Digital pictures can be stunning, to be sure......but I agree with the article’s point. There is a certain........sterility?.........to many digital images. I liken it to the difference between CD’s and vinyl records: same music, and yes it’s very clear......but there’s a ‘warmth’ missing with CD’s.
Make sense at all?
I’m really not qualified to judge Kodachrome versus other captures but you two echo what is said by many, including the photographers quoted in the article.
I thought this interesting, “Steve McCurry’s portrait of an Afghan refugee girl with haunting gray-green eyes that landed on the cover of National Geographic in 1985 is considered one of the finest illustrations of the film’s subtle rendering of light, contrast and color harmony.”, as that pic got a lot of play here at FR.
Odd. Most of my records had more ‘Snap! Crackle! Pop!’ than a bowl of Rice Krispies...
I was amazed when CDs came out. I thought ‘hiss’ was just a part of music.
You can make CDs sound like vinyl by applying noise and altering the frequency response. I would liken the preference for vinyl sound to my personal preference to Bose 901 speakers. I know they aren't accurate, but I like them.
As for Kodachrome, I'm old enough to remember Kodachrome 10 and remember the controversy over the speed increase to 25. I have slide scanner and have scanned some of my old Kodachrome slides in 48 bit depth. (This example is a jpeg, not the original scan.) I agree that a Kodachrome slide has more information than any 35mm digital camera that I have seen. But digital is catching up and given another five years will surpass any film when comparing sensor size to equivalent film size.
Absolutely. I agree as well. Clear yes. Lacking texture and as you say warmth yes. I like both for different reasons. My husband and I are switching over to digital for art photos now and still looking for the best camera. We both love film.
