3 ms·

According to Kodak[1], most film has 13 stops of dynamic range; today's digital cameras average 14 stops. An Arri Alexa has 14+ stops of range[2]. Discussing wh

by greedo 5y ago

According to Kodak[1], most film has 13 stops of dynamic range; today's digital cameras average 14 stops. An Arri Alexa has 14+ stops of range[2]. Discussing what wedding photographers used to do for a long time has no relevance to today's technology. 1. https://petapixel.com/2015/05/26/film-vs-digital-a-comparison-of-the-advantages-and-disadvantages/ https://petapixel.com/2015/05/26/film-vs-digital-a-compariso... 2. https://www.panavision.com/products/arri-alexa https://www.panavision.com/products/arri-alexa This is just like LP lovers talking about the warmth of vinyl...

dylan604 5y ago
You're like a record yourself. Round, round, right round you go with that methaphor.
unfocussed_mike 5y ago
I haven't been making the case that analogue is superlative in any sense, though, so I am not sure you're particularly on target with the "warmth of vinyl" snark. I'm very far from a purist. I do shoot film occasionally (stills, not motion film), but 99.5% digital, and I'm absolutely not coming at this from the LP-lover's perspective. Not least because the "warmth" thing is purely subjective, when there are fundamental characteristic differences between film and digital regarding the way that highlights are captured by the sensitive medium, and those differences have actual creative impacts that can be exploited. That was the point about wedding photographers. (Incidentally it's not just that the technological gap has mostly closed where black and white is concerned; it's also that the cost and supply models have changed. People don't shoot film for jobs like that now, because the professional infrastructure does not exist anymore.) Where the cinema-oriented, digital-printing-to-colour-negative-motion-stock situation is concerned, I am not convinced that the digital source yet has enough extra headroom to really take advantage qualitatively without very careful capture exposing for the highlights; it's certainly not going to be an automatic, magical conversion.
unfocussed_mike 5y ago
Side note re: petapixel -- this site is not a reliable source of information. (One step above Fstoppers, not that this is difficult)

by greedo 5y ago

dylan604 5y ago

You're like a record yourself. Round, round, right round you go with that methaphor.

unfocussed_mike 5y ago

I haven't been making the case that analogue is superlative in any sense, though, so I am not sure you're particularly on target with the "warmth of vinyl" snark. I'm very far from a purist. I do shoot film occasionally (stills, not motion film), but 99.5% digital, and I'm absolutely not coming at this from the LP-lover's perspective. Not least because the "warmth" thing is purely subjective, when there are fundamental characteristic differences between film and digital regarding the way that highlights are captured by the sensitive medium, and those differences have actual creative impacts that can be exploited. That was the point about wedding photographers. (Incidentally it's not just that the technological gap has mostly closed where black and white is concerned; it's also that the cost and supply models have changed. People don't shoot film for jobs like that now, because the professional infrastructure does not exist anymore.) Where the cinema-oriented, digital-printing-to-colour-negative-motion-stock situation is concerned, I am not convinced that the digital source yet has enough extra headroom to really take advantage qualitatively without very careful capture exposing for the highlights; it's certainly not going to be an automatic, magical conversion.

unfocussed_mike 5y ago

Side note re: petapixel -- this site is not a reliable source of information. (One step above Fstoppers, not that this is difficult)