digital vs. medium format

No reflectance print will ever compare with a transparency viewed
directly.

Roland Karlsson wrote:
Chris Brown wrote in
news:f0sah2-
:

You can use the Fred Miranda plugin Digital Velvia to get it.
Or maybe you can't ... what you see is in the eye of the beholder


Quite.



If you believe that it is impossible to get the Velvia look
with a digital camera then no one can ever convince you.
Its like those that buy low oxygen digital cables to achieve
low jitter. No matter how much you show them meassurements
that tells that there is no difference - they will hear it
nevertheless They have Golden Ears. Hmmmmm.....


/Roland

wrote:

Roland Karlsson wrote:
Chris Brown wrote in
news:f0sah2-
:

You can use the Fred Miranda plugin Digital Velvia to get it.
Or maybe you can't ... what you see is in the eye of the beholder


Quite.



If you believe that it is impossible to get the Velvia look
with a digital camera then no one can ever convince you.
Its like those that buy low oxygen digital cables to achieve
low jitter. No matter how much you show them meassurements
that tells that there is no difference - they will hear it
nevertheless They have Golden Ears. Hmmmmm.....


No reflectance print will ever compare with a transparency viewed
directly.

So very true. Also true, IMHO, of a projected transparency.
Fortunately, a projected transparency can be duplicated by projecting a
digital image. You haven't REALLY seen the glory of your best digital
images until you've seen them projected.

Thankfully, this keeps getting easier and easier, with big HD projection
TVs, devices to show photos on TVs, and for the discerning few, Tivo's
Home Media features allowing you to show slideshows on your TV of images
stored on your computer.

Lisa

wrote:

Roland Karlsson wrote:
Chris Brown wrote in
news:f0sah2-
:

You can use the Fred Miranda plugin Digital Velvia to get it.
Or maybe you can't ... what you see is in the eye of the beholder


Quite.



If you believe that it is impossible to get the Velvia look
with a digital camera then no one can ever convince you.
Its like those that buy low oxygen digital cables to achieve
low jitter. No matter how much you show them meassurements
that tells that there is no difference - they will hear it
nevertheless They have Golden Ears. Hmmmmm.....


No reflectance print will ever compare with a transparency viewed
directly.

So very true. Also true, IMHO, of a projected transparency.
Fortunately, a projected transparency can be duplicated by projecting a
digital image. You haven't REALLY seen the glory of your best digital
images until you've seen them projected.

Thankfully, this keeps getting easier and easier, with big HD projection
TVs, devices to show photos on TVs, and for the discerning few, Tivo's
Home Media features allowing you to show slideshows on your TV of images
stored on your computer.

Lisa

In message ,
Roland Karlsson wrote:

Inaccessible wrote in newsandemonium-
:

Or shoot color negative materials and transparencies as reference
or scanning.

Negative film has a highly compressed tonal scale (as it
has a low gamma) and the expansion of that tonal scale while
priniting enlarges the graininess.

NOTE - I know you can make wonderful images with film.
It is just that direct digital capture is a huge improvement
when it comes to tonal smoothness.

It would be even better if the A2D converters were 16-bit. Much of what
is captured in a DSLR sensor at the lowest ISO is wasted in a 12-bit
digitization. The brain can do a pretty good job of ignoring noise, but
it is a lot easier to do when the noise and signal, summed, are not
distorted together in coarse quantization.
--


John P Sheehy

In message ,
Roland Karlsson wrote:

Inaccessible wrote in newsandemonium-
:

Or shoot color negative materials and transparencies as reference
or scanning.

Negative film has a highly compressed tonal scale (as it
has a low gamma) and the expansion of that tonal scale while
priniting enlarges the graininess.

NOTE - I know you can make wonderful images with film.
It is just that direct digital capture is a huge improvement
when it comes to tonal smoothness.

It would be even better if the A2D converters were 16-bit. Much of what
is captured in a DSLR sensor at the lowest ISO is wasted in a 12-bit
digitization. The brain can do a pretty good job of ignoring noise, but
it is a lot easier to do when the noise and signal, summed, are not
distorted together in coarse quantization.
--


John P Sheehy

In article ,
Roland Karlsson wrote:
Chris Brown wrote in news:f0sah2-
:

You can use the Fred Miranda plugin Digital Velvia to get it.
Or maybe you can't ... what you see is in the eye of the beholder

Quite.



If you believe that it is impossible to get the Velvia look
with a digital camera then no one can ever convince you.

Who said anything was impossible? I just said that I'd never seen a
satisfactory attempt.

In article ,
Roland Karlsson wrote:
Chris Brown wrote in news:f0sah2-
:

You can use the Fred Miranda plugin Digital Velvia to get it.
Or maybe you can't ... what you see is in the eye of the beholder

Quite.



If you believe that it is impossible to get the Velvia look
with a digital camera then no one can ever convince you.

Who said anything was impossible? I just said that I'd never seen a
satisfactory attempt.

Inaccessible wrote:

In article ,
Colin D wrote:
I've made thousands of optical prints, with top-line gear like Durst 5x4
dichroic head enlargers, and Rodenstock lenses, and I'm here to say that
a digital image appears sharper and cleaner than any film-based 35mm or
MF optical print. The colors are more accurate, since the Bayer filters
are spectrally purer than film's emulsion-based filters. The dyes
produced by the dye-coupling process during development are far from
spectrally optimal, necessitating the addition of dye destroyed during
development to compensate for impure coupled dyes - hence the orange
mask on color negative materials. Contrary to popular belief, the
orange mask is not an even layer of dye over the negative, it is densest
in the clear areas (shadows), and almost gone in the dense highlight
areas.

Dye masking was a great leap forward in the evolution of modern color
negative film, but the direct filtering and greater gamut of the
spectrally superior Bayer filters, together with the linear response of
the sensor over a wide dynamic range produces images that film has never
been able to do.

Large-format film obviously can surpass a digital image in sheer
definition, but color accuracy is another matter altogether.

Finally, a digital image can be color-balanced, sharpened or softened as
required, selectively lightened or darkened, jarring objects toned down
or removed, have converging/diverging parallels corrected, plus a host
of other advantages. Which is why images shot on film are routinely
scanned and corrected with Photoshop, doing things that are literally
impossible with an optical printing system.

I used to be a filmo, with 35mm, 6x6, 6x9, 5x4 formats, and a complete
color darkroom facility. Sure, it's a bit unsettling to realize that a
hell of a lot of knowledge and experience is now obsolete - but having
applied myself to embracing the digital revolution, I would never go
back.

The only thing I conclude is you didn't know how to print
or expose film,... probably just as well you shoot digital.

If that's your best answer, you've lost the plot. When you can't fault
the argument, denigrate the person. Argumentum ad hominem, the mark of
a loser.

Colin

Inaccessible wrote:

In article ,
Colin D wrote:
I've made thousands of optical prints, with top-line gear like Durst 5x4
dichroic head enlargers, and Rodenstock lenses, and I'm here to say that
a digital image appears sharper and cleaner than any film-based 35mm or
MF optical print. The colors are more accurate, since the Bayer filters
are spectrally purer than film's emulsion-based filters. The dyes
produced by the dye-coupling process during development are far from
spectrally optimal, necessitating the addition of dye destroyed during
development to compensate for impure coupled dyes - hence the orange
mask on color negative materials. Contrary to popular belief, the
orange mask is not an even layer of dye over the negative, it is densest
in the clear areas (shadows), and almost gone in the dense highlight
areas.

Dye masking was a great leap forward in the evolution of modern color
negative film, but the direct filtering and greater gamut of the
spectrally superior Bayer filters, together with the linear response of
the sensor over a wide dynamic range produces images that film has never
been able to do.

Large-format film obviously can surpass a digital image in sheer
definition, but color accuracy is another matter altogether.

Finally, a digital image can be color-balanced, sharpened or softened as
required, selectively lightened or darkened, jarring objects toned down
or removed, have converging/diverging parallels corrected, plus a host
of other advantages. Which is why images shot on film are routinely
scanned and corrected with Photoshop, doing things that are literally
impossible with an optical printing system.

I used to be a filmo, with 35mm, 6x6, 6x9, 5x4 formats, and a complete
color darkroom facility. Sure, it's a bit unsettling to realize that a
hell of a lot of knowledge and experience is now obsolete - but having
applied myself to embracing the digital revolution, I would never go
back.

The only thing I conclude is you didn't know how to print
or expose film,... probably just as well you shoot digital.

If that's your best answer, you've lost the plot. When you can't fault
the argument, denigrate the person. Argumentum ad hominem, the mark of
a loser.

Colin

wrote in message
oups.com...
"While the idea of a medium format digital looks great on paper, they
are
extremely expensive right now..."

Well, it's about $500 for a used hasselblad, I don't consider that to
be extremely expensive. I'm certain that after 3 years the hassy will
still be worth around $500, while the digital camera will be worth
maybe $250? In any case, if I decide next year that I need a digital
camera, I will get more bang for my buck than buying one right now.

No doubt the Hassy is great camera. But, by the time the shutter closes,
the mirror flips up, and a dozen other things a Hassy has to do even before
it takes the picture, your shot could be gone. Great for anything that
ain't moving, and the changeable backs are nice.