View Single Post
  #14  
Old April 22nd 18, 10:49 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default 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