Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/03/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Frank and Didier, I usually don't get too involved in these discussions. I guess when it comes right down to it, I really don't care. I use digital and I use film, for different reasons. I like them both. But playing around with Lightzone as I have been doing recently, I have a shot last week with film: http://www.dlridings.se/gallery/v/Shoebox/2007v12/07v12-0002.jpg.html And from the same sitting, one with digital: http://www.dlridings.se/gallery/v/Shoebox/2007v13/DSC_8674.jpg.html I see now that the digital is too "low key". I need to brighten it up a bit and do the color conversion intelligently rather than lazily. Daniel Didier Ludwig wrote: > Frank > There's nothing to argue about what you say. Digital has passed film in > terms of resolution and dynamic range since several years; except you > produce zone-system-exposed, tripod based, ISO25 large format shots as you > mentioned. All I want to add is that, sometimes, I have the feeling that > the screened or printed scans of my b&w (mostly 100, 125 and 400 ASA) > small format negatives have another patina, another texture, just "another > look" than my digital pix from the R-D1. I've tried many PS hacks but > could not imitate this effect so far. Because i still like that "look". > Younger people, like my graphic design students, call it "retro" (but they > like it, too, though they'd never have the patience, or passion, to fiddle > around with it). > Didier > > > >> Hi Jerry, >> your statement is miles from my experience. >> Digital is MUCH better than film for everything I do. In fact I would >> say that unless you use slow hi res B&W film and your camera is >> always on a tripod the potential extra resolution of film (its only >> theoretical benefit over digital, it is already inferior in every >> other way) will never be actually visible/useable. >> Frank >> >> >> On 26 Mar, 2007, at 23:31, Photo Phreak wrote: >> >>> Digital is convenient, but the quality is still not equal to film.