Pixels are indeed pixels.
However, the "look" of digicam shot and scanned film, even at the same resolution, can be significantly different.
But as far as editing, there is of course no real difference.
Mac
Oh, forgot one big difference…no spotting of white dust/scratch specs required on digicam shots!
Mac
Dust can still be an issue on Digital SLR cameras with interchangable lenses. More so than film cameras as the film sits behind the curtain and gets moved on with each shot. In the digital version theres only the one sensor being used all the time.
Colin
Pixels is pixels, but the ones from digital cameras, especially those with very low noise quantities seem to be more prone to posterization from saturation increases than similar images scanned from film, even when using 16 bit per channel images. Film grain and scanner noise appear to add a certain amount of resistance to image damage from tonal adjustment.And the dust problem on DSLR’s is a real problem that never goes away.
no spotting of white dust/scratch specs required on digicam shots
You have "hot pixels" instead. Not to mention JPEG artefacts.
Etc.
Is that a PC World or a Mac World….:-)
Colin
Yes. Using a scanner or the sensor in a digital camera are same idea. If you had a top of the line scanner or a cmos type pro camera one would do as good as another. You are just digitizing images from both.
Try to see if you can afford a camera that can shoot in RAW mode and is supported by the latest ACR plug in for Photoshop. Every time I shoot in RAW I am more and more impressed with what I can do with the image in the RAW area of the File Browser!
I have a Fuji Fixpix 5000s and while it is not their top of the line camera I have had excellent results with the images I have shot and then adjusted in RAW. You can adjust for things like chromatic abberation (those weird purple halos that this camera is notorious for)white balance, etc.
And the Fuji only cost me $329.00 at www.newegg.com and they threw in the card reader for free!
the Fuji only cost me $329.00 at www.newegg.com and they threw in the card reader for free!
Gee, anyone would think they wanted to sell you something.
Using a scanner or the sensor in a digital camera are same idea. If you had a top of the line scanner or a cmos type pro camera one would do as good as another.
Similar "idea", vastly different engineering. See comments here <
http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/001375.html#001375> for clarification.
Toby,
The link was very interesting and I would go along with it except:
Where is the top grade fine grain film as Royal Gold 25? Even Royal Gold 100 is down to a few rolls in my freezer.
Not everyone can afford to go 2-1/4 x 2-1/4 with three to five lenses. I can’t even afford a new WA lens to get around the 1.5 multiplier problem with my Fuji S2.
Carry that to 4×5 & 8×10 inch much less the even larger formats that used to be around. Yes. I have seen an 11 x 14 inch view camera.
I don’t believe digital has the range that film has (soon to be had), but shooting RAW lets you get some back in the file.
I remember using Plus-X and Rhodinal 50:1 dilution and still have my olde 23C enlarger. Anyone need a set of PolyContrast filters or a drum drier? I may be able to hunt them down if you do.
I guess my point is that a lot of people just can not afford the money for the larger format equipment to counter act the loss of the better films.
Are we supposed to write off people like me who, after years of photography & dark room work, finally are able to produce work that meets the quality standards we have been striving to reach because the goal was reached in digital work flow and not in tanks and darkrooms? I hope not. And for what it is worth, I put raising my children ahead of my photography hobby for a fair number of years and didn’t end the "break" until they were grown.
It is my personal opinion that the individual piece must stand on it’s own merit for the purpose it was made and not be judged by how it was created. That is how at least one art museum sees it because the Director asked me to display there.
Possibly this sounds as if it is just a rant. If so, I sure didn’t intend it to be one and please don’t take it as one. And the art museum comment is intended only as a way to show I do have some ability with a camera and Photoshop. It was not a brag because I know I am FAR from the ability of most of you here in this forum.
Bill
A thought-provoking essay, Toby.
=-= Harron =-=
