Tony J Case
Senior HTF Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2002
- Messages
- 2,736
Originally Posted by Sam Posten If you choose a crappy jpeg preset for the type of work you are shooting then NO WONDER you like the lab prints better. Even the best jpeg preset won't hold up to a well done raw conversion.
Actually that first digital one was a straight RAW shot, straight from the camera and converted via photoshop to JPG. The film one wasn't handled by the lab either, beyond basic developing - it was a straight scan from my Epson V500. Now there was probably some tweaking here and there as the settings interpreted the information one way or another - but that was me doing my level best to keep things Straight Out Of Camera.
Personally, I think the tweaked digital looks a little too fake (and that's not counting that it looks too clean, too . . . well, digital). The saturation looks too strong, it didn't look that powerful (not quite the right word, but it'll have to do) in real life.
And I thought of one other reason I prefer film? Permanence. Take a peek at this slideshow: http://www.time.com/time/audioslide/0,32187,1920419,00.html - slides from the great depression that look like they were shot yesterday. Can we honestly say that .jpg files will be a viable format in 75 years? Hell, will it still be viable in 20? Hard drive crashes? Remote Servers go down? Flicker goes out of business? Big deal - I still have the original negatives and slides sitting on my shelf. All it costs me is some work to rescan all my material.