The last days of analog
 

In article , PeterN
wrote:

Seeing 8x10 images in the flesh is an experience. Will be a while before
digital really matches it and yet it will never look the same.

it's already surpassed it.

Expected response.

because it's true.

The last days of analog
 

In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:

Seeing 8x10 images in the flesh is an experience. Will be a while before
digital really matches it and yet it will never look the same.

it's already surpassed it.

Care to point a link to a digital camera with a sensor that big, and
that can be "twisted" as his?

it doesn't need to be anywhere near that big and tilt/shift lenses,
what you call 'twisted' are both available and also not needed.

he is stuck in the past and more than likely doesn't realize that what
he's doing in the *eight* *hours* per photo can be done digitally in a
tiny fraction of that time, with much better and more consistent
results.

the fact that he claims a 2d print has depth tells all.

The last days of analog
 

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Seeing 8x10 images in the flesh is an experience. Will be a while
before
digital really matches it and yet it will never look the same.

it's already surpassed it.

Care to point a link to a digital camera with a sensor that big, and
that can be "twisted" as his?

it doesn't need to be anywhere near that big and tilt/shift lenses,
what you call 'twisted' are both available and also not needed.

That's where you are extremely wrong.

nope. it's exactly correct.

Simply because they lack a full range of adjustments, no tilt/shift
lens will enable you to make all the corrections which can be made in
a technical camera. See

there's no need for all of the movements since the corrections can be
done digitally in a lot less time and a lot more accurately.

*some* camera movements *may* be required in certain situations, but
not as many as you might think.

Your claim "that what he's doing .... can be done digitally" is not
correct.

not only is it correct, but what he's doing can be done *better* with
digital.

or, if someone prefers 'the film look' (a vague completely meaningless
term), the quality can be downgraded to match.

the same holds true for digital audio, which is better than vinyl and
cassette, yet there are those who like the 'warmth' (aka distortion),
which can be added back (i.e., downgrade the quality).

Any attempt to correct perspective digitally will result in
the image being cropped. This may result in important pats of the
image being cropped. The image will be cropped also if you make
corrections with a technical camera but an important difference is
that you can see what is being lost at the time you take the
photograph and make the necessary adjustments before you trigger the
shutter. Who knows, you might even change the lens. Only a few very
rare digital cameras will enable you to do the same thing.

Here is an example where I got into trouble
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dku87csvth...00941.jpg?dl=0

don't blame the technology because you got yourself into trouble.

learn from your mistakes, and more importantly, learn new techniques.

Not everybody wants to do this kind of thing but you cannot do it with
any ordinary digital camera. Nor can you do it with software.

nobody said 'any ordinary digital camera' and an 8x10 view camera isn't
'an ordinary film camera' either, nor is cibachrome processing.

he claims to spend *eight* *hours *per* *photo*. and if you want a
second copy, that's *another* *eight* *hours*.

the fact remains that anything that can be done with film, including
from an 8x10 film camera, can be done digitally and with a lot less
fuss and far more consistently.

the best part is not having to deal with the stench of cibachrome
chemistry. it's *awful*.


the fact that he claims a 2d print has depth tells all.

There is something to that.

not in the way you think.

Otherwise one-eyed people would lack any
form of depth perception. In particular see 'occultation', 'Texture
gradient', 'lighting and shading' and 'defocus blur' in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_perception

that is not specific to film or any other medium.

it's an effect which can be done with digital, film or even canvas
paintings.

anyone who thinks it's unique to cibachrome (his claim) is horribly
misinformed. he probably thinks vinyl records sound better than cds.

The last days of analog
 

On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 23:47:35 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Seeing 8x10 images in the flesh is an experience. Will be a while
before
digital really matches it and yet it will never look the same.

it's already surpassed it.

Care to point a link to a digital camera with a sensor that big, and
that can be "twisted" as his?

it doesn't need to be anywhere near that big and tilt/shift lenses,
what you call 'twisted' are both available and also not needed.

That's where you are extremely wrong.

nope. it's exactly correct.

Simply because they lack a full range of adjustments, no tilt/shift
lens will enable you to make all the corrections which can be made in
a technical camera. See

there's no need for all of the movements since the corrections can be
done digitally in a lot less time and a lot more accurately.

*some* camera movements *may* be required in certain situations, but
not as many as you might think.

Your claim "that what he's doing .... can be done digitally" is not
correct.

not only is it correct, but what he's doing can be done *better* with
digital.

or, if someone prefers 'the film look' (a vague completely meaningless
term), the quality can be downgraded to match.

the same holds true for digital audio, which is better than vinyl and
cassette, yet there are those who like the 'warmth' (aka distortion),
which can be added back (i.e., downgrade the quality).

Any attempt to correct perspective digitally will result in
the image being cropped. This may result in important pats of the
image being cropped. The image will be cropped also if you make
corrections with a technical camera but an important difference is
that you can see what is being lost at the time you take the
photograph and make the necessary adjustments before you trigger the
shutter. Who knows, you might even change the lens. Only a few very
rare digital cameras will enable you to do the same thing.

Here is an example where I got into trouble
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dku87csvth...00941.jpg?dl=0

don't blame the technology because you got yourself into trouble.

learn from your mistakes, and more importantly, learn new techniques.

Not everybody wants to do this kind of thing but you cannot do it with
any ordinary digital camera. Nor can you do it with software.

nobody said 'any ordinary digital camera' and an 8x10 view camera isn't
'an ordinary film camera' either, nor is cibachrome processing.

he claims to spend *eight* *hours *per* *photo*. and if you want a
second copy, that's *another* *eight* *hours*.

the fact remains that anything that can be done with film, including
from an 8x10 film camera, can be done digitally and with a lot less
fuss and far more consistently.

the best part is not having to deal with the stench of cibachrome
chemistry. it's *awful*.


the fact that he claims a 2d print has depth tells all.

There is something to that.

not in the way you think.

Otherwise one-eyed people would lack any
form of depth perception. In particular see 'occultation', 'Texture
gradient', 'lighting and shading' and 'defocus blur' in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_perception

that is not specific to film or any other medium.

it's an effect which can be done with digital, film or even canvas
paintings.

anyone who thinks it's unique to cibachrome (his claim) is horribly
misinformed. he probably thinks vinyl records sound better than cds.

Youi are truly disgusting. You have distorted what I said by selective
snipping and ignored an important point for which I submitted a
personal example.

Commencing at this point in the thread you are a liar. Are you so
stupid as to think that no one will have noticed?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

The last days of analog
 

On 2018-04-22 11:49, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 23:47:35 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Seeing 8x10 images in the flesh is an experience. Will be a while
before
digital really matches it and yet it will never look the same.

it's already surpassed it.

Care to point a link to a digital camera with a sensor that big, and
that can be "twisted" as his?

it doesn't need to be anywhere near that big and tilt/shift lenses,
what you call 'twisted' are both available and also not needed.

That's where you are extremely wrong.

nope. it's exactly correct.

Simply because they lack a full range of adjustments, no tilt/shift
lens will enable you to make all the corrections which can be made in
a technical camera. See

there's no need for all of the movements since the corrections can be
done digitally in a lot less time and a lot more accurately.

*some* camera movements *may* be required in certain situations, but
not as many as you might think.

Your claim "that what he's doing .... can be done digitally" is not
correct.

not only is it correct, but what he's doing can be done *better* with
digital.

or, if someone prefers 'the film look' (a vague completely meaningless
term), the quality can be downgraded to match.

the same holds true for digital audio, which is better than vinyl and
cassette, yet there are those who like the 'warmth' (aka distortion),
which can be added back (i.e., downgrade the quality).

Any attempt to correct perspective digitally will result in
the image being cropped. This may result in important pats of the
image being cropped. The image will be cropped also if you make
corrections with a technical camera but an important difference is
that you can see what is being lost at the time you take the
photograph and make the necessary adjustments before you trigger the
shutter. Who knows, you might even change the lens. Only a few very
rare digital cameras will enable you to do the same thing.

Here is an example where I got into trouble
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dku87csvth...00941.jpg?dl=0

don't blame the technology because you got yourself into trouble.

learn from your mistakes, and more importantly, learn new techniques.

Not everybody wants to do this kind of thing but you cannot do it with
any ordinary digital camera. Nor can you do it with software.

nobody said 'any ordinary digital camera' and an 8x10 view camera isn't
'an ordinary film camera' either, nor is cibachrome processing.

he claims to spend *eight* *hours *per* *photo*. and if you want a
second copy, that's *another* *eight* *hours*.

the fact remains that anything that can be done with film, including
from an 8x10 film camera, can be done digitally and with a lot less
fuss and far more consistently.

the best part is not having to deal with the stench of cibachrome
chemistry. it's *awful*.


the fact that he claims a 2d print has depth tells all.

There is something to that.

not in the way you think.

Otherwise one-eyed people would lack any
form of depth perception. In particular see 'occultation', 'Texture
gradient', 'lighting and shading' and 'defocus blur' in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_perception

that is not specific to film or any other medium.

it's an effect which can be done with digital, film or even canvas
paintings.

anyone who thinks it's unique to cibachrome (his claim) is horribly
misinformed. he probably thinks vinyl records sound better than cds.

Youi are truly disgusting. You have distorted what I said by selective
snipping and ignored an important point for which I submitted a
personal example.

Commencing at this point in the thread you are a liar. Are you so
stupid as to think that no one will have noticed?

Yes, we have. He is known for assuming he knows everything in every
subject and everybody else is wrong. When proven beyond doubt wrong, he
still claims to be right, or disappears. Specially when asked to provide
supportive links of his claims such as "every body knows that...".

So anything he vehemently says is suspect of being false. Which is a
pity, because sometimes he is right.


No software can emulate a lens and body that can tilt in any direction
and distance. Not in all the aspects, because the focus changes. And
then that chap is using a huge negative; there are no sensors that big
at same pixels per centimetre, the digital resolution would be
humongous. Technical cameras, I didn't remember the name, English is not
my first language.

Then assuming we could have the equipment, the knowhow of that chap
takes years to achieve.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

The last days of analog
 

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


Youi are truly disgusting. You have distorted what I said by selective
snipping and ignored an important point for which I submitted a
personal example.

false. in fact, i specifically referenced your personal example.

here it is again:
Here is an example where I got into trouble
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dku87csvth...00941.jpg?dl=0

don't blame the technology because you got yourself into trouble.

learn from your mistakes, and more importantly, learn new techniques.

see my other post for more.

The last days of analog
 

In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:



No software can emulate a lens and body that can tilt in any direction
and distance. Not in all the aspects, because the focus changes.

almost all, but for the ones that it can't, there are tilt/shift lenses
and/or bellows. however, they're rarely, if ever needed.

there are *other* options available to replace the outdated primitive
methods and equipment.

And
then that chap is using a huge negative; there are no sensors that big
at same pixels per centimetre, the digital resolution would be
humongous. Technical cameras, I didn't remember the name, English is
not my first language.

there doesn't need to be a single sensor that big.

your mistake is assuming it has to be an exact duplicate. it doesn't.

here's a 20 *gigapixel* panorama, with a resolution of 203200 x 101600
pixels, roughly one *thousand* times as many pixels as a typical camera
today.

there is *so* much detail in this photo that you can see into some
windows and read the ads on the sides of city busses. one of the
commenters found naked sunbathers.

http://360gigapixels.com/nyc-skyline-photo-panorama/
The largest photo ever made of NYC. 360º New York City gigapixel. If
you printed this image at a standard photo resolution of 300DPI, it
would be 18 meters or 57 feet wide, and 9 meters / 28 feet tall.
That's a big photo! For more information about this panorama, please
contact us.

an 8x10 view camera is a toy in comparison.

the reality is that what he's doing with his primitive 8x10 camera and
cibachrome can be done much, much better with digital.

or, it can be downgraded to match the 'look' of cibachrome, which is
not very accurate. cibachrome is very saturated, which can easily be
done in software.

The last days of analog
 

On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 10:20:13 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:



No software can emulate a lens and body that can tilt in any direction
and distance. Not in all the aspects, because the focus changes.

almost all, but for the ones that it can't, there are tilt/shift lenses
and/or bellows. however, they're rarely, if ever needed.

Nor do they have the full range of adjustments available in a
technical camera.

there are *other* options available to replace the outdated primitive
methods and equipment.

Do tell.

And
then that chap is using a huge negative; there are no sensors that big
at same pixels per centimetre, the digital resolution would be
humongous. Technical cameras, I didn't remember the name, English is
not my first language.

there doesn't need to be a single sensor that big.

your mistake is assuming it has to be an exact duplicate. it doesn't.

here's a 20 *gigapixel* panorama, with a resolution of 203200 x 101600
pixels, roughly one *thousand* times as many pixels as a typical camera
today.

there is *so* much detail in this photo that you can see into some
windows and read the ads on the sides of city busses. one of the
commenters found naked sunbathers.

http://360gigapixels.com/nyc-skyline-photo-panorama/
The largest photo ever made of NYC. 360º New York City gigapixel. If
you printed this image at a standard photo resolution of 300DPI, it
would be 18 meters or 57 feet wide, and 9 meters / 28 feet tall.
That's a big photo! For more information about this panorama, please
contact us.

an 8x10 view camera is a toy in comparison.

But so it should be. An enormous number of images went into the
construction of the one you have just cited.

the reality is that what he's doing with his primitive 8x10 camera and
cibachrome can be done much, much better with digital.

And who is actually doing it?

or, it can be downgraded to match the 'look' of cibachrome, which is
not very accurate. cibachrome is very saturated, which can easily be
done in software.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

The last days of analog
 

On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 10:20:12 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


Youi are truly disgusting. You have distorted what I said by selective
snipping and ignored an important point for which I submitted a
personal example.

false. in fact, i specifically referenced your personal example.

here it is again:
Here is an example where I got into trouble
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dku87csvth...00941.jpg?dl=0

don't blame the technology because you got yourself into trouble.

learn from your mistakes, and more importantly, learn new techniques.

see my other post for more.

I originally wrote: "Any attempt to correct perspective digitally will
result in the image being cropped. This may result in important pats
of the image being cropped. The image will be cropped also if you make
corrections with a technical camera but an important difference is
that you can see what is being lost at the time you take the
photograph and make the necessary adjustments before you trigger the
shutter. Who knows, you might even change the lens. Only a few very
rare digital cameras will enable you to do the same thing."

You have completely ignored the point I made in that paragraph.

Of course with a digital camera you can know in advance roughly how
much image is going to be lost in the perspective corrections but you
can never know exactly. You have to estimate the allowance to be made
and sometimes your estimate will be wrong. But if you can make the
adjustments in the camera you can see the result before you take the
photograph and this is an advantage that a suitable film camera has
over almost any digital on the market.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

The last days of analog
 

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

No software can emulate a lens and body that can tilt in any direction
and distance. Not in all the aspects, because the focus changes.

almost all, but for the ones that it can't, there are tilt/shift lenses
and/or bellows. however, they're rarely, if ever needed.

Nor do they have the full range of adjustments available in a
technical camera.

what part of they're no longer needed is not clear??

there are *other* options available to replace the outdated primitive
methods and equipment.

Do tell.

stitching is the main one. computational photography is another and
advancing rapidly.



there is *so* much detail in this photo that you can see into some
windows and read the ads on the sides of city busses. one of the
commenters found naked sunbathers.

http://360gigapixels.com/nyc-skyline-photo-panorama/
The largest photo ever made of NYC. 360º New York City gigapixel. If
you printed this image at a standard photo resolution of 300DPI, it
would be 18 meters or 57 feet wide, and 9 meters / 28 feet tall.
That's a big photo! For more information about this panorama, please
contact us.

an 8x10 view camera is a toy in comparison.

But so it should be. An enormous number of images went into the
construction of the one you have just cited.

so what?

an enormous number of hours went into adjusting his 8x10 camera along
with many more hours for *each* of his cibachrome prints, and if he
wants additional prints, he has to do the darkroom work all over again
and the results won't be identical either (plus there's the stench of
ciba chemistry).

while the above is an extreme example, it clearly shows how much more
capable and advanced digital is compared to primitive film.

there is no possible way anyone could get that level of detail with an
8x10 film camera. if you were to zoom in on the 8x10 image (a crop),
you'd see film grains. with the above image, you see more detail.