"As I have now shown this is not the case. "
Sorry Matthew,
I must have missed your example of where you were not able to dig as deep in a digital source. Please post your link of the same shot as you have said you have shown "this is not the case."
I'll wait for your post proving your point.....unless of course, you haven't done this with a digital source and as a result have once again not proven your point at all.
Regards,
"Guys this is like a flame war on qualudes......zzzzzzz"
It's the slow, contemplative Large Format approach to flaming... :-)
You'd be amazed how small the demand is for pictures of trees... - Fred Astaire to Audrey Hepburn
www.photo-muse.blogspot.com blog
Matthew,
You have summed up the ENTIRE problem that a lot a film users like you have....they are unwilling to do a test to compare side by side. You rely on what you think to be true...what you want to be true.....but you refuse to compare.
I've been through this many times. I remember comparing 4x5 Astia scans blown up to 16x20 along side a 16x24 enlargement from a Canon 1Ds MK2. There were a few people from a local camera club who maintained that it was absolutely impossible for the digital source to even compare. I asked how they did their comparisons? The answer I got back is typical....they didn't need to do comparisons because they KNEW it was impossible. Well with logic like that, a discussion is a waste of time. However, when they viewed the print comparisons, they were astonished to find that they viewed the prints as being similar in quality. Each had a slight edge over the other in different areas. The film with an ever-so-slight advantage in resolution....only visible by pressing your nose to the print. The digital won out in terms of color accuracy, sharpness & accutance, low noise, and ability to dig into the shadows.
A lot of people will try to hide behind numbers, etc. I have found that when you do tests on your own, and read tests & comparisons of well known photographers & printers, there is a common thread virtually all of them....and that is the they are quite often better able to dig into the shadows from a digital source. Even Charlie Cramer recently commented on this when he was testing a digital back.
I can understand where you're coming from because I was the same. I refused to believe it until people started showing me comparison prints and tests. I then did the same to prove them wrong....only to find that they were correct. That is the main reason why an overwhelming majority of my work is now digitally based. I chose it because for me, and for the print sizes I do (mainly 16x24 & less) I get quality that is similar to film, but without any grain.
So, as I said, film exhibits the same problem in scans as digital files do with regards to tonality. You conveniently ignore that. So, unless you are printing color with an enlarger, you will experience the EXACT same tonality issues.....which when you compare side by side, are actually not issues at all.
Unfortunately Matthew, you don't understand this because you have never compared and thus, you continue to blather on about bit depth, etc, when they are of no issue.
Sorry, but until you compare & test, you have nothing to offer here other than opinion. Until you compare & test, I will ignore further posts from you as they are nothing more than uneducated opinion.
If this sounds harsh, I apologise. I am however tired of people who claim something that they have no comparisons, tests, or data to back up there opinions with. Telling me something is so, just because you think it is, does not hold any water with me.
Good day.
> Jack, just give up. It appears that it is not that some people don't understand.....it's that they don't WANT to.
Nothing could be further from the truth...how can we understand something when the prosecution left the court room before making their case? Ok, so blame the jury for not understanding, I follow the logic here?
> Of course, it has already been explained that film has little to no tonal accuracy at these same shadow areas....but that will continue to be ignored by some I'm sure.
Just so its clear, as this thread has gone more towards right/wrong, vs. the sharing of information..... The issue here is NOT tonal accuracy, we all agree film and digital have spectral response curves that are poor in underexposed areas. However, much of these areas can be isolated in PS and color corrected. So thanks to digital processing, this is not the issue....the problem is, what happens when there is not sufficient tonal ranges and we get posterization type effects from the huge gaps in tonal ranges available in the given stop of exposure. Somehow, the prosecutors bailed out on this concept as the thread developed in this area??
As for many of us being anti-digital, well, I can only speak for myself, but I find that absurb, I am the biggest digital fan out there, I love its potential and use it often, but that does not mean I want to ignore the differences.
> You have summed up the ENTIRE problem that a lot a film users like you have....they are unwilling to do a test to compare side by side. You rely on what you think to be true...what you want to be true.....but you refuse to compare.
Dave, if there was perfect test done on these topics, by qualified technicians, with detailed white papers explaining the results, we would not be having this discussion. I too wish these tests were more readily available, but even then, the results would be challenged as pro digital, anti digital, etc. So the best we have is the occasional sharing of information on forums like this, but unfortunately the human elelment is the limiting factor as this thread has demonstrated so well. I have never fully understood how quickly a thread can turn sour, once someones information is challenged.... such as Jacks sudden insistence of engaging me into a Q&A session, to entice him to share his point? If I don't comply with his up/back, up/back, tutorial, he punishes us by staying silent? On a public forum?? Which adults use? I admit, much of this is just beyond me.
It's too bad, as there is a lot of good minds on this forum. But I will continue to offer what I can to help those who can benefit from my experiences, and I hope some contributors also continue with thie same theme of "offering what they can, when they can".
"So thanks to digital processing, this is not the issue....the problem is, what happens when there is not sufficient tonal ranges and we get posterization type effects from the huge gaps in tonal ranges available in the given stop of exposure. Somehow, the prosecutors bailed out on this concept as the thread developed in this area?? "
wg,
I have pointed out that these posterization effects are present from both film & digital, albeit in slightly different ways. However, instead of acknowledging this, it has somehow been focussed upon by some as a digital only problem....in spite of many attempts to clearify the fact that this problem is evident in both film and digital capture.
Because this problem is evident in both capture methods, there is nothing to be gained by silly comments about how this effects only digital capture....as it doesn't. Breath is simply being wasted here. This would be similar to complaining about digital noise at high iso, while avoiding the fact that film has the SAME problem.
As to qualified technicans, I think those of us using industry standard software tools to measure different media have already posted enough evidence.....the problem is, for some, it will never be enough.
> I have pointed out that these posterization effects are present from both film & digital
Dave, no one is disputing this?
> it has somehow been focussed upon by some as a digital only problem
Well, if you have been reading my posts, nothing could be further from the truth. The purpose of advancing this thread was to determine the differences in linear bit depth recording using the two methods, i.e. scanned film vs. digital capture. Of course they both suffer the same consequences, but the goal was to define which method can record more steps of tonality at a given under exposed value, right? To me, thats when the shi%$ hit the fan.....
> there is nothing to be gained by silly comments about how this effects only digital capture
I can only assume you are not reading my posts. I am not trying to upset you, but your comment makes no sense to me. This thread is comparing the two, it's not a conspiracy of one vs. the other. From your tone, it seems you really think many of us are anti-digital, which is absurd, as I constantly search for more justifications to be fully digital. Anyway........
wg,
I'm commenting on the statements made by Matthew as well as others in the past on this very topic. You have been one of the few to actually wish to participate in a logical discussion. My apologies if you thought some of my comments were directed to you.
Cheers,
Dave, you did not preclude me, so I assumed I was in the masses.
Is it possible you can direct your posts to me? :-)
It's just gettin good.....
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks