Quote Originally Posted by David Lyga View Post
At the Italian Market in Philadelphia this weekend I saw an exhibit of large, beautiful color prints of historic buildings and such. I enquired as to the 'capture' medium and was politely told by the man in charge that with 'conservancy color' (preservation of historic artifacts) the capture must be digital because hues were purer than with film.

Now, my immediate thoughts were to counteract that heresy but now, pondering, I am not quite sure that he was incorrect. Is there validity to his argument? - David Lyga
A "long" time ago, I looked at a comparison of film and digital. The colors were different for each shot. Which was correct? I don't know. A little while back on The Online Photographer, a photograph of a "pink" car was posted. The car looked orange to me, and I looked at the photograph on four different monitor using different browsers. Still orange. One of the TOP posters wrote a note that the problem could be with the sensor rendering the color a little off, and that there's a difference between Canon and Sony sensors. DxOMark has ratings of the various sensors, and some of them are rather far from "perfect." When the Nikon D800 was compared to a Hasselblad digital camera, the Nikon showed an obvious bias towards adding a bit of red.

I've also talked to some pros who use both film and digital, and more than once I've heard a complaint that the hues from the digital sensor weren't as good as hues on film.

I would question the fellow in charge of the exhibit (not argue, just ask questions) to see how much he actually knew about the subject of color accuracy. Like what tests had been done, etc. The fellow could be referring to color shifts in prints over time, i.e., how well the print ages. Printing papers have been a serious problem in the past.