tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post5888040476374696653..comments2024-03-28T21:56:51.675-04:00Comments on Face to Face: The crappy digital look: Demystifying the lie about how sensors vs. film handle light sensitivityagnostichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-54879826280189119282014-10-06T11:30:23.680-04:002014-10-06T11:30:23.680-04:00Yes, but with film ISO 400 came with a cost: grain...Yes, but with film ISO 400 came with a cost: grain. Heck, some films had so much boulder-sized grain (Scotch 640T) that some photographers started snarfing it up and created their own "style" with it. (Sarah Moon)<br /><br />One might also mention that other films (Kodachrome 25, Velvia 50) were so contrasty that they tended to hand you the defects of your sample image out of the box, no push processing required.<br /><br />The only way to combat film grain was to start hauling out Hassie's and Sinars and start shooting 6x6 and 4x5 and 8x10, and that brought with it it's own set of problems, like needing 50,000 w/s worth of ProFoto lighting gear to get more than a few centimeters of DOF.<br /><br />Before I get further into this, just what "Canon" camera is your sample from? mlonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05665889065439913685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-38527637712447603742014-10-03T00:07:51.370-04:002014-10-03T00:07:51.370-04:00Film photographers rarely or never needed to push ...Film photographers rarely or never needed to push from 100 to 400 because 400 film was widely available to shoot on in the first place. Pushing is only ever useful when you're trying to go far beyond what is normally feasible. You get 800 film, but it's still night-time, indoors, and poor lighting, so try to push a few stops.<br /><br />Whatever would've happened pushing film from 100 to 400 is irrelevant -- never happened in practice. But what happens with higher sensitivities in digital is relevant -- that's the whole point of the amplification wars, and nerdgasms about "OMG, can you believe ISO 6400?!"<br /><br />"At least with the digital camera you would have HAD a shot."<br /><br />You don't get that shot for free. What allows digital to get a halfway-clear shot indoors, with poor lighting, at night makes its pictures look crappy when taken during the daytime, outdoors, or anywhere with halfway-decent lighting.<br /><br />Getting the shot in the dark is more of an abstract benefit, a hypothetical prize. Practically, those situations don't have much worth taking pictures of.<br /><br />And they are traded off against image quality in the situations that actually matter -- when people can see well enough to carry out their activities, and when the environment is visible enough to be worth exploring. Film wipes the floor with digital where it really counts.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-86888752115137110082014-10-01T17:03:32.139-04:002014-10-01T17:03:32.139-04:00Sigh. What's amazing is that if you look at yo...Sigh. What's amazing is that if you look at your first sample, you'll see that ISO 100, 200, and 400 have almost the same exact noise pattern. Even 800 is close.<br /><br />Whereas if you'd pushed ISO 100 film to 400, you'd have all sorts of blocked shadows and wonderful color casts. And yep, the sensor on the Canon starts degrading pretty bad past 1600, and blows at 6400. But that's pushing your 100 film 4 stops and 6 stops, respectively. What would have Ecta E-100 have looked like pushed 4 stops? Or 6?<br /><br />At least with the digital camera you would have HAD a shot.<br /><br />But yeah, shoot 6400 on a basic P&S and blow the color and saturation out in PS and you're going to get a terrible image, quality wise.<br /><br />Who knew?mlonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05665889065439913685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-87083427198278778112014-09-30T23:06:33.725-04:002014-09-30T23:06:33.725-04:00My father was an early adopter of digital cameras ...My father was an early adopter of digital cameras for two reasons: integration with computers and ability to preview images in the field, which was an unspoken tradeoff (as I see it in retrospect)<br /><br />A really interesting phenomenon results.<br /><br />When you have a limited number of shots, you conserve what you have left on the roll. Because of this, you are much more willing to stand in the rain, stand on a cold mountain, or some other equally uncomfortable place. The thought of wasting shots is much more unbearable than if you wait just a little longer and the weather breaks and you get the shot. As a kid, it was miserable- but god damn was it living, some of the memories that resulted are etched forever. <br /><br />With digital, the resulting mental laziness is like "eh, you get the picture i'm in the mountains." Fire the shot and go home. Push brightness and saturation in Pshop.<br /><br />Here's another aspect: when the shots ran out prematurely, out trip would get extended while he rush mailed more film to some remote town we would stop in. As a kid, that made the adventure longer. Or, if the weather was great the trip would get extended as well- better to stay and capitalize while its there.<br /><br />I haven't seen him do that since film. Archienoreply@blogger.com