DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

G2 Newbies Observations

Hello Derek,

I certainly can't fault you for your viewpoints. For the most part they are more valid, practical and realistic than mine.

As mentioned before, I consider myself fortunate that I don't have to depend on the camera and if I did, I would surely see things differently. Long ago, I started out doing photography and soon grew to despise it. The lab proved to be a good solution for me. It kept me close to that world but allowed me the luxury of not having to depend on photography.

I especially welcome experimentation. But like most things in life, there really are no shortcuts. I believe there's a big difference between a happy accident and somebody pushing limits. Either way, the more you know, the better off you are and more likely to find a solution to the evolution of an idea. Knowledge doesn't hurt, well, most of the time. :)

As to the magic and anxiety? I just got back from your fine city. Even with the rain I managed to shoot a few rolls of Tri-x and TMZ 3200. I felt I came away with nothing special. I was pretty happy to see that I managed a few better than expected images. Mind you, ahem, there's been lots of times where it's been just the opposite. Damned, that's the idealist child sticking his head out again. :)

Have a good one, and thanks for your thoughts. Sharing is good.

Paul
 
> What is interesting here is the preference for film, including grain, for aesthetic purposes. Digital is relatively grainless compared to film. Digital images tend to have purer color, which seems to me to result in part from the absence of grain. So, purer color, sharper lines, no grain: Why don't we love it?

It seems to me that the digital images are, or appear, more artificial than what we really see, perhaps because what we see, with our eyes looking at reality, has an element of graininess to it. Norman Koren proposes that even in human vision there is an element of grain. Then too, film may still have the edge possibly due to the years of development history, while digital is still so new.

But again, the point is that many people prefer digital, and many of them are buying digital point and shoots. For them it is not an issue of aesthetics, but their peception of convenience.

Pros may use digital as well, when it suits their purpose (news, sports, weddings, portraits) but economics and customer/employer satisfaction are the issues for them, because we don't expect those uses to be driven by aesthetics. Or are we going to call what the customer wants our idea of beauty?

But these are interesting issues. I often see digital images that I know are sharp, bold in color, and unappealing. They are unnatural.

But these elements seem to me to be a big part of why this issue is so confounding. >
 
> Interesting. However, I would like to point out one aspect. I am an amateur photographer, OK, but in ordinary life I work as an doctor. It is actually possible that some degree of "graininess" is present in human vision in terms of VISUAL PERCEPTION. However, it MUST be remembered that the human eye is actually a very sophisticated "scanner" and thus performs "digitally". The debate continues ... By the way: up to now, I don't own a digicam!
 
Richard,

Actually, what you describe is exactly what I don't like about digital as well. I don't like pictures that look too obviously unreal. Colors are oversaturated on most digital prints that I have seen, I would even say "sterilized". Blues are too blue, reds are too red and greens are too green. And if these are LightJet or Frontier prints - they even look brighter than they should, because of the white spots on the paper that weren't exposed.


Mike.
 
When I was a photo show in London at the end of last year, just after Kodak had brought out their new professional model SLR with a 13 megapixel sensor, I was talking to someone on the Kodak stand and said: "Well I suppose that really does spell the end for film." His reply was very instructive. He said that to have the same resolving and colour differentiation ability as their best 35mm 100ASA slide film (not specifying which that was), they would have to have between 35 and 40 megapixels and also be two generations of image processing down the road. We're not quite dinosaurs yet. Wilson
 
Guys

This is not a question of quality or accuracy. In the 20 years I've been taking pictures there have always been a higher quality and accuracy to achieve. I could have moved from 35mm to medium format or even a larger format, and had much, much better quality. It would have cost me a lot to move into this quality and I didn't.

Now we discuss weather the digital quality is worth moving your money for. I mean, if I have to buy a canon 1ds and the same range of focals that I have to day it would cost me minimum $5000.

I surely would have a higher quality in my images, but, as some already pointed out, its nice to be able to choose a 'personal' film for a specific purpose, its nice to get your prints/slides processed without spending your time in front of a monitor, and processing isn't the toughest part. Choosing the right images to present to your audience is. And that isn't a bit easier on a screen.
I like my Contax gear because of the build quality, the feeling of 1st class gear and for the results, my 20 years of experience with this equipment gives me.
These days I like that I can buy more Contax gear for little money.
Is this way of shooting obsolete?. Is an 40 year old Jaguar og Corvette obsolete?. Yes maybe, but it can bring you joy and satisfaction.

Lets get back to the real issue, the pictures and the beauty inside that just has to come out.

Regards

Ole
http://www.photos4u.dk
 
>Seems, on almost every front, the 1Ds image is 'superiour.' And, this is against a 6x7 neg, not a puny 35mm neg. Based on this kind of 'evidence,' i would find it very difficult to justify shooting colour images on film. My problem with digital so far is that there has been no satisfactory means of emulating classic b+w film emulsions/grain patterns. Simply, i still love Tri-X.

Austin-

I agree with you to a point, but I think you undercut your own argument with what you've said above. I recently sold my 10D. It does give beautiful results - in my mind the equivalent of 35mm. But "superior?" Thats a loaded word, subject to interpretation.

My problem with the 10D was in the type of image it gives you. Digital images have a certain 'sharpness' that is offputting to me. They look slightly 'unreal' in their reality I guess is the best way I can say it. Having trained my eye to see images in terms of silver grain, the digital capture looks odd. I too love the look of TX and no amount of fiddling with a digital image in PS can duplicate that look.

Secondly, I HATE the linear exposure curve of digital. This, in my mind, is reason not to use it. Highlights get blown out too easily. Exposure latitude is lacking visa-vis film. Unless and until digital capture can rectify these two problems, film still seems the better bet for me.

Third, irrespective of capture issues, digital cameras are too complicated. Too many options/menus/doohickies interposed between you and the picture. Unnneccesary distractions that take away from the simple simplicity of taking a picture.

Finally, given I'm no Luddite, I long ago abandoned the wet darkroom. I get incredible 13x19 prints from an 8000ED scanner and an Epson 1280 w/ the Piezo inks system (selenium inkset, piezo driver, boutique papers) that I could never produce in a darkroom. If I want bigger "better" prints, then I drop some XP2 Super into my Rolleiflex to be sacnned at 4000dpi. 30x30 prints are astounding in quality. This is how I've made my peace w/ digital - film capture and digital output.

I have a sense that film will soon be relegated to a niche market of serious photographers who simply prefer the look of film. Not better or worse, just different, more classic. I actually like the idea; it'll mark a distinct divide between "serious" and casual photographers. Better for us serious guys.

I intend to stick w/ film and my leicas and contax for the reasons stated above. Frankly, I dont really care if digital capture will soon allow bigger, "better" prints. Bully for digital. I'll remain happy with the unique look of Tri-x scanned and printed w/ archival inks. My prints will always have better tonality than digital; better exposure latitude. A mlore classic look. You can have the bigger print. Who needs a print bigger than 13x19 anyway?
 
Er Tom...

> >Seems, on almost every front, the 1Ds image is 'superiour.' And, this > is against a 6x7 neg, not a puny 35mm neg. Based on this kind of > 'evidence,' i would find it very difficult to justify shooting colour > images on film. My problem with digital so far is that there has been > no satisfactory means of emulating classic b+w film emulsions/grain > patterns. Simply, i still love Tri-X. > > Austin- > > I agree with you to a point, but I think you undercut your own > argument with what you've said above.

BUT...I didn't write that.

Austin
 
Hi Richard,

> Digital is relatively grainless > compared to film. Digital images tend to have purer color, which seems > to me to result in part from the absence of grain. So, purer color, > sharper lines, no grain: Why don't we love it?

Because, sharpness is NOT an indicator of an better image. As I've stated, a two pixel camera will give you as sharp an image as you can possibly get, but there is no detail, and it certainly doesn't represent reality. Cartoons are sharp, and lack detail.

Cartoons have "purer" color as well...are they better "better" representations of reality than photographs? How do you know that, what you call "purer" color, is actually accurately reproduced color?

Do you want cartoons for your images? I know that's an extreme ex&le, but in reality, it's closer to the truth that you might think.

Regards,

Austin
 
> Marco Pocar (Mpocar) on Tuesday, November 18, said:

"in ordinary life I work as an doctor. .......... However, it MUST be > remembered that the human eye is actually a very sophisticated > "scanner" and thus performs "digitally".

I don't know where you studied but the human eye is NOT a scanner. But the receptors of the optic nerve can be considered digital, like an oriental rug but the signals are continous stream analog.

Dave
 
Back
Top