If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 7:05:34 PM UTC-4, nospam wrote:
In article , Bill W wrote: Thank you for your respect of the craft. But I don't find it hard (maybe because I don't use a "bathroom darkroom"!), and a well printed, mounted and framed enlargement gives me a sense of achievement. Fair enough, but it's not the process I disagree with, it's the claimed output quality of the process. same here. digital can do everything film can do and a whole lot more. Case in point, I happened to see yesterday a digital photo that the customer has requested be sent through the public release process to use it for marketing. I'll have to obfuscate the subject until it does get released, but suffice to day that from a camera technology standpoint, the result was a really nice image with good colors, good saturation levels, and obviously of high dynamic range, as the shadows were dark but not too terribly harsh, mids were excellent and the highlight was a bit overexposed, but in context was really an excellent job of not being blown out. Once the image is released, you'll better understand what I'm saying. The kicker to all of this was that it was an outdoor photo on a "Sunny 16" day, with zero artificial lighting ... and a shutter speed of 1mSec, If/when the image gets approved for public release, I'll provide a URL link. BUT...in any event, while I understand nospam's sentiment of "always better", this is really a fallacy which once one understands the base condition, not only is not actually true, but it can never be true. The base condition is two different systems...here, imaging technologies. That means that by definition, they respond differently to various stimuli. And it also means that the definition of "best" is a personal judgement, as generally derived from varying weighting factors on the different metrics. Since there must be differences, and since these differences are being quasi-quantified by opinion-driven metrics, what it really comes down to is that it always depends on the weighting values being assigned by the individual human ... which is what we commonly call a personal preference. TL;DR: "its a personal preference, and always has to be, and will be". -hh |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
In article , -hh
wrote: Thank you for your respect of the craft. But I don't find it hard (maybe because I don't use a "bathroom darkroom"!), and a well printed, mounted and framed enlargement gives me a sense of achievement. Fair enough, but it's not the process I disagree with, it's the claimed output quality of the process. same here. digital can do everything film can do and a whole lot more. Case in point, I happened to see yesterday a digital photo that the customer has requested be sent through the public release process to use it for marketing. I'll have to obfuscate the subject until it does get released, but suffice to day that from a camera technology standpoint, the result was a really nice image with good colors, good saturation levels, and obviously of high dynamic range, as the shadows were dark but not too terribly harsh, mids were excellent and the highlight was a bit overexposed, but in context was really an excellent job of not being blown out. Once the image is released, you'll better understand what I'm saying. The kicker to all of this was that it was an outdoor photo on a "Sunny 16" day, with zero artificial lighting ... and a shutter speed of 1mSec, If/when the image gets approved for public release, I'll provide a URL link. BUT...in any event, while I understand nospam's sentiment of "always better", i didn't say digital is always better. i said whatever 'film look' someone might want can be done with digital, and with less fuss/expense/etc. there is no 'look' that film can do that digital cannot. not only that, but one can decide which film look to use *after* the fact and change it at any time, for any reason. this is really a fallacy which once one understands the base condition, not only is not actually true, but it can never be true. The base condition is two different systems...here, imaging technologies. That means that by definition, they respond differently to various stimuli. that does not matter. what matters is that digital can do anything film can do (and more). And it also means that the definition of "best" is a personal judgement, as generally derived from varying weighting factors on the different metrics. best isn't the issue. producing the *same* results as film is (or going beyond). Since there must be differences, and since these differences are being quasi-quantified by opinion-driven metrics, what it really comes down to is that it always depends on the weighting values being assigned by the individual human ... which is what we commonly call a personal preference. TL;DR: "its a personal preference, and always has to be, and will be". the *look* is a preference, except a particular look was never the issue. |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 20:41:55 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: In this neck of the woods there are more than 15 major art shows per year that have many photographers in both mediums presenting their work, and there are easily perceived differences in their prints. completely meaningless and an intentionally deceptive comparison. Isn't that a bit presumptive? nope. Or have you been to the shows in Mr Neil's "neck of the woods"? he is attempting to compare two different photos taken by two different photographers of two different subjects under different lighting with different exposures on two different mediums, and then claiming that the only reason the results are different is because one is film and the other is digital. that's completely absurd. there are *far* too many variables to make the comparison even the slightest bit useful. it's also not needed since whatever 'film look' someone might want can be done with digital. simple fact. You are changing the subject. Typical. nothing was changed. not a single thing. Bull****. The original discussion was about film photography vs digital photography in general. Now here you are writing as though the discussion was about "two different photos taken by two different photographers ... etc". Up till now no one was discussing "two different photos taken by two different photographers ... etc" until you introduced the topic. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 20:41:55 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: Note that I never said I don't use digital. apparently you don't know how to use digital to its maximum performance. Probably nobody does. plenty of people do. Do you mean there is nothing new to be still discovered or invented? no. how the hell did you get that crazy idea from what i wrote????? Come now ... indeed. You wrote that you think that "plenty of people do" when it comes to using "digital to its maximum performance". correct. That means that the limit of digital performance is known. Therefore there is nothing new to be discovered or invented. no it doesn't mean that at all. not even remotely close. Conversely, if there are new things to be discovered or invented then the limits are not known and it is not possible to claim that anyone is using "digital to its maximum performance". it's not only possible, but that's exactly what i claimed. So you are claiming that there are people doing things which have not yet been discovered? nope. So things which have not been discovered are not yet being done? -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: In this neck of the woods there are more than 15 major art shows per year that have many photographers in both mediums presenting their work, and there are easily perceived differences in their prints. completely meaningless and an intentionally deceptive comparison. Isn't that a bit presumptive? nope. Or have you been to the shows in Mr Neil's "neck of the woods"? he is attempting to compare two different photos taken by two different photographers of two different subjects under different lighting with different exposures on two different mediums, and then claiming that the only reason the results are different is because one is film and the other is digital. that's completely absurd. there are *far* too many variables to make the comparison even the slightest bit useful. it's also not needed since whatever 'film look' someone might want can be done with digital. simple fact. You are changing the subject. Typical. nothing was changed. not a single thing. Bull****. bull**** right back. The original discussion was about film photography vs digital photography in general. Now here you are writing as though the discussion was about "two different photos taken by two different photographers ... etc". Up till now no one was discussing "two different photos taken by two different photographers ... etc" until you introduced the topic. nope. read it again. someone *else* brought the comparison. |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: apparently you don't know how to use digital to its maximum performance. Probably nobody does. plenty of people do. Do you mean there is nothing new to be still discovered or invented? no. how the hell did you get that crazy idea from what i wrote????? Come now ... indeed. You wrote that you think that "plenty of people do" when it comes to using "digital to its maximum performance". correct. That means that the limit of digital performance is known. Therefore there is nothing new to be discovered or invented. no it doesn't mean that at all. not even remotely close. Conversely, if there are new things to be discovered or invented then the limits are not known and it is not possible to claim that anyone is using "digital to its maximum performance". it's not only possible, but that's exactly what i claimed. So you are claiming that there are people doing things which have not yet been discovered? nope. So things which have not been discovered are not yet being done? what does that have to do with anything??? |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 22:49:26 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: In this neck of the woods there are more than 15 major art shows per year that have many photographers in both mediums presenting their work, and there are easily perceived differences in their prints. completely meaningless and an intentionally deceptive comparison. Isn't that a bit presumptive? nope. Or have you been to the shows in Mr Neil's "neck of the woods"? he is attempting to compare two different photos taken by two different photographers of two different subjects under different lighting with different exposures on two different mediums, and then claiming that the only reason the results are different is because one is film and the other is digital. that's completely absurd. there are *far* too many variables to make the comparison even the slightest bit useful. it's also not needed since whatever 'film look' someone might want can be done with digital. simple fact. You are changing the subject. Typical. nothing was changed. not a single thing. Bull****. bull**** right back. The original discussion was about film photography vs digital photography in general. Now here you are writing as though the discussion was about "two different photos taken by two different photographers ... etc". Up till now no one was discussing "two different photos taken by two different photographers ... etc" until you introduced the topic. nope. read it again. someone *else* brought the comparison. Nope. Prove me wrong by giving a quote. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: In this neck of the woods there are more than 15 major art shows per year that have many photographers in both mediums presenting their work, and there are easily perceived differences in their prints. completely meaningless and an intentionally deceptive comparison. Isn't that a bit presumptive? nope. Or have you been to the shows in Mr Neil's "neck of the woods"? he is attempting to compare two different photos taken by two different photographers of two different subjects under different lighting with different exposures on two different mediums, and then claiming that the only reason the results are different is because one is film and the other is digital. that's completely absurd. there are *far* too many variables to make the comparison even the slightest bit useful. it's also not needed since whatever 'film look' someone might want can be done with digital. simple fact. You are changing the subject. Typical. nothing was changed. not a single thing. Bull****. bull**** right back. The original discussion was about film photography vs digital photography in general. Now here you are writing as though the discussion was about "two different photos taken by two different photographers ... etc". Up till now no one was discussing "two different photos taken by two different photographers ... etc" until you introduced the topic. nope. read it again. someone *else* brought the comparison. Nope. Prove me wrong by giving a quote. scroll up. |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 22:49:26 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: apparently you don't know how to use digital to its maximum performance. Probably nobody does. plenty of people do. Do you mean there is nothing new to be still discovered or invented? no. how the hell did you get that crazy idea from what i wrote????? Come now ... indeed. You wrote that you think that "plenty of people do" when it comes to using "digital to its maximum performance". correct. That means that the limit of digital performance is known. Therefore there is nothing new to be discovered or invented. no it doesn't mean that at all. not even remotely close. Conversely, if there are new things to be discovered or invented then the limits are not known and it is not possible to claim that anyone is using "digital to its maximum performance". it's not only possible, but that's exactly what i claimed. So you are claiming that there are people doing things which have not yet been discovered? nope. So things which have not been discovered are not yet being done? what does that have to do with anything??? Ah ha! By your equivocation I can tell that you now see the trap before you. I will answer for you: "Of course things which have not been discovered are not being done". To which I answer "Then if there are things which have not been discovered and are not being done then there is more to digital photography than anyone knows how to do so nobody can possibly be using 'digital to its maximum performance'". -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
Film scanners?
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: apparently you don't know how to use digital to its maximum performance. Probably nobody does. plenty of people do. Do you mean there is nothing new to be still discovered or invented? no. how the hell did you get that crazy idea from what i wrote????? Come now ... indeed. You wrote that you think that "plenty of people do" when it comes to using "digital to its maximum performance". correct. That means that the limit of digital performance is known. Therefore there is nothing new to be discovered or invented. no it doesn't mean that at all. not even remotely close. Conversely, if there are new things to be discovered or invented then the limits are not known and it is not possible to claim that anyone is using "digital to its maximum performance". it's not only possible, but that's exactly what i claimed. So you are claiming that there are people doing things which have not yet been discovered? nope. So things which have not been discovered are not yet being done? what does that have to do with anything??? Ah ha! By your equivocation I can tell that you now see the trap before you. what i see is yet another one of your ridiculous arguments. I will answer for you: "Of course things which have not been discovered are not being done". To which I answer "Then if there are things which have not been discovered and are not being done then there is more to digital photography than anyone knows how to do so nobody can possibly be using 'digital to its maximum performance'". entirely missing the point. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
film scanners | James[_3_] | In The Darkroom | 0 | October 8th 09 08:37 AM |
Film Scanners | Stephen[_2_] | Digital Photography | 1 | July 10th 09 07:56 PM |
Film scanners anyone? | Ted Gibson | Digital Photography | 15 | January 8th 08 03:31 AM |
Film Scanners | Gel | Digital Photography | 20 | February 21st 05 12:25 AM |
M/F film scanners - again? | Rod | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 17 | May 31st 04 04:14 PM |