Tim, thanks for your reply. I just don't see it.
For example, the information on diffraction and optimal apertures is not really practical. If f/22 is the optimal aperture for resolving power, what difference would it make if it gave me too much or not enough depth of field? No imaging system can reproduce color accurately and to break it into film and digital does not make any sense as both media have lots of variation in spectral response and color management in themselves. And I am not going to shoot an 8x10 image in regard to another format.
I'm afraid you haven't seen the point of this comparison at all. I didn't break it down into film vs digital. I chose representative imaging systems of the major types. You have just interpreted this as a film vs digital comparison.
As far as colour reproduction goes, you are correct, you can't reproduce it accurately. However, you can compare the different reproductions and make an aesthetic choice. Hence picking the two major types of film that affect tonality. You could easily call this an "IQ180 vs Phase P45" comparison or a "Medium format vs DSLR" comparison. Or a "Drum scan vs Epson flatbed" comparison. Lots of these comparisons exist in the test results but you've chosen to characterise this as film vs digital.
And if f/22 is the optimum aperture, you know where the compromises are. e.g. A lot of people say 'I'll stop down an extra stop to make sure I have enough depth of field'. If you know what effect this may have on image quality you may decide not to. Also, people may choose to shoot 8x10 over 4x5 because of resolution but unless they know the relationship based on aperture, they may be getting no extra resolving power. That's useful information in my book
I too am interested in quality, but that is a broad category. If I want grainy, low rez gritty images, I will use TriX in a 35mm camera and mess with the developing. And the quality will be perfect and so will the resolution--resolution is not an absolute frame in which to judge (I know, I know. I am a Getdpi member and I don't think the more resolution the better, but it take all sorts). (And print size will not affect the image--standard viewing conditions and the theory behind it work really well.)
Judging print size by standard viewing conditions misses real world behaviour. People
do walk right up to prints and check out the detail. Some people do have better vision than 20/20.
I take imaging systems and use them for their strengths and the results the process gives me. I understand how imaging systems work so I understand the compromises of my choices. An 8x10 is not "better" than a 35mm camera, it is just different.
Correct and I've just helped qualify what the difference is to people. If you haven't shot 8x10 or 4x5 before and only learned about it from what is available on the internet, you will have an incomplete idea about it's merits. It sounds like you have already shot with all of these platforms so you know the answers.
(BTW, A microscope really does not make an ideal enlarger. I have work in darkrooms a long time and professionally--remember dye transfer? I am not going to get the detail out of a print like you can get the detail out of a microscope (I also work with microscopes). That is not a real world system.)
Agreed, however it is representative of what information is actually stored on film and hence an indication of what
may be retrieved.
I think you test is a fine piece of work (it really is impressive), but it is just another in the film/digital debate. The only "practical" thing it showed is all of those systems work really well and make really nice images. But we already know that. It does quantify the differences in the system, in that regard, it is interesting, but some of your choices have already thrown in unrealistic biases.
No - they all make different images and knowing the differences is useful if someone is thinking of spending a lot of money. I'd like to know what you mean by
unrealistic biases as well please.
I am sorry if I sound like the Grinch that stole Christmas, but I am really disturbed by how photographers beat each other up over technical trivia. This film/digital thing was/is really ugly--this is not a comment of what you did, but the poison that has been floating around the intertrons for a long time. Unfortunately, your test will just be more fodder in the ongoing war.
If you know everything that is in the report already then well done. If you don't but just choose to ignore it as irrelevant then it doesn't really matter. What you are doing is choosing to say it is irrelevant to you and trying to tell everyone else it is irrelevant as well. I just don't know why you would do that? Can you honestly say that there is nothing that people may find useful in the report?
I don't really want a response to anything else as you have made your position clear but If you can enlighten us of what these unrealistic biases are I would truly appreciate it otherwise it does sound a little like name calling.
Sincerely
Tim