Several things: Have you tried rating your reala at ISO 80 for landscapes - it is fantastic if you do. Process as normal 100 though - don't even tell the lab you did it.
I found that printing was really patchy from any automated or 'semi-automated' printers for film. This is less so for digital where you control a big part of the process, however this takes time. Digital also has the headache that you need to get to know the printers being used and adjust your images to suit them and give the results you want. Of course, as with film you can pay a better lab to do that for you. Don't kid yourself that digital will pay for itself. Unless you shoot hundreds or possibly thousands of rolls of film per year, or unless you have a massive number of wasters which you wouldn't bother printing. Printing from digital is more expensive than when you get your film developed and if you print most of your family shots could actually be more expensive on an ongoing basis - never mind recouping the initial outlay. Also, you will take between 2 and 10 times as many shots on digital just because you can - this could mean even more printing! Even if you eventually recoup you costs anyway, by then you will either need or be lusting after a new camera, so you will never really get there. Don't get me wrong, I love digital but the cost savings thing is just a big crock. Its convenience where it scores and that will cost you. Right, back to your real question: how will it compare to reala. If you work with your files, you should be able to get equivalent pics at 6*4 or 7*5 by by 8*10 you will see a difference. The digital images will likely be smoother and appear less griny but this is just because there is no 'space' in between the grains, and resoltution will be lower. However this really depends on how you do your sharpening. If you sharpen and add contrast to the digital image it can (at a glance) appear to have more resoltuion, but will in reality have less fine detail. At 12*18 the digital will look better from a distance because of the smoothness and contrast but reala would look better close up. I don't think the issue is big enough for it to be a concern though. Where film really still wins is if you want to crop and enlarge a section of your image and do enlargements. You can 'ress' up a digital image but it isnt quite the same. The biggest win win for the *istD is not actually at low ISOs but once you get to ISO 800 and above. It has waaay less grain/noise than any films of that speed I have found and makes low light shooting so much better. Hope that helps... > -----Original Message----- > From: Greg Lovern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 20 February 2004 11:15 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: *ist D, Compared to Reala with a Sharp Prime > > > How does the *ist D's overall image quality compare to Fuji > Reala 100 shot with a sharp prime, such as: > > -- Pentax-F 50/1.7 > -- Tamron 90/2.5 Macro > -- Pentax-M 135/3.5 > -- Kiron 28/2.0 > -- Kiron-made Vivitar 20/3.8 (screwmount) > > Most film/digital comparisons I've seen compare scanned film > to digital, but I'm more interested in how printouts of > digital (at Costco, on Fuji Crystal Archive) compare to film > prints (also at Costco, on Fuji Crystal Archive). > > I'm not a pro; I shoot mostly family, and some landscapes and > other nature shots when camping etc. I have a ZX-L (with ZX-M > focusing screen -- mmmm, > split-image) and a Super Program. After comparing several > films I settled on Fuji Reala 100 because I like the > sharpness, fine grain, and colors. But looking at how much > I'm spending on film and processing, it wouldn't take all > that long for an *ist D to pay for itself. > > If I put the 50F/1.7 on the ZX-L and shoot a frame with Fuji > Reala 100, then put the 50F/1.7 on the *ist D, set it on ISO > 200 (its lowest setting) 3008 x 2008 (its highest > resolution), and RAW, back up so that the subject is about > the same size as it was with the ZX-L, shoot a frame, sharpen > the image in software, then have Costco print both (film and > digital) on Fuji Crystal Archive at 4x6, 5x7, 8x12, and > 12x18, how would you estimate they would compare? > > Also, will the ZX-M's focusing screen fit in the *ist D? If > not, is there any other way to get a split-image focusing > screen into the *ist D? > > > Thanks, > > Greg > >
