On 08/06/2007 ppatton@bgnet.bgsu.edu wrote:
> Are there
> still any major advantages to sticking with film plus scanning
> over going fully digital?
The reason this list is almost dead is, I suspect, that we have all
switched to DSLR's.
I have shot 2 rolls of film in the past 4 years, and those only because I
wanted to match images to an old project shot on film. For me the
advantages of dig are utterly overwhelming. I was never a fan of grain
anyway and generally did what I could to avoid it, so the tonal smoothness
of dig came as a relief rather than a repellent. Nor did I like slide, it
was too temperamental and restrictive for the uncontrolled lighting I
usually shoot in. With a decent DSLR and shooting RAW you get most of the
latitude of colour neg with a whole lot more ability to control results.
Just don't blow the highlights - dig is like slide in that respect, but
you can dig into the shadows far deeper. CCD noise just isn't an issue
most of the time, and where it is, s/w like NeatImage can be startlingly
effective. Yes, I spend a lot of time at the PC doing post-prod, but less
than I did with scanning.
Film and dig are such different media it is hard to make direct
comparisons, but for most purposes, and taste or religious attachment
aside, dig far surpasses film now. Images from full-frame sensor cameras
such as the Canon 1DS, 1DS-2 and 5D (the relative bargain here) are much
closer to MF quality than 35mm.
If you need convincing, download and print at 16x12" some of the sample
full res images at
--
Regards
Tony Sleep
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
