhaps faster if I want to stop bird movements. But the
most interesting light, and the light the birds are active in, is the
early and late light. And with the 400 at f5.6, and effective 640mm
meaning I should shoot at 1/125th minimum with IS on, you can see that
as soon as the sun goes under a cloud, or the bird under a shadow, I'm
cranking up ISO to 1600 most of the time. Can't do that with film.

But I have shot Velvia and Provia, as well as Kodak 100G and a few
others,
and based on what I see, film captures more information than any 6MP
digicam. This is not to say that the digicams are bad; not hardly.
They're
excellent. The problem usually comes in the method of comparison. All
I've
seen is a digital original compared to a *scanned* piece of film.
Scanners,
even the really good ones, can't capture all the detail in film. I did
see
the results from one scanner, an 8000dpi model, and it did a great job,
but
who can afford it (around $15K)?

Ya, that's just it. It's very well and good to say film can capture
such and such if I'm in perfect lighting and have a perfect tripod and
technique, etc plus an excellent lens, etc. But in the real world this
just doens't happen very often, at least not in my field of specialty.
And if you're talking about a scanner that expensive, you might as
well get an EOS 1Ds and be done with it. Running around buying film,
processing, picking up, getting scans done, it's for the birds, heh
heh, get it the birds!


Jim Davis
Nature Photography
http://www.kjsl.com/~jbdavis/