Digital taking over....

[Adam Frisch FSF]

I've always had a bit of a problem with how most digital images look, no matter what format. But generally speaking, the higher the digital resolution, the better it normally looks. Some of it looks really, really good. But. Take a look at this example:

 

This is Hasselblads new H3D medium format digital camera. Expensive stuff and real top-of the line at $40K. The best of the best:

 

http://www.hasselblad.se/products/h-system/h3d.aspx

 

Look at the white clipping and the total loss of detail in bright areas at the bottom of her ski mask/glasses and in her blonde hair. This is something I can find in just about every digital frame I've ever seen, unless it's so underexposed that it can not be recovered.

 

Am I being a cranky old fart, or isn't this just unacceptable in any camera, let alone one that costs $40K?....

[Stuart Brereton]

I can see your point Adam, but it could also be the heavy grade that's been applied to that picture, not to mention whatever form of compression it's been through to get it onto the web.

 

Without seeing the original RAW file it's impossible to say what's caused it.

[freddie bonfanti]

totally agree with Stuart, what i dont get is the reason why the company has chosen such a stylised and obviously very graded still to promote the product...it does look good but everyone with a bit of knowledge will notice the classic photoshop artifacts...and obviously its in BW so no idea how the camera handles the color dynamic range, overexposure and so on

[Alessandro Machi]

I've always had a bit of a problem with how most digital images look, no matter what format. But generally speaking, the higher the digital resolution, the better it normally looks. Some of it looks really, really good. But. Take a look at this example:

 

This is Hasselblads new H3D medium format digital camera. Expensive stuff and real top-of the line at $40K. The best of the best:

 

http://www.hasselblad.se/products/h-system/h3d.aspx

 

Look at the white clipping and the total loss of detail in bright areas at the bottom of her ski mask/glasses and in her blonde hair. This is something I can find in just about every digital frame I've ever seen, unless it's so underexposed that it can not be recovered.

 

Am I being a cranky old fart, or isn't this just unacceptable in any camera, let alone one that costs $40K?....

 

Virtually every candid digital photo I have ever seen either has facial digital clipping (usually the bridge of the nose), or the hair is underexposed. But it's titles like the one you choose for this topic that do damage, ironic that your topic message is so different from the topic title you chose.

[Christophe Collette]

Hi, I worked with the hasselblad H2D, the P30, the Leaf Valeo and the P39 from Phase one, I understand what you are saying but there is absolutely no way of judging of the quality of such amazing equipment on the internet. the range that the P39 covers is very much equal to the range you would get from slide film, I'd even say it's better. I find the problem working with high end digital gear is the heavy work that has to be done in post production. No shots can be left unretouched, the P39 captures so much details you can zoom in at 300% on a 30x40in 300dpi and you barely see a pixel, it's razor sharp, scary even. It captures details in the way your Linhof 4X5 would. So when you do beauty shots, even the best looking girl looks like a monster at full size...

 

Debating over digital backs poor rendering of the whites and details in the shadows is an endless entreprise, I would only like to point out that, unless you shoot black and white and print analog, digital and film will give you the same range even if you are getting your negs or positives scanned 16bits even with an Imacon or a Drum Scan.

 

I use to work as an assistant for one of the best fashion photographer in Canada, he swore by film up to last spring when the Phase One rep came to our studio and did a demo on the P39, not only what we shot digi turned out great, it turned out better than the film we shot alongside. That was enough to convince him to move on. He still shoot BW images in film though.

 

By the way, most of the work I do is on film, but I shoot film because I think digital is clinical.

 

 

Christophe

[Alessandro Machi]

Debating over digital backs poor rendering of the whites and details in the shadows is an endless entreprise,.....

 

 

This is exactly the point. That's what digital brings, endless choices. The prices are coming down and now even the consumer digital cameras do a fine job, but the choices are endless. I like the way film works, one selects from a palette of film stocks that can cover virtually any situation without sweating it.

[Christophe Collette]

Yeah true... But one great thing about digital is actually the fact that you don't have to change film for different situations, it's all included! I own a Canon 5D, great camera... Incredible resolution, great tonal range and a fantastic ability to shoot high ISO without too much noise. And all this for 3K....A bargain. I think it's just the look of the final image that prevents me from fully going digital in still. Again, too clinical... But some like it clinical. Narrow DOF looks bad in digi though. Even with good lenses.