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: Digital is Dumb - Part 2

Excellent point. Even if someone started with the same printing plates,
there can be many variations due to different types of inks, different
papers, or even different presses.
Some people write about the "look" of digital, yet are quite often
fooled by published images. I think this might be a situation of
recognizing something when it is done badly, yet much more difficult
when done well.
A scanned frame of film can go through many manipluations within
PhotoShop. At some point, it can be very far from what was captured on
the original frame of film. That some find digital capture easier than
scanning only states that film capture and scanning are limits, not that
PhotoShop is limited (probably obvious to most).
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>


Gordon Moat

Re: Digital is Dumb - Part 2

...
But printing is done with separate color plates. These plates are created by
"color separation artists" who's specialty is being able to create the
plates from finished photographs. They are paid well because they have the,
"eyes" to do this well, but that means the whole process is subjective, and
so the quality of the colors will vary depending on who does the separation
work on each photograph...
I am confused about the above thread for this same reason. How can film
have better color than digital sensing planes, when you can vary the colors
any way you choose in Photoshop? I scan slides into Photoshop, and do not
own a digital camera (yet) but the principal is the same. Once the image is
digitized, I can run any color from zero to 100% and achieve any color
balance I want. I no longer have to worry about using outdoor film indoors
or visa-versa because of this. In theory, (if I knew what I was doing) I
could duplicate any film type I wanted, and get any color balance that any
particular film type is known for.


William Graham

Re: Digital is Dumb - Part 2

To some extent this is true but there are limits. I can make a scan
from print film look very much like slide film by boosting the contrast
and saturation. But I can't go the other way and make slide film look
like a good scan of print film. Slide film just does not capture
enough range to allow one to lower the contrast and have it look good.
I have had mixed results in scanning print film and getting good color.
In some cases it seems like falling of a log and in others I have to
work hard to get the scan to look the way I want it too.
Now I prefer to start with a digital camera image, which I find to be
very consistent over time and for me at least a much easier file to
start with.
Scott


Scott W

Re: Digital is Dumb - Part 2

Robert-
Encroyable! You mention veering, and it was pointed out that the Subject
line is troll bait, regardless of how sincere you may be....WTF:You are
repeating the same mistake, er, if indeed it's not your intention to
make a long a contentious thread.
--
john mcwilliams


John McWilliams

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










 
David Soard - Lumbar Fusion Recovery - Free Wordpress Themes - Goldmonexx.com - Gebäudeversicherungen
Photoshop questions