Digital v Film again

[clive_kenyon]

Hello,
Reference the postings by Michael Hahn on 7th May onwards of which I have just become aware, I feel the need to redress some of Michael's comments.

In particular Michael's inference of why I have not posted web pages to illustrate my point I find disappointing. The pages are available for viewing and have been for some time on on http://www.nicepix.org.uk/digital.html

I have replied directly to Michael and provided prints to prove my claim that any $70 compact gives better photographs than any current digital camera. Certainly the photographs taken using my Olympus XA compact are far sharper and exhibit a much better tonal range than the digital prints provided by Michael's N -Digital in my opinion.

There are three reasons for this disparity in quality. The first is that a digital camera cannot yet match a film camera in pixels per inch on the film plane. They are getting closer, but not yet. The second is that the CCDs (with the possible exception of the Sigma chip) cannot record the same tonal range as film. The third and equally as important reason is that the current range of home printers cannot match the quality of a traditional 'wet' print. Even the professional labs that use digital printing lack the quality of the 'wet' print.

I am not a digiphobe, quite the contrary. I have a 3.2 Mb digital camera, 3200ppi scanner, Adobe PhotoShop and an inkjet printer. I welcome the day when digital is as good as film. BUT in my opinion that day has not come yet. I suspect that there are many people like Michael Hahn out there who feel the need to justify spending a shed load of money on a product that is inferior to its predecesors. If they are happy with the product then that is OK by me. But, please do not sway others into making the same mistake with false claims.

Those of you who have purchased N -Digitals - God Bless You. You are funding the research that pays for my future digital camera just as with early buyers of satallite TV, cell phones, etc.

Clive

 

[writing4me]

Clive, I missed the beginning of this discussion. However, if anyone had taken the time to look through your own web site (as I did some time ago before I lost the link!) they'd know you are a fine shooter. I like your work, as I like many others on this list. (It's wonderful and humbling to be able to chat with others with such talent.) I have read your posts for a long time now, and find you to be lucid and honest in your assessments. I read the information at the link you just provided, and I really can't find any fault with any of what you're saying. If someone is throwing insults at you because of your viewpoint, I don't think they could be well founded in their attack. I like digital too, to some degree, but I also agree with your findings that it isn't quite where I want it to be yet. Not sure what value my opinion holds, but I thought I'd let you know someone else sees merit in your points. Best, Lynn

 

[coyot]

> Clive,

I have in hand some of your shots that you sent me ... and they are very nice shots. However; as an ex&le, I am looking at one of your shots (Shot 2 - Keith - Hunter with cap) printed on Cibachrome and taken with an Olympus XA comact, and while the shot is good, the quality is in my opinion "ok" and looks like a point and shoot shot. This shot is posted on your website, and while you rave about the skin and cloth detail, I take a naked eye view of the shot and see the cap pattern lacking detail, the face skin fuzzy, and the overall image simply soft. The only thing that saves the shot is the high gloss printing of the cybchrome.

I look at one of the shots I sent you of "Michael with Postcards", and see detail and tone exceeding your ex&le! The print you sent me is an 8 by 12 and my shot was printed as a 7 by 11. The difference in size, my be the simple reason why my print comes across as being so much sharper, and with much better tonality. However; when I look at your 6 x 9 ex&les, I can still see a softness in quality. The shots still look good, but if we are honest then close inspection reveals softness, dust and scratch spots. Another advantage of digital ... only a "rare" dust spot. The shot of the motorcycle is nice, but the upper left corner reveals nasty spots in the clouds.

I still stand firmly by my digital purchase solution. I took a trip to Annapolis and New York City last week, took 150 shots and am thrilled with the quality. I am in the process of printing some of those shots. The ND functioned flawlessly on my trip, and using new 2200 NiMH 2200 mAh batteries, power was a very minor issues. I was able to get approximately 100 shots per charge. Most film based cameras would have required changing film 3 or 4 times during that same 100 shot period! This included an occassional review of the images I was taking using the LCD finder. The 17 - 35 lens was tremendous for building shots, and I think I am finally getting a handle on "fill flash" thanks to comments from members of this group.

Also, if you check my posts, you will see that I did mention your website, but since you told me it was still "under construction" suggested that you be the one to reveal the address to the site.

Michael.

 

[clive_kenyon]

Just so you other folks can see what this is all about I have posted some of the 6 or 7 photographs that I mailed to Michael in the Photo Gallery / Test Section.

He comments on just two of them ("Hmmm" to quote the man himself), one is in the Gallery (a scan from a slide) and the other (a Cibachrome) is already posted on www.nicepix.org.uk/digital.html

I would welcome your comments.

Clive

 

[djg]

Clive,

I'm trying to get a feel for your basis of comparison. Going by the web link in your message, with the photographs of the hunters, you are basing your comments on a scan of ink jet prints made from an ND and scans from a Cibachrome made from an Olympus SA? Or is there more? I hope there is. If you want to do a proper comparison you need two things:

1. Original full size ND file
2. A direct film scan of the 35mm film shot by the XA, with enough resilution to show the grain

To do otherwise is to simply test the ink jet printer, which does no justice whatsoever to any original file viewed directly, say on a nice monitor.

What I'd like to point out is that the digital vs. film is not a striaght forward fight, if it is a fight at all. What you intend to do with the final product, and what equipment you have through the whole chain, is sometimes even more important.

There are many low-image quality ink jet printers, and only a handful that provide what I would consider quasi-photgraphic quality with some reservation. You can also do better with dye-sublimation thermal printers. But the printing end of digital is at a more embryonic stage.

It seems to me you are judging ND images by how well you can get a particular ink jet printer to print it. If I am mistaken, please let me know.

And I HAVE to take exception to your cynical jab at my financing your technical future because I bought an ND - you are making an under-informed judgement, although I don't mind the attempted humor. Please do not compare an Olympus XA to an ND until you have used both to their fullest extent, or I'll have to do some drastic name calling

.

And remember, while your 35mm negatives are fading and deteriorating, my ND TIFFs will be rock solid and their printed images improving with each evolving printing technology . Unless you scan them, of course ...

Ah, this brings back memories of the vinyl vs. CD discussions. Both sides have points.

BTW, I really like your compositions!

Cheers,

DJ

 

[writing4me]

(Quoting DJ

"And remember, while your 35mm negatives are fading and deteriorating, my ND TIFFs will be rock solid and their printed images improving with each evolving printing technology . Unless you scan them, of course" (end quote).

Hiya DJ, Just a reminder, your TIFFs are rock solid, but the media you're saving them to may not be. Remember that the cd's and dvd's that we can burn in our computers these days don't have as long of a shelf-life as the professionally made cd's and dvd's which are created through a completely different process (like the films and music you buy at the store pre-recorded). The cd's and dvd's available to be recorded in our computers start to deteriorate after maybe 5-7 years. Besides that, every 5-10 years, new media comes available and makes the old obsolete (ie vinyl records and cds as you mentioned) That means, although you are archiving all of your digital files, you need to make sure that you will still have a device capable of reading them from that media well into the future and that you will need to resave these present day archives before that media starts to go bad. I believe the library of congress has been shooting not only chromes (for their archives) but they store them in secure temperature controlled locations.. PLUS, they keep digital archives... plus yet another backup that I can't recall what the format is. Film and Digital both have limitations and issues for long term storage, just slightly different issues

Ain't it fun? -Lynn

 

[djg]

Hi Lynn,

Absolutely right! As we write (literally) I am in the process of upgrading my PC. I have redundant everything

. I've given up on tape as storage, and am installing mirrored RAID arrays, with hot swappable drives of course, for off-site storage. Let's face it, EVERY media is perishable eventually, so what we need is quick ways of lossless duplication. Norton Ghost and removable (or swapable) media are a great boon! With cheap SATA drives in the 200 GB range.

I fully agree with Marc - the images are what matters, but hey, gotta love the toys, photographic and electronic! Plus, I picked up a Tablet PC - I loaded Photoshop, Raw Developer and a slew of other stuff. I'm going to experiment tethering my ND to it and see how that fares this week-end.

Cheers!

DJ

 

[writing4me]

Are you sure you're not part of the library of congress, DJ? Your place sounds very up to date and secure!

As for tethering the ND, you reminded me of something. I was subcontracted on an industrial photo-shoot almost two years ago where we did something similar. We were using a Better-Light system, a Sinar and a PowerBook laptop... add in a little cart and some cables and we turned out some respectable work in a highly automated robotics environment. It was nice for the client to see the images as we captured. Would be interested to know how your experiments go. (I still teeter on the edge of do-I or don't-I like digital.) Happy Fourth, -Lynn

 

[kaisern]

>=20 >=20 >=20 > [I was using Broncolor power pack for location work and hook the camera w= ith > my Powerbook for real-time capture, the biggest problem I have with ND is= that > for reasons I don=B9t know, not everytime the camera is connecting to the > computer, so sometimes I have to use memory card. Canon 1D or 1Ds is ver= y > stable for remote capture and works everytime. Do you have similar probl= em > for connection between ND and computer? One other problem is the sync co= rd > sometimes sends electrical shock back to the camera and cause malfunction= so I > always use wireless. Regards, kaisern] >=20 >=20 >=20

 

[kaisern]

>=20 >=20 >=20 > [The version of Adobe RAW Developer I have does not support N Digital, bu= t > does support Canon, Nikon and Fuji, not sure about Kodak. Does your RAW > developer plug-in support ND? Where to buy it? Please. Brgds/Kaisern.] >=20 >=20 >=20