Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 17/09/2008 4:24 PM: [QUOTE] This is the kind of scene that is good for a test, bright light on the highlight and very deep shadows. [URL]http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/103253296/original[/URL][/QUOTE] Yeah, I know: [URL]http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/art/primeval-swamp-02-91534639[/URL] is an example. Once again, Superia 400. Not even Velvia or Astia! [QUOTE] If you load that into photoshop and adjust so that you expand the bottom 20 levels to go from 0 to 255 you will see that there is a lot of detail in the shadow in those bottom 20 levels. With the detail there I can, if I wish, pull the detail out of the shadows with a bit of dodging.[/QUOTE] Or if you scan for shadows and correct curve for highlights like I did in the above example, you end up with detail in all of it. That's DR compression and is what negative film has been doing for eons. "compression", because most srgb monitors and printers have difficulty showing more than about 5-6 EIs, even though 8-bit colour video cards can *theoretically* show 8. [QUOTE] The only real way to compare film vs digital is to shoot the exact same scene, having someone skilled with digital shooting the digital shot and someone skilled with film doing the film shot.[/QUOTE] Absolutely. Why do you think I have a D80 and film? I *did* such comparisons regularly. And quite frankly, there is simply no difference. With film, saturation is easier to accent. With digital, you get less noise problems. Overall, DR is the same in both. Medium format is different, though. I still haven't worked that one out, still trying to get it under control. I reserve my opinion on this for raw files from the new crop of dslrs, like the D700 and the 5D2: 14-bit colour DR is some really serious stuff! If nothing else, the resulting compression range will be amazing. [QUOTE] I think some negative films could do very well, if they were exposed a couple of stop passed where most people tend to expose there film. Slide film would not have a chance IMO.[/QUOTE] Actually, I disagree here. Negative films can do very well, but need proper placement of exposure in their dynamic range. Usually this means correct zone system placement, rather than just the usual "open up 1 stop". Slide film will cover 5-6 EIs easily, which if exposed properly is *more than enough* for the VAST majority of monitors and printers out there. Although of course dynamic range compression is less there: if the scene is more than 6 EIs, you gotta do some trickery to get slides to cover it. [QUOTE] Over all I don't think DR is a large problem for either film or digital, but the film fans that keep using the high DR of film as a reason to shoot film often don't have a clue about what they are talking about.[/QUOTE] Exactly. In most cases it's not even high DR, it's just different DR compression levels and ratios. Most digital displays use 6-7 EIs at best and that's a physical limit not easily overcome. Even less for most digital printers. The workaround is to compress a higher DR into that range. Which can be done with film or digital, it's just a means to an end.