Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/03/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Frank There's nothing to argue about what you say. Digital has passed film in terms of resolution and dynamic range since several years; except you produce zone-system-exposed, tripod based, ISO25 large format shots as you mentioned. All I want to add is that, sometimes, I have the feeling that the screened or printed scans of my b&w (mostly 100, 125 and 400 ASA) small format negatives have another patina, another texture, just "another look" than my digital pix from the R-D1. I've tried many PS hacks but could not imitate this effect so far. Because i still like that "look". Younger people, like my graphic design students, call it "retro" (but they like it, too, though they'd never have the patience, or passion, to fiddle around with it). Didier >Hi Jerry, >your statement is miles from my experience. >Digital is MUCH better than film for everything I do. In fact I would >say that unless you use slow hi res B&W film and your camera is >always on a tripod the potential extra resolution of film (its only >theoretical benefit over digital, it is already inferior in every >other way) will never be actually visible/useable. >Frank > > >On 26 Mar, 2007, at 23:31, Photo Phreak wrote: > >>Digital is convenient, but the quality is still not equal to film.