Digital is Dumb - Part 2

My original posting has now veered off into several other
areas so I thought it would be easier to discuss one of them
in a new thread. This has to do with the "look" of digital
vs film. Here's a little story about how the more things
change the more they stay the same...
When I was a teenager I worked summers in various professional
color labs. Since I wasn't especially skilled I was assigned
to developing slide film. In those days this was done using
film hangers and or metal reels which were placed into 20
gallon tanks. Agitation was done by bubbling nitrogen up
from the bottom. When the time was up the film was moved
from one tank to the next.
The primary customers were local studios which mostly shot
fashion and/or products on 8x10 film. The film of choice
was Ektachrome process E1 (I think this was ISO(ASA) 10).
The images were terrific, the photographers knew the film
characteristics and lit the scenes to eliminate dark shadows.
At that moment Kodak came out with "improved" film Ektachrome
E2 (for amateurs) and E3. Each required a separate processing
line. The films had a different "look". Many photographers
hated it. The result was that they went out and bought as
much E1 as they could and froze it. This allowed them to
continue shooting as before for about another year.
Looking back at those old images now (in places like Vogue)
you can see that the color wasn't really very good. There
was low saturation and the color range wasn't great. Certain
colors didn't reproduce properly either. The new film,
especially the E3 was much better, but it didn't have the
right "look".
So whenever there is a change there are those who prefer the
way things were. Personally I think with proper care
it is possible to adjust using photo editing software to
emulate almost any "look" you wish. Individual colors can be
altered to shift hue and the overall contrast and color balance
can be altered as well. This may reqselecting uire specific
color ranges in the image and applying curves to just this region,
but it can be done.
Given the wide variety of inkjet papers now available, many of
the specialized enlarging papers can also be emulated pretty
well.
Much of the "look" (especially in B&W) was really due to
differences in local contrast and image hue. This can be
duplicated, even some special processes like Platinum printing
are being imitated.
--
Robert D Feinman
Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
http://robertdfeinman.com
mail: robert.feinman@gmail.com

Robert Feinman

Re: Raising digital v. film debates is Dumb

Well, to me, the obvious reason that the number of posts has fallen off in
recent years is that we are, after all, a 35 mm film group, and most of the
new photographers are digital, so they are, presumably, attracted to the
digital groups.
And yes.....Eventually, the only film equipment available will be used.
But much digital equipment is also applicable to film, and there are enough
used film bodies out there to keep us happy for another 20 or 30 years
anyway. Nikon's F6 is only a year old, and I understand that the dealers
have an excess of FM3a's that they will probably never manage to sell. Point
& shoots? - Well, I bought a still-in-the-box Cannon ELF aps camera....Their
latest model, with half a roll of unused film in it, for $15 at our local
"collectors" market a couple of weeks ago.....My wife shot up the rest of
that roll, and ran another through it the following week, and it works fine.
This is a camera that sold for $350 when it first came out about 10 years
ago.....
Film still lives!!!


William Graham

Re: Raising digital v. film debates is Dumb

I see your point, but posters on newsgroups, located in diverse areas, can't
just organize themselves as easily as a group of students that came together
in a classroom every day.
A couple of particularly obnoxious individuals have succeeded in driving
other posters away, and that is bad for everyone. I think that most of us
don't mind a little spirited debate, but when the conversation becomes
personal it tends to ruin things for everyone.
I note that the number of posts on this NG has dropped off a lot over the
past couple of years. It seems (I'm generalizing now) that the only way to
stir up a little interest is to post a new "Film vs. Digital" thread.
Of course, part of the reason for non-participation may be that there isn't
much in the way of new gear being introduced these days--and I must admit
that I find that surprising and disturbing. When was the last time that any
of the major manufacturers introduced a new film model, anyway???? Leica's
R9? Even the P&S models have been withdrawn.
Are all new film photographers going to have to buy used equipment?
My SMC Takumars may be a bit dated (like 35 years dated?) but at least I got
most of it when it was new. I don't believe I'd have ever become interested
in photography had there been nothing but used equipment for sale.
Buying used has numerous disadvantages. One of them is that there are some
relatively obscure lenses and accessories that are virtually never offered
on the used market, and thus cannot be acquired at any price. Other pieces,
especially lenses, are so rare that some of them cost more than they did
when new. This not the way to build a camera system.
Fortunately, Zeiss may come to the rescue, with their Nikon Mount and M42
Mount prime lenses. But at what price?


Jeremy

Re: Raising digital v. film debates is Dumb

and I have to honestly choke back the
Humph......I spent thousands on my gear too, but nobody has any trouble
telling me how lousy my pictures are......


William Graham

Re: Raising digital v. film debates is Dumb

Jpeg output to a CD ain't necessarily the scan used for hybrid design
minilabs.


No_name

Re: Raising digital v. film debates is Dumb

lab
basic
35mm
of
no
full
I have two scanners and some older software to perform manipulation. I was
wasting a lot of time re-touching, fumbling with slides and clearing dust
and such off of my images. My results using the mighty "Frontier" machine
were worse than with using my then Epson C82 inkjet printer. Nothing I did
could compare with the output of a good wet lab printing from Fuji 100 speed
film. Even Fuji Press 800 beat anything I was doing at the time. Sure I
can't crop the way I used to, but no sweat, my images are superior overall.
I never owned a digital camera, so that may have been better, but I know
many people who have tried digital and are now switching back to film. I
have a few digital heads at my job and my cousin shoots digital too. They
love to come by my desk and show me their latest images expecting me to fall
out of my chair and declare that "film is dead". Sorry to say that most of
the images they show me are awful and I have to honestly choke back the
laughter as I politely tell them that their images look great. What else
could I say after they spent thousands on their gear?
Steve

Re: Raising digital v. film debates is Dumb

If you are only concerned with brand new film, and never change or crop
anything, then you have no use for a scanner....But then, you really have no
use for film, either. But if you ever have to retouch the spots and
scratches off of old film, or crop damaged sections off of your images, a
film scanner and editing program such as Photoshop is essential. There is
really no other way I could clean up a 50 year old color slide that is full
of mold spots and scratches, even if the color balance is still true.


William Graham

Re: Raising digital v. film debates is Dumb

But "one or two" people can be easily killfiled. There will always be people
that are annoying in one way or the other. Even in a classroom you will find
these. The trick is, don't let them prevent you from learning from the
others. One of the best teachers I ever had was a drunk. She missed every
Monday, and was stewed the other 4 days of the week. 1/3 the class left
immediately. they were the ones who didn't want to learn anything, and were
just there because they had to take the class for one reason or the other.
The rest of us organized ourselves into study groups. We assigned ourselves
homework from the book, and started each classroom session by putting the
problems on the board and discussing them. Then we would end the class by
assigning ourselves the next days work. I learned more about the subject
(geometry) in that class than I ever had before or since.....And one of the
main reasons was because that 1/3 who didn't want to learn anything weren't
there......


William Graham

Re: Raising digital v. film debates is Dumb

You perpetuate the division by such broad "us vs. them", and provide
more grounds for those who like such dustups to keep on keepin' on.
Since the subject has been hashed over 387 different ways in 4,398
threads, it's really become unoriginal, to say the least.
--
john mcwilliams


John McWilliams

Re: Raising digital v. film debates is Dumb

In article <1150646404.265012.104360@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
We have a couple of Scotts here so I wasn't sure if you were the Scott
from Hawaii when I posted. In your situation with the constant heat and
humidity, I can understand why the negatives are deteriorating. In that
climate, everything including wood, books, papers, and camera lenses is
at risk for mold and mildew. In your situation, I can understand how
digital RAW files are longer lasting. In typical temperate situations,
most negative and slide owners don't have that deterioration.


Tim

Re: Raising digital v. film debates is Dumb

But how would they compare to optical prints? It sounded like we are
talking about fairly small prints and so color and contrast would be
more of an issue then detail. And for best color I don't think you are
going to be scanning the negatives, even if they are not scanned at
high resolution.
Scott


Scott W

Content - Digital is Dumb - Part 2
Found 34 post(s). Page 1 of 4
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |










 
Miranda Homes - Jucad Titan - Sofortkredit - Ab Toner Belt - Fönster
Photoshop questions