(2 Questions) 1)When It Come Down To Color Reproduction Do You Think Digital Is

Position:Home>Visual Arts> (2 Questions) 1)When It Come Down To Color Reproduction Do You Think Digital Is

Question:

2)and can i blow up a film picture to 8" by 10" from using ISO 200 film, without it looking bad!?Www@QuestionHome@Com

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:

Traditionally film has always been chosen for its characteristics, one of which is color rendition!. Do a search and you will find lots of theory on which film does what color better!. Velvia is a favorite of landscape photographers in part because of its rich, saturated color!. PortraNC is preferred for wedding work because it is subdued!. Fuji renders greens, Kodak is warm, etc etc etc!.

With digital, one can tweak the color ad-infinitum until the "perfect" color is reached!. With film it was harder to do that!. So I really wouldn't say one produces colors better than the other!.

I have a 16x20 poster made from plain old Kodak Gold 200 (IMHO, a vastly underrated film, one of my favorites) that looks great, so yes!. You should be able to get an acceptable 8x10!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Film images especially slide film (chromes) are much sharper and have more saturated colors than do digital images!. Problem with digital images is always have to sharpen and add saturation in photo shop to make them look like they should( what I saw when I took the photo)!. People used to bore all their friends with a slide show that was projected onto a wall with a slide projector, now they bore their friends with slide shows on the computer screen! The more things change the more they stay the same!

Take the negative to a pro lab and they can do anything you want them too!. Digital still has a way to go to match the resolution of the 35 mm negative! But its getting there!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

1!. From first answer: "If you see a print made on glossy Cibachrome (from a Kodachrome), it will blow you away!."

Indeed!.

I have yet to see a digital color reproduction of a piece of art that compares to the best film reproduction!.

2!. Yes, you can!.

EDIT: I have to say, though Jim M is probably right for photos of flat art, for me, the what gives away digital photos sometimes is that the foreground can look superimposed upon the background!. But this is getting off topic !. !. !. !. sorry!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

1!. Thats like asking if vinyl sounds better than CDs!. imho, yes!. but others will differ!. maybe because they have never heard vinyl/seen film because of their age!. or maybe because they are techno nuts who believe newer is always better!.

2!. iso200!.!.!. from a 110 kodak!? 35mm!? 4x5 velvia!? some other source!? iso rating just isnt enough info!. and that isnt even taking into account factors other than film!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

1!. In the proper hands, I daresay almost nobody could tell the difference!. There might be other telltale signs - grain vs!. noise for example - that would give it away if one looked REALLY, REALLY close!. But ultimately, that's kind of a silly way to experience a photograph in the first place!.

2!. I had a 200 ASA Fujichrome slide blown up to 14x40 FEET(!) once for a billboard!. So, yeah, you should be able to get an 8x10 from a decent 35 mm negative or slide!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

I blow up 35mm negative film, not slide film, to 16x24 all the time!.

As long as you can count pixels in an image, digital will not be equal to film which has no pixel count!.

Ektachrome can probably be blown up much muchmore than the negative film!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

1 You're a bit young to know this!.

If you see a print made on glossy Cibachrome (from a Kodachrome), it will blow you away!.

2 Certainly!. They're able to make poster-sized photos from 35 mm film!.Www@QuestionHome@Com