If you (John Brownlow below) could talk in terms of digital imaging
terms, maybe I could understand precisely what you are talking about.
The word "tone" means almost anything, depending on the background of
What I would like www.robgalbraith.com to post is the gamut breadth
and fidelity of the DCS 760. Tone to me is gamut accuracy (meaning
chroma and hue angle). But more than that it is the ability to
accurately capture "chromas" and "hue angles" at resolutions that
match the best film recording media; i.e. Ektachrome, The gamut
latitude of Ektachrome exceeds that of all negative films (the last I
checked), but I don't know where this digital camera stands in that
regard. And accuracy, pixel by pixel is another matter. So, what can
the DSC750 do with gamut latitude. gamut accuracy? Nothing seems to
be ever posted about this.
Also, unless a digital "picture", or scan is shown in direct
comparison with its competition (meaning film in this case - not
another digital camera), one can't come to meaningful conclusions
because the eye is easily seduced into thinking "that's a really
great picture". There must be side by side comparisons. That is the
convincing hurdle to cross.
And of course, the film scan, or Ektachrome scan must be first class,
so that the gamut of its image is completely captured. And this
requires a pretty good understanding of scanning techniques, and
color management, measurement, and control. Not a small undertaking.
Since the DSC760 avoids the scanning process and the uncertainties
and errors of color management in scanning, it has a leg up in that
Yet to be convinced. But open to hard information. -
>on 5/19/01 8:30 AM, Steve Greenbank at firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>> See this :
> > http://www.robgalbraith.com/diginews/2001-05/2001_05_17_dcs_760.html
>> and in particular this : (be warned it's 1.4M)
> > http://www.robgalbraith.com/public_files/dcs760_bw_portrait.jpg
>well, it's very very sharp and grain free.
>but the tonality is HIDEOUS. It looks like a grab from a video picture. Look
>at the highlights on the hair. Agh. Is this progress?
>run! very fast! in the opposite direction!
>I could do substantially better with my super speed graphic, a 50 year old
>lens, some APX 100 and a jug of Xtol.
>tone! tone! tone!
>obviously that camera can do a bazillion wunnerful things but film has a few
>tricks up its sleeve yet methinks.