Re: [Digital BW] Digest Number 849
2002-07-27 by Bruce
on 7/26/2002 10:59 AM, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com at DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com wrote: > Message: 12 > Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 10:47:07 -0500 > From: Jerry Olson <jerryolson@...> > Subject: Re: Canon D60 Question > > Austin, this is contrary to everything I have ever read about digital > images. The one thing that has almost universal agreement is that > digital has a much wider tonal range and latitude than film. There are > museum photographers that are making 6 foot prints out of digital images > (Copying color paintings) that are FAR superior to Fuji Velvia in every > way. Of course they are using sinar cameras and 100,000 dollar sensors > and scanning backs. > > Jerry Whoa Nellie! #1. Color painting have a much, much smaller tonal range than real life! Digital can handle this easily. #2. Digital might be close to slide film in tonal range, but color neg or b&w neg far surpasses it, by a mile. Granted most of my digital imaging experience is in motion pictures, but it is far easier to expose color negative film and scan it (transfer to video) than to expose digital directly. In color neg/scan one has a wide pallet to choose from for the final presentation. For example skies that go pure white in digital can be brought back into full glory from a color neg. Shooting digital can be tricky as the exposure must be spot on to keep highlight and shadow detail at the same time. With film one simply uses a spot meter to measure the tonal range, know it's on the film and optimize it later. My conclusion: Scanning negative films is the best of both worlds, as far as tonal range goes. Scanning slides is almost like shooting digital, with the slight advantage going to slides. If kodak or fuji would make a lo-contrast slide film for scanning (or a high contrast color negative without the orange mask) that might be the ultimate at this point. -Bruce Visit my website at: http://home.earthlink.net/~smthopr