>>4141110>I actually heard about this for the first time itt. Can you show me some examples?It's a sad fact of how film works. Fine low contrast details remain low contrast and aren't well distinguished in the image. More grains get washed away rather than defining the edges. With digital, contrast remains fairly even throughout the dynamic range you have available. Something like the texture of a patch of leather or some foliage won't really be there in film but can be pulled back out with modern digital cameras. The more you expose film, the better it records the detail in the scene, but it's always going to be inferior to digital here. The chemistry requires light to work. All those little grains won't define the detail if they're not activated. Fine details softening and vanishing in dark and even slightly dimmer parts of the image is part of the film look. Pushed high contrast shadows to the point of looking kind of HDR (because i can -ren kockwell) is part of the digital look.
>How? The information is physically isn't thereWhat looks better? A blurry line being defined by many small grains/pixels, or a blurry line being defined by very few and large grains/pixels?
>Yes, it isIt isn't actually. It's just flat enough for stopping down to be a functional cope most of the time. 15-20 microns of deviation with most 35mm cameras. Creasing problems with some MF cameras getting up to 300-400 microns (zeiss found this out to save their own reputation), usually around 100 microns for 4x5 in a good holder. Vacuum backs/holders exist for a reason m8o.
