A couple years back I had the opportunity to see some large prints (24x30)from 8x10 slides, digital and Ilfochrome. Needless to say both were state of the art. The scans were 115 megabytes each, a bit higher than you can get with a digital camera. The analog prints showed better highlight detail, but other than that you could not tell much difference from normal viewing distances. So there is no question that digital can match analog, but it is going to cost you.
However comparing web images from the two is almost always going to show the direct digital to be better. And if that is your ultimate use then go buy a 2mp digicam and be done with it.
On the other hand the convenience, and ease of transmission makes digital a hands down winner in almost any but the most discriminating circumstances. Also nowadays almost all publication printing is done digitally so starting with a direct digital image saves big bucks. I don't think anyone but a diehard luddite would say that digital does not pretty much obsolete 35mm for most commercial uses.
As a hobby, however, we can do what we want. I have moved back into the 40's and 50's for my serious photography. Even before digital some hobbyists had moved back into the early 20th (so called, alternative processes), or even the 19th century (Daguerreotype). There is something to be said for the satisfaction of doing it the old way.
--
Jens Bladt wrote:
Thanks Lasse In Denmark it's: Utak er verdens l�n.
Well, I got what I wanted from the tests. What I see is what millions of people allready know; that digital cameras perform much better in the real world, than all the facts, figures and calcultations suggest. For everyday photographing and for most people it's pointless to invest in a lot of film, a bulky and expensive SLR outfit, a 1000$+ filmscanner as well as a computer in order to make photograpshs, that can easily be made with a modern, digital camera that cost less than one of the four mentioned objects. If you'll have to make expensive scans of every frame to compete with ditital images, not a lot of people will want to.
I also saw, that some of my old lenses show considerable chromatic aberrations. And that for small enlargemts (less than A3) the reslution of a 5MP camera is more than enough. Actually I believe, that for photgraps up to a slide-show size of 1,2x1,8 meters (50 times enlargement) the higher resulution of a 35mm neg will be insignificant.
So I dare you guys to make better tests, using a 6MP camera like the *ist D and an expensive filmscanner. I bet you'll have to stand on the tip of a finger nail, to make scans that than actually match or overpass the digital images. I know that a lot of you own analog Pentax'es as well as a *ist D. So get on with it, please!
I will, however order professional scans (40MP) shortly and then republish the results. All the best
Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Lasse Karlsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 12. marts 2004 01:04 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Pentax (film) vs 5MP (SONY)
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
----- Original Message ----- From: "Lasse Karlsson" Subject: Re: Pentax (film) vs 5MP (SONY)
Well, well, Jens. Here you do all this work and effort in order to
offer the list some useful insights, and what do you get in the true spirit of PDML - a whole lot of complaints about your testing procedure... :-)
Lasse, if the testing procedure was flawed (note, I don't know, I didn't read the thread), then expect it to get complained about.
[snipped about testing procedures]
Just to make it clear: One thing I like very much about the PDML is that you can't get away with anything here. Any statement, no matter how unimportant, OT, tongue-in-cheek, off track etc, will thoroughly get tried and tested, challenged, turned over and upside down, counter acted upon, not seldom to the degree of enjoyable absurdity (as well as occasional annoyance). Particularly I like it, since the PDML, still (for most of the time) can maintain an overall civility in dealing with any controversial issues. I feel very much at home with this, since I'm a general sceptic(?) and one who hardly won't take anything for truth. I also think I have a great awareness of problems and difficulties with scientific testing procedures in any field of expertise. I am particularly on my guard regarding statements and statistics presented as facts in areas where I cannot on personal knowledge or merits judge or evaluate statements presented. As for Jens' test, most of what was being observed and "complained" about seem to be very valid points, which Jens also acknowledged unless I'm mistaken. My post to Jens was simply a word of appreciation of the work he did, which still, as I said, was useful to me. The reference to "true spirit of the PDML" was in fact intended as ironic at also my own expense and not as an attack on the list or for that matter on other list members, which you, Bill, often seem to think that my postings are about. I am sorry if I came across that way, I may again have expressed myself poorly. On the other hand I could just say that Bill's post well proves my point - you can't get away with anything on this list. Not even a "Thanks" and an expression of appreciation and gratitude...
Lasse
-- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com
"You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway."
