dswiger
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.2 #9 · 5DC vs 5D2 colors? 5DC better? | |
Mike Mahoney wrote:
Not meaning to start yet another film versus digital ruckus but generally those currently in love with that "film like quality" are those who really never used film.
For those of us who actually did shoot film our memories are of crappy low light performance, dust spots, grain, dust spots, unreliable labs, dust spots, lost color conversion filters, dust spots, and finding room in our fridges to store the stuff.
As to 5D versus 5D2 color .. you can post process both files to look however you want, including exactly like one another .. so there is really not much to discuss there....Show more →
OK, I will weigh in the Digit/Film angle.
I had always wanted to shoot MF film ever since my 1st SLR in Vietnam. Last year got an RZ67 kit and played. While I had a few stunners, there were many frustrations with exactly what Mike has stated. What I discovered was that without doing drum scans, I couldn't match the digital image quality with 6x7 film. Shadow detail was almost always muddy by comparison to the files from my old 1DsMkII. The dynamic range was always a compromise. Shoot transparency to get shadows or shoot neg to hold the highlights. I have a pretty good flat bed scanner, but without trying wet scans or spending $$ for a drum scan, I was left wanting. After reading an excellent, objective comparison of almost the exact gear types on Luminous Landscape, I knew it wasn't just me. The drum scan was "almost" par with the digital file.
While there is a unique "feel" to a MF film image done well I was always getting better, more consistent , sharper results, from digital @16mp FF.
The mention of this so-called color gradation quality of film has me scratching my head a bit. While I have seen nicer gradations, the overall color hues are not as realistic as the digital results. They are subject to the film type, WB compromises, etc.
The best film images were those with even lighting, a narrower dynamic range.
For those that want to take a look, here are two images taken back to back
FILM (yes I was fighting a color cast)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dswcamera/5055867505/in/set-72157624980770969/
Digital
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dswcamera/5056482802/in/set-72157624980770969/
I am sure that 4x5, at 4 times the area of 6x7, would yield better detail,.
But the dynamic range issues, the handling & workflow challenges would remain.
For what it's worth, I have a 4x5 loaned to me that I do want to try.
I have no illusions about the known issues but look forward to the detail and that look of film.
Film used to be the dominate media for a long time. Before digital, the images were the best there were and they still are great. Digital is the media of now and the future. The film labs are slowly drying up, just lost another in the Bay Area recently.
My opinion is that there are some who hold to the that old-time-film religion and some who just appreciated for what it offers. I am of the latter persuasion.
YOMV.
Dan
OK, just to keep this on topic.
I did like the files from my old 5D, but like the the detail and better hi ISO from the 5DMkII that I borrowed. The 5DMkII has better Hi ISO, but the 1DsMkII has the edge on low ISO, but its not worth quibling about.
|
