10-21-2010, 12:13 PM
[quote name='Pinhole' timestamp='1287660810' post='3716']
Actually, BC, my comments are not "repeated from an internet forum", but from years of experience using film (which I still shoot). I don't know about the science and the figures, but subjectively I see more shadow and highlight details in actual prints using low ISO film (either 35mm or 6x7) than my DSLR is able to reproduce.
[/quote]
I dont want to shoot foul, but really, looking at pints from my slides (yes, properly exposed slides, printed by a professional lab for an exhibition) I see fundamentally less dynamic range in them compared to professional prints of my 50d and 5d Mark II files. The Prints from the slides show however a more pleasing rendition of the brightest highlights. Its not that the prints from digital clip earlier (this was counteracted in raw processing) but their highlights seem less natural and less smooth than the analagoue prints (difficult to decribe).
Actually, BC, my comments are not "repeated from an internet forum", but from years of experience using film (which I still shoot). I don't know about the science and the figures, but subjectively I see more shadow and highlight details in actual prints using low ISO film (either 35mm or 6x7) than my DSLR is able to reproduce.
[/quote]
I dont want to shoot foul, but really, looking at pints from my slides (yes, properly exposed slides, printed by a professional lab for an exhibition) I see fundamentally less dynamic range in them compared to professional prints of my 50d and 5d Mark II files. The Prints from the slides show however a more pleasing rendition of the brightest highlights. Its not that the prints from digital clip earlier (this was counteracted in raw processing) but their highlights seem less natural and less smooth than the analagoue prints (difficult to decribe).