imagine) that the D30 has a minimum ISO equivalence of 100 and that
seemed to be equal. My feeling is that this approach does not lead
to a valid comparison. I would prefer to see a comparison of
"bests" and by this I mean that we should be comparing the "best"
that digital can produce with the "best" that traditional film
processing can produce. No athlete wants to feel that he won a race
because the best of the competition wasn't entered...he may
win...but it against second stringers and the victory is hollow.
Since your final comparison will be done with prints, you should be
comparing the best digital print with an actual photo print.
This leads to several questions.
It is a generally accepted principle in photography that a smaller
frame cannot be enlarged to the same size and quality as a larger
frame. I am sure that you are quite familiar with this since you
most likely still have Medium (or larger) format cameras for
landscape work. You would not expect to be able to enlarge a 35mm
or APS frame to the same level of detail as Medium format. The CMOS
of the D30 is about the same size as APS "C" format.
Why should photographers believe that the D30 images will maintain
the same level of quality as a 35mm image when both are enlarged to
the same size? Has that generally accepted principle been negated
because we are dealing with digital?
You chose to use Provia 100. I understand the reasoning for the ISO
selection (to maintain equity with the D30) but I question whether
that is actually the best way to do it. It would be possible to
argue that you should have taken shots at 200, 400, 1600 ISO and
compared the D30 shots with film there as well. There is now a
Provia 100F which has a much finer grain than Provia 100 but still,
a film photographer could just as easily have picked Velvia (ISO
50) and achieved an image with even finer grain. But the greater
question is:
If your final comparison was going to be a print, why would you
choose a slide film instead of print film?
Starting with print film would allow you to skip the scanning step
altogether in order to get something on paper. I feel that the
scanning step is the real error in the process. There is a
continual reduction in detail with every generational step that is
taken. Reality has 100% detail. A film image has less detail than
reality (not a big surprise) and a scan (really a digital picture)
of that film image has less detail than the photograph and an
inkjet print of that scanned image has even less detail. By
contrast, the D30 image has less detail than reality (also, no
surprise) but that is where the number of processing steps and the
loss of detail ends until it is printed. Also, using a dye
sublimation printer instead of inkjet would yield the best possible
print from the D30
On the other hand, starting with print film would require only
optical enlargement which will end up being the final print.
This would allow you to directly compare the best of what film can
do with the best that digital can do.
Now, a word about the enhancements done to the digital image before
the comparison is done, I certainly have problems with how this
was done especially if the goal was to compare digital to film.
I have mentioned that the film image is put through several
transitions which reduce detail (thereby degrading the final
output) on the other hand the digital image is put through
transitions that enhance what comes out of the camera and, in the
case of Genuine Fractals, ADDS false detail which never existed in
reality. So the digital image has the illusion of increased detail
while the film image is subjected to decreasing detail at every
step.
I think that the controversy over your conclusions are more to do
with the claim that digital "beat" film made by people who were
perhaps, over enthusiastic.
I accept your conclusions as you have stated them. The D30 produces
excellent images which can be compared quite favorably with scanned
film images.
Perhaps we can put this issue to rest and ALL of us can get back to
doing what we really love...taking pictures!
Well, this has been quite a discussion. I've been traveling for the
past week and was surprised when I returned to discover that this
old debate had resurfaced again.
Let me start by saying that I have not retreated from any position,
because there is nothing to retreat from. Regretably some folks
have misinterpreted or misrepresented my articles and have put
forward as mine positions which I never took and staements that I
never made. Some thoughtful and kind readers have come to my
defense, and tried to set the record straight. I'm grateful for
that.
But, I see no point in trying to defend a position which I never
took in the first place. Rather than rehash things all I can
suggest is that folks read my reviews and comments, and most
importantly that they do their own tests to determine whether they
agree with my findings.
Don't take my word for anything, nor that of my detractors. Do the
tests and see for yourself. Not theory, not hypotheses but actual
hands-on tests. Then use your own eyes and form your own opinions.
With this in mind I've written a short commentary on this issue of
drawing ones own conclusions. It can be found at
http://luminous-landscape.com/emperor.htm
Michael
