Film - The Color of Truth

[Bob]

Benjamin


<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana;"]Drum scanners cannot scan slides in mounts, so you need to un-mount every slide - big pain, but they are the best - cost about $11K.<o></o>


<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana;"]Bob<o></o>

[Colin]

I guess digital has more accurate color because it is so much easier to calibrate.

I think that this touches on a really good point. It's nice to be able to do accurate, particularly as a starting reference point, but subjectively, accurate rarely looks 'best.' If accurate really was best, we'd render with the default 'Faithful' picture style, or create a profile for the camera with given light conditions, and just not post process, and use colorimetric (spelling?) rendering. On top of trying to tilt to compensate for the limitations of the mediums (thecaptured image itself,display capabilities, printer capabilities, in the world of color space and dynamic range are the first things that come to mind) I think there's something inherently more in our nature that adores the deviations from 'true'.


A little pop, a little drama, more real than real itself, often best conveys the experience the photographer wants to convey, reality aside. The really cool thing about photography I like, is not only capturing images of things we enjoy and want to rememeber, but being able to see and show things in a way that we couldn't, or wouldn't otherwise.


It's a reallygood thing!

[Jon Ruyle]

Thanks, Daniel, for another informative post.

However, on digital, one of the advantages of linear response is that print size can be traded for dynamic range.

Yeah. I got my dr data from dxomark.com. I'm not sure, but I think they mean "per pixel", ie, each pixel has 11 bits. But measuring per-pixel seems to favor cameras with low pixel densities, for the reason you just mentioned. Even so, the highest rated camera in dr is the d3x: even though it has 24 megapixles it beats out the d3.

I think dynamic range in digital will *really* improve when someone finds a way to simulate larger full well capacities (e.g. read-reset seamlessly inside a single exposure).

If you could do that fast enough, you could pretty much have all the dr you want, I suppose. I talked to some guy who said he worked on a special purpose ccd (or some sensor) in which something like that was done for longer exposures. Not sure I believe him, but such a feature sure would be cool for astro (where you really could use the dr).

In short: film isn't dead yet, but the last will and testament has been signed.

Sure. But hey, I know guys in good health and under 40 about whom you could say the same thing []

[Jon Ruyle]

The really cool thing about photography I like, is not only capturing images of things we enjoy and want to rememeber, but being able to see and show things in a way that we couldn't, or wouldn't otherwise.

Me, too. I don't have a darkroom and never have developed my own film. Before digital I used an old roliflex my grandfather gave me, and I was held hostage to the guys doing the developing. Occasionally I think of getting some bw film for the thing, but I can't deal with giving up creative control (not that I do such a good job anyway... [])

[Benjamin]

After some other films being scanned and examed, I actually barely see any film that come very close to reality in color. It depends on the way they're developed but more on the way they're scanned. I spend one entire day of quality time twist the settings on my Nikon 9000ED, nothing very productive, neither anything very satisfactory... But sometime I get the color I like the most - they look different from the digital ones that I have been so familiar with.


To be honest, digital is very cheap to run. Even if I buy a 50D or something silmiar every year it does not come close to the expense of film/development/print when you want to have a good play of it...


I'll post some of my recent film shots soon, most of them will come after I complete my trip to China!

[Benjamin]

After some other films being scanned and examed, I actually barely see any film that come very close to reality in color. It depends on the way they're developed but more on the way they're scanned. I spend one entire day of quality time twist the settings on my Nikon 9000ED, nothing very productive, neither anything very satisfactory... But sometime I get the color I like the most - they look different from the digital ones that I have been so familiar with.


To be honest, digital is very cheap to run. Even if I buy a 50D or something silmiar every year it does not come close to the expense of film/development/print when you want to have a good play of it...


I'll post some of my recent film shots soon, most of them will come after I complete my trip to China!