decay # 17 ~ phew
Thursday, April 10, 2008 at 10:50AM 
Decay and remains • click to embiggenThere is a minor brouhaha of sorts going on urban ku # 181 involving,of all things, gear - a topic rarely discussed here.
It stems from a comment by Adam Maas that the newest and best of digital cameras can, in fact, match the dynamic range and tonal quality of color negative film. I have no desire to debate the issue but I still stand by my opinion that color negative capture is superior to digital capture in ways that matter to my eye. The differences may be small but my eye can see them.
To my eye, a digital capture has a visual 'digital' signature that is like the visual difference between motion picture film and video. Not as pronounced but, to my eye, still apparent. And, Adam's contention that I see this only in my work because I use an 'inferior' sensor is rather nonsensical because I see it in all still digital capture pictures - independent of the specific equipment in use.
As for Adam's contention that "the smaller sensor sites" (of my camera) " deliver less dynamic range" than the sensor in his D300 is also not true - both sensors deliver exactly the same dynamic range of 8.8. They do it in different ways - my camera sensor has less highlight headroom than his, his camera sensor doesn't reach as far into the shadows as mine. It's a trade off. In some cases, I might have to make a separate exposure for extreme highlight detail, and, in some cases, he might have to make a separate exposure for deep shadow detail - or either of us has to use some other workaround to get the full range that we want.
But, ultimately, this is a stupid discussion because it is one of gear vs. aesthetics. My opinion that "Nothing in the digital world can match the smooth tonal transitions, subtle color rendition, and dynamic range of color negative film" is based on my aesthetic sense of how a picture made with cn film looks when compared to one made with digital capture (same scene, same light, comparable lens etc.).
Each medium - cn vs. dig - is a trompe-l'oeil. Each medium accomplishes its trompe-l'oeil in an entirely different manner. To the discerning eye, there is a difference in the final output (on closely matched papers) - the print. Hell, even Adam states that "I find the results from the D300 look a heck of a lot like the results I get from my Mamiya 645." - please note the omission of the phrase "exactly like".
Like I stated before, you make your choice and you stick with it - whether it's in the domain of film or that of digital. Either way, it's the emotional and intellectual impact of the pictures that matters most.
decay
Reader Comments (5)
You didn't actually think the gear issue was not going to rear it's ugly head here, did you? By the brief mention of digital to film, I knew the debate on what a superior digital camera brand, one is to the other.
Or was this just to prove a point?
And while on the subject, I thought the original question was did those under 30 shoot with film or ever had a film camera.
And then I was called out because I missed the point.
Go figure.
When I was a lot younger we discussed the differences between ilford and kodak. Or between nikon and canon. L'histoire se repète. It's like you say, it's the emotional, intellectual an artistic impact of a photo that really counts and makes worth thinking and discussing about. Technique, whether digital or analogue, it's just a tool.
I'd completely agree that digital does look different. It is for all intents and purposes a different medium than negative film and the differences in how a sensor responds to both colour as well as its response curve (which isn't a curve on digital) will result in a different look.
As to dynamic range of the D300, I'll disagree. It looks like you're basing that on the DPReview tests, which are mostly done in JPEG mode (all the comparisons are in JPEG, it's the 'RAW Headroom' comparison that delivers the real results). The E-3 does deliver very close results in JPEG to what it can do in RAW, which is quite an achievement for a JPEG engine, but the D300 achieves around a stop more dynamic range in RAW as its JPEG's clip the highlights by a fair amount. So the D300 does deliver about a stop more dynamic range for a approximately 10 stop dynamic range. Possibly more as DPReview used Adobe Camera RAW for their conversions and Nikon's Capture NX produces visibly better output from D300 raws.
I run a small computer repair business. When I have a slow stretch it's not uncommon for me to make 13x19 inch prints of my images and for customers to walk in and find various prints "drying" around my store.
I've discovered that most people, including photographers with over 30 years of film experience, can't tell which print came from a digital camera and which was from film. Truthfully, 99% of them don't care. They either connect with the picture or they don't, which is as it should be.