I recently saw some digital pictures from someone

On Jan 13, 3:12*am, JimKramer wrote:
On Jan 13, 3:19*am, wrote:

On Jan 12, 2:52*pm, JimKramer wrote:

On Jan 12, 5:30*pm, wrote:

They lack a naturalness that film has. I concede film will eventually
be like analog television as the technology and science improves but
digital still sucks in many ways.

Michael Ragland

Can you characterize "naturalness"? And, what films?

Well, the first thing you learn in photography is that it is not
reality; it is an interpretation
of reality.

Stealing a bit from Mr. Twain, four kinds of lies: *lies, damn lies,
statistics and photography

By the same token everybody has an opinion like everybody
has an asshole.

Plenty of assholes for everyone of us. :-)

The digital pictures I saw when you turned them certain angles had an
"amost metallic"
property or sheen to them.

Like a well aged silver black & white print? *Just to be clear, you
are talking about physical prints then and not something on a computer
screen? Was it all over the picture, or just in certain areas? Could
it have been a protective coating over the actual picture?

Ragland: Yes, I'm talking about the actual physical print. If this
were a
binaries group and I had a scanner it might show up. This was not
something
on the computer screen. Could it have been a protective coating over
the
actual picture? I don't know; am not qualified to make that judgment.
The
metallic sheen covered mostly the hair. It could be a normal
characteristic;
I've just never seen it with color or B&W film. I'm sure digital which
I'm
unfamiliar with has its own attributes or properties when taken
excellently
or poorly.



I had never seen this in film. It's been
like 6 or 7 years since I last
took photography but I have a porfolio and most of my prints got As
and Bs.

Good job, but what have you done lately? :-)

Ragland: Without access to a darkroom you really take some of the
creative effort out of
the process by having it developed by a lab and you also spend more
money. Done nothing
lately and this time my B&W will have to be sent to a lab I hope does
a good job. Color
you don't really need to process yourself. It's been so long; I could
develop B&W in my
place with a stainless steel container; fill it with the appropriate
chemicals and gently rotate
for set amount of time. Clip them to dry on my shower curtain. I admit
trying to thread the
film through the stainless steel "spiral" was a pain in the ass
sometimes. I need to go back
to photograpghy school. My last theme was a defunct Storybook Land
theme park in winter
and there was snow. Unfortunately, it had rotted and decayed to such
an extent it wasn't
hardly recognizable. So with the F10 Nikon/Cosina I'm getting I'll be
interested in what the
pictures look like. I plan on taking the most pictures on an Alaskan
cruise ride which also
includes a train trip through some mountains. I have so much to learn;
I've forgotten most
of what I have. Never was the scientistist; experimented with aperture
and shutter speed.
Showed some artistic ability but not the scientific aspects of the art
much.

On Jan 13, 7:36*am, JimKramer wrote:
On Jan 13, 9:46*am, Paul Furman wrote:





JimKramer wrote:
On Jan 13, 3:19 am, wrote:
On Jan 12, 5:30 pm, wrote:
They lack a naturalness that film has. I concede film will eventually
be like analog television as the technology and science improves but
digital still sucks in many ways.
Michael Ragland

The digital pictures I saw when you turned them certain angles had an
"amost metallic"
property or sheen to them.

Like a well aged silver black & white print? *Just to be clear, you
are talking about physical prints then and not something on a computer
screen? Was it all over the picture, or just in certain areas? Could
it have been a protective coating over the actual picture?

I believe that's called metamerism...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamerism_(color)
?
The silver crystals in a B&W print will migrate in some emulsions and
cause a "glow."

The only inkjet effects I've really seen, other than just plain
horrible printing mind you, have been the paper coatings not retaining
their spatial properties and swelling differently with different ink
colors and concentrations causing the surface to have a physical
"imprint" of the image.

newer inkjets don't have that
issue and most labs use lightjet (lasers) to print on traditional photo
paper, in fact they scan film now at minilabs & print it digitally. The
only real failing of digital is the way highlights blow out (and digital
projectors are hideous compared to slides) but with care, blown
highlights can be avoided in most cases and shadow detail can be boosted
much more than film. Digital is cleaner, less noise, looks sharper with
a little less subtle detail than the very best pro film but that's only
discernible with huge enlargements.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So you see, digital is clearly better, otherwise we would be having
this discussion face to face rather than over this digital forum. :-)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The bringing out the best of civility.

Michael Ragland