Pianissimo versus fortissimo
07/03/09 15:03 Filed in: photographic culture
The discussion which medium is best silver halide or silicon) occasionally pops up here and there on the internet and the press.
To give a useable answer to this question one meeds to become pore precise about what is being compared. The lens in a mobile phone has a much higher quality than a lens used on a classical 4x5 inch camera. There is no doubt which imaging chain produces the best result when an A4 print is used as final arbiter.
In most discussions the format that is implicitly targeted is the one used in the camera bodies that have picked up the heritage of the 35mm precision miniature camera. Here we find formats form APS to 135, or roughly from half frame to full frame on 35mm film.
My tests indicate that the best film/developer combinations can deliver resolution values from 100 lp/mm to 150 lp/mm, 60 to 80 being the minimum on average. This value is higher than can be found in current d-slrs where the lowpass filter will cut off all frequencies above 60 to 70 lp/mm.
The superiority of film in the reproduction of fine detail with smooth gradation is still unchallenged.
But to see fine details in subtle undulating luminance differences is not easy and requires patience. It is the same with paintings: you have to look and you have to open your mind to the art work.
Digital signal processing is optimized to enhance the edge gradients in the visually critical 10 to 30 lp/mm. Here the digital camera work flow is at its best and here the eye is easily triggered and biologically adapted to. The sharpness impression of a digitally produced image is much higher than what film can do, unless you are using a large format camera with a direct positive copy.
It is simply fortissimo against pianissimo. Digital is aggressive where film is subtle.
You do not use film because you get better results, whatever 'better' is in this context.
You use film because you like the result and the process and yes, on 35mm format film you can get higher resolution and precise definition of fine detail.
Digital capture gives you the easiest way to get attention with your picture because the mage is made up in such a way that the eye is triggered to give attention without effort.
Digital imagery implies effortless picture taking and effortless viewing.
Film is much more demanding, in taking the picture, making the print and viewing the result.
That is why digital is successful and film is a niche.
To give a useable answer to this question one meeds to become pore precise about what is being compared. The lens in a mobile phone has a much higher quality than a lens used on a classical 4x5 inch camera. There is no doubt which imaging chain produces the best result when an A4 print is used as final arbiter.
In most discussions the format that is implicitly targeted is the one used in the camera bodies that have picked up the heritage of the 35mm precision miniature camera. Here we find formats form APS to 135, or roughly from half frame to full frame on 35mm film.
My tests indicate that the best film/developer combinations can deliver resolution values from 100 lp/mm to 150 lp/mm, 60 to 80 being the minimum on average. This value is higher than can be found in current d-slrs where the lowpass filter will cut off all frequencies above 60 to 70 lp/mm.
The superiority of film in the reproduction of fine detail with smooth gradation is still unchallenged.
But to see fine details in subtle undulating luminance differences is not easy and requires patience. It is the same with paintings: you have to look and you have to open your mind to the art work.
Digital signal processing is optimized to enhance the edge gradients in the visually critical 10 to 30 lp/mm. Here the digital camera work flow is at its best and here the eye is easily triggered and biologically adapted to. The sharpness impression of a digitally produced image is much higher than what film can do, unless you are using a large format camera with a direct positive copy.
It is simply fortissimo against pianissimo. Digital is aggressive where film is subtle.
You do not use film because you get better results, whatever 'better' is in this context.
You use film because you like the result and the process and yes, on 35mm format film you can get higher resolution and precise definition of fine detail.
Digital capture gives you the easiest way to get attention with your picture because the mage is made up in such a way that the eye is triggered to give attention without effort.
Digital imagery implies effortless picture taking and effortless viewing.
Film is much more demanding, in taking the picture, making the print and viewing the result.
That is why digital is successful and film is a niche.