Film's character and depth

[anthony johns]

Oh ya, I really agree with you on the kind of bias film has. And again it just seems to go back in the picture more, maybe more 3D. But digital is good for doing images that require a more cool realistic view. And in regards to the audio analogy, digital audio at 44.1khz distorts at just 15khz and clips(stops)at 22khz. Good analog can capture transients way pass that, and it also flexes more, not just cuts off. Even though most of us can only hear up to about 18khz, it's the interaction of the transients acoustically that gives the sound more charcter. Plus you feel these frequencies. Anaolg has an interaction and bias with its input and I think that's the same effect that happens with film.

[dave_redmann]

I think to suggest that digital is only or mainly good (or better than film) for those who like realistic images is to be horribly dismissive of what can be (and regularly is) done in the digital darkroom. Changes in color (or from color to B&W), contrast, apparent sharpness, and many other image parameters are standard parts of a sophisticated digital workflow. I can do lots of things in a digital darkroom that I could never do (or at least never do with much precision) when I was dodging, burning, and split-filtering in a conventional darkroom. The net result certainly can be, and often is, an image that departs from reality in important aspects. The departure from reality is not different in kind whether I do it on my computer or Ansel Adams did it by putting a deep red filter in front of the lens exposing a 6x8-inch glass plate. It is only different in the particular tools used for the manipulation.

 

As to the assertion that film is more 3D, well, again, that is not a helpful assertion because it has no recognized or commonly understood meaning. You basically can't really capture a 3D image with one exposure from one lens, so this is just some vague, qualitative statement of opinion. The comparison to ditigal audio is marginal. The assertion that digital audio sampled at 44.1 kHz (like a CD) distorts at 15 kHz is pretty misleading. All audio distorts a least a little at all frequencies, but a CD's distortion at 15 kHz is very likely much lower than an analog recording's. As someone who has recorded a 15 kHz pure tone from a CD onto a professional metal tape on a Nakamichi cassette deck, I can tell you that the cassette does not handle 15 kHz as well as a CD can. Yes, I know a 2" open reel tape at 30 ips can do a lot better than a cassette, but then you have something that is only practical for the studio. And if you want to discuss studio equipment, then surely you realize that you can record digital audio at sampling rates of 48, 88.2, 96, 176.4, or 192 kHz, which will largely address your mostly theoretical concerns. And of course, frequencies you can feel but not hear are mostly on the low end. And how many chains of pre-amps, amps, and speakers can really produce frequencies much above 20 kHz? Not many.

 

At the end of the day, if you like the departures from reality that films gives you, you're welcome to use film. Just don't suggest that somebody else can't achive the same (or very nearly the same) departure from reality with digital. And with digital, it is more precise, controllable, and repeatable.

[Spearhead]

<i>most people who love digital see quality in "correct" images with natural color reproduction, high sharpness and resolution. In other words realistic images.</i><p>

 

Quite a funny comment as the forums here are liberally peppered with comments about how digital photos look unrealistic, that what people like is pumping up saturation, wacking out colors, etc. It's really hard to reconcile these two statements, although I would give more credence to the ones based on actual image evaluation.<p>