Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 17/09/2008 4:24 PM:\n\n[QUOTE]\nThis is the kind of scene that is good for a test, bright light on the\nhighlight and very deep shadows.\n[URL]http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/103253296/original[/URL][/QUOTE]\n\nYeah, I know:\n[URL]http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/art/primeval-swamp-02-91534639[/URL]\nis an example. Once again, Superia 400. Not even Velvia\nor Astia!\n\n[QUOTE]\nIf you load that into photoshop and adjust so that you expand the\nbottom 20 levels to go from 0 to 255 you will see that there is a lot\nof detail in the shadow in those bottom 20 levels.\n\nWith the detail there I can, if I wish, pull the detail out of the\nshadows with a bit of dodging.[/QUOTE]\n\n\nOr if you scan for shadows and correct curve for highlights\nlike I did in the above example, you end up with detail in all\nof it. That's DR compression and is what negative film has\nbeen doing for eons.\n"compression", because most srgb monitors and printers have\ndifficulty showing more than about 5-6 EIs, even though\n8-bit colour video cards can *theoretically* show 8.\n\n\n[QUOTE]\nThe only real way to compare film vs digital is to shoot the exact\nsame scene, having someone skilled with digital shooting the digital\nshot and someone skilled with film doing the film shot.[/QUOTE]\n\nAbsolutely. Why do you think I have a D80 and film?\nI *did* such comparisons regularly. And quite frankly,\nthere is simply no difference. With film, saturation\nis easier to accent. With digital, you get less noise\nproblems. Overall, DR is the same in both. Medium\nformat is different, though. I still haven't worked\nthat one out, still trying to get it under control.\n\nI reserve my opinion on this for raw files from the new\ncrop of dslrs, like the D700 and the 5D2: 14-bit colour\nDR is some really serious stuff! If nothing else,\nthe resulting compression range will be amazing.\n\n[QUOTE]\nI think some negative films could do very well, if they were exposed a\ncouple of stop passed where most people tend to expose there film.\nSlide film would not have a chance IMO.[/QUOTE]\n\nActually, I disagree here. Negative films can do very well,\nbut need proper placement of exposure in their dynamic range.\nUsually this means correct zone system placement, rather than\njust the usual "open up 1 stop". Slide film will cover 5-6\nEIs easily, which if exposed properly is *more than enough*\nfor the VAST majority of monitors and printers out there.\nAlthough of course dynamic range compression is less there:\nif the scene is more than 6 EIs, you gotta do some trickery\nto get slides to cover it.\n\n[QUOTE]\nOver all I don't think DR is a large problem for either film or\ndigital, but the film fans that keep using the high DR of film as a\nreason to shoot film often don't have a clue about what they are\ntalking about.[/QUOTE]\n\nExactly. In most cases it's not even high DR, it's just\ndifferent DR compression levels and ratios.\nMost digital displays use 6-7 EIs at best and that's a physical\nlimit not easily overcome. Even less for most digital printers.\nThe workaround is to compress a higher DR into that range.\nWhich can be done with film or digital, it's just a means\nto an end.