woithout being pedantic (but here we go..) EPP is terrible for your test, its a great all round film but a few years ago tested it against 9 other emulsions(agfa, Kodak, Fuji) and it was the softest by far, it has a great feel and its superb for people ie skin colour but not good at all for resolution... sorry to be picky i'd love to know the comparison vs provia 100?
before anyone comes back.. I love digital...apart from its lousy skin colour.. conor masterson > On: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 Jorge Parra wrote: > >> Coincidentially, just a few days ago, in his last seminar in Atlanta at PEI, >> living leyend Jay Maisel, one of the strongest detractors of digital and now >> fully, totally ,massively converted into 35 DSLR systems, said in his >> public speech � f...k image quality if it means that I get the shot ". > > Uh, I was there last weekend with Martin Evening, Bruce Fraser, Seth Resnick > & John Paul Caponigro as well as Greg Gorman. It was grand except for one > thing, Jay wasn't there. So, not sure where that quote came from. . . > > But, to further the discussion about digital capture (although not at a low > end) my presentation (given in Apple's Keynote I might add) was a side by > side comparison of digital capture from a Canon 1Ds and film from an EOS 1. > > Side by side, exact same lens & crop. Digital processed through an un-named > beta of a soon to be announced raw image conversion (in 6 seconds from > preview on a 1gig Ti Laptop using OS X) and up-rezed in stages to the same > size as the 35mm chrome scanned on an Imacon 848 at 6700ppi. (film was EPP) > > Result? Film sucks. . .badly! > > Digital from the 1Ds had more resolution-even after uprez, had more accurate > color rendering, at least 1-1.5 stops dynamic range, more accurate ISO and > all around beat the panties off the film. > > For the PEI Conference, I did 20x30 prints of both the film & the captures > on a 7600 Epson. The photographers in the audience were pretty shocked. Not > so much that digital won, but by how wide a margin digital out preformed > film and on so many levels. At the end, I gave away the digital capture > prints and tore up the prints from the film. The crowd got a kick out of > that. > > Capture is coming of age. . .still ain't "cheap" ($8K US), still has > limitations (long exposures & noise) still takes time to process (ok, 6 > seconds to open a raw converted 16 bit, 62mb file is quick) but is superior > to film. I wouldn't want to own a film lab these days :-( > > Regards, > Jeff Schewe > > P.S. Martin is still on the road. . .either Atlanta or Toronto (depending on > a certain lady's availability) but should be back across the pond shortly. > Perhaps he can chime in-pretty sure he didn't see Jay either <BG>. > > =============================================================== > GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
