Load of ******** really :P
The 'film' image is still a digital one . . . it has to be scanned in order to print it digitally. which comes down to the operatives skill . . . It takes a lot of skill to do a good scan capture from a film image . . . Fundamental error in not spotting the colour cast, and scanning does not produce the same dMax as the tonal range of the film hence the blocking up of the shadows in the 'film' print
And then there is the RIP processor for the actual printer, and how it treats the two images . . .
Given this test I am not surprised they could spot the difference
But then you take a ISO 25 B&W film and do a partial enlargement (on real film) against the same enlargement digitally and the traditional wins hands down.
I loved the bit about the D700 and the F5 being the same camera . . . Like F*ck off, based around the same body maybe, but completely different inside.
Film processed tradtionally . . and printed traditionally . . has a range of tonal latitude that cannot be matched digitally . . . the gap is narrowing all the time, and the likes of the Mamiya 645 with the Phase one P45 back is way superior to 35mm film (colour), or the Blad
H3DII-50 which is coming close to the quality achievable with medium format, and even large format 5 by 4 . . .
It is horses for courses though . . . a bit like mass producing a chemically enhanced beer, and crafting a quality beer traditionally
. . . . the limit for 35mm digital is the heat produced by the sensors . . . which is why we are seeing a move away from the CCD sensor to the CMOS sensors . . . CMOS allows more photosensitive sites to be packed on the silicon (Higher resolution) with lower heat production (Less Noise) .. . and hence better quality Hence Nikon, Canon and Sony going for Full Frame sensors on their top end cameras . . .the sites are more spread out so less heat and less noise . . . the reason the Alpha 900 has had poor reviews is that Sony made the mistake of going for 24MP rather than producing a less packed sensor (like Canon (21MP) and Nikon (12.1MP) ) . . . Its difficult to control noise with that pixel density. . . . . If you want to be able to control the noise then you have to look at the likes of Phase one and Blad.
But you go into a low light situation (Say A gig), and I'll run my push processed ISO 1600 film (colour) up against any digital output . . . and I know several architectural photographers (
Sean Conboy for one) who can't move over to digital for a lot of his work as it can't work the way he does (try 30 or 40 flash exposures for every click of the shutter . . . and then a long exposure on the same plate using the ambient light . . . Look at the interiors and the two of the Tower Ballroom and Grand Theatre I've seen as prints and they are inspiring you can see every detail in the cherubs faces on the paintings . . . and that cinema shot . . .
Enough, it's an impressive demo, but as one who does use both formats, sometimes interchangeably, I know its a meaningless discussion . . . Getting the image is what counts . . . how you get there is not important
