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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Gregory Blank wrote: Ok what do you need a darkroom for then? In article , Helge Buddenborg wrote: That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it, "Digital Photography is "GREAT". What he misses (completely) is that digital imaging, though an imaging medium, is not a *photographic* medium. The physics simply don't support this. And when people begin to see through the marketing hype and in 20 years lose all those non-existent image files on their hard drives they will realize film is the better medium. There simply is no permanent archival storage for digital and never will be, since as mere data it's dependent on 100% on electronics rather than concrete materials. Manufacturers market digital as "photography" instead of data imaging because that's the only way they can sell it. Digital cameras aren't "cameras," they're scanners. Consumers buy into it for the convenience, but experienced photographers are better educated. As the ISO has noted digital doesn't produce a photograph, it produces representational image data. Film, OTOH, is a permanent tangible image, not "data." And that's why film will always be around. -- Tom Phillips |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Tom Phillips wrote: In article , Gregory Blank wrote: Ok what do you need a darkroom for then? In article , Helge Buddenborg wrote: That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it, "Digital Photography is "GREAT". What he misses (completely) is that digital imaging, though an imaging medium, is not a *photographic* medium. The physics simply don't support this. And when people begin to see through the marketing hype and in 20 years lose all those non-existent image files on their hard drives they will realize film is the better medium. There simply is no permanent archival storage for digital and never will be, since as mere data it's dependent on 100% on electronics rather than concrete materials. Manufacturers market digital as "photography" instead of data imaging because that's the only way they can sell it. Digital cameras aren't "cameras," they're scanners. Consumers buy into it for the convenience, but experienced photographers are better educated. As the ISO has noted digital doesn't produce a photograph, it produces representational image data. Film, OTOH, is a permanent tangible image, not "data." And that's why film will always be around. I see this as a catch 22 problem, on one hand it would be nice if digital images approached the archival nature of film. (I won't hold my breath). Mainly because I can see its benefits for certain types of work/Fast turn around, streamlined workflow, etc. But interesting enough if you give a customer a choice at least here in Maryland they hands down in 95% of the cases choose film. Must be partially the result of bad experiences with people jumping into "pro work too soon, or jumping into Digital camera work too soon. End result it muddies the market for everyone. -- LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Michael A. Covington" wrote in message ... Debatable. The average "snapshot" in the film era was pretty awful. Time to bring this URL back: http://www.moderna.org/lookatme/page...index_all.html What about people who throw away their negatives, or lose them? That's me. Digital images are *much* easier to organize and preserve. Perfectly lossless copying is possible. Aw, Michael. It is not hard at all to organize film images. Let me repeat an example I've given before. Okay, ask me to find, say, a picture of a battered young woman in a street riot during the sixties Chicago Days of Rage. Now I know what shelf and box contains that picture in my library, and the negative in question will be in the second envelope. I get out of this chair, walk to my library and ... uh... what did I come in here for? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Helge Buddenborg" wrote in message
... [... snip Helge's description of my home town ...] Getting back to the real topic modern photography, now, the so called "real photographers" shun digital cameras. Going back to the seventies the "real photographers" did not want to accept the automatic cameras, Because they really were crap. Honestly, the early auto technology was quite bad. Real Photographers did largely accept BTL meters, however they knew how to meter before they were invented and made the usual adjustments one would make with a handheld meter. before that Medium and Large format cameras were the only accepted cameras, then came Autofocus in the mid '80's, that was also not allowed, Autofocus came long before the 80's. until the early to mid '90's the real photographers are getting older and seeing the autofocus cameras were getting better and our eye-sight getting worse, so we gladly accept the new Autofocus cameras. Disregarding the inherent claim of being a 'real' anything, I did try autofocus when I went to tri-focals and it is quite bad for anything but casual photography and sports. I don't do sports anymore (and was never any good at it anyway), so I gave away the autofocus camera. Autofocus is auto-default Bad Stuff. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Helge Buddenborg wrote in message ...
We condemn a lot of things when it does not seem to fit into our way of doing things. That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it, "Digital Photography is "GREAT". Helge Agreed... only if it gives me the same quality and tonality (since we are posting this on rec.photo.darkroom).., but it doesn't... so far. J. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Jytzel" wrote in message
om... Helge Buddenborg wrote in message ... We condemn a lot of things when it does not seem to fit into our way of doing things. That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it, "Digital Photography is "GREAT". Helge Agreed... only if it gives me the same quality and tonality (since we are posting this on rec.photo.darkroom).., but it doesn't... so far. Sure it does, if you limit the size of the print and agree that 35mm can make outstanding prints up to 5x7. Metrics be damned, make pictures and be happy. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Jytzel wrote:
Helge Buddenborg wrote in message ... We condemn a lot of things when it does not seem to fit into our way of doing things. That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it, "Digital Photography is "GREAT". Helge Agreed... only if it gives me the same quality and tonality (since we are posting this on rec.photo.darkroom).., but it doesn't... so far. J. I think I'd be happy with digital if I had a convenient way to output to archival film. Ideally, I'd love to have a film recorder that accepted standard 35 mm B&W (or preferably larger -- perhaps a new format approximately the size of 127, or even perforated 70 mm -- sprocket holes are really nice for registation) and would print CMY color separations automagically on consecutive frames at better than 4000 ppi, and also scan the developed film image back into the system, in register with the output raster, at the same resolution (which would require a scanner resolution at least 2x that, if I understand artifacting and aliasing correctly). Given that input/output device, a 20+ megapixel 16 bits/channel camera with lens resolution at least as good as the chip sampling density (at all focal lengths, if a zoom, or with all system lenses if a system), and a means of printing that looks as good as a color 8x10, for a combined purchase price of around $1000, I could be comfortable doing everyday photography on digital (eventually -- it'd take me a good while to save up that much). Given the "fun and games" I've had with my computers, and the impossibility of creating a genuinely archival backup of huge masses of data affordably (check what it costs, both entry cost and running costs, to make weekly backups and keep three consecutive copies of 80 GB of photos, and then see how long it takes to fill an 80 GB drive with 20 MP, 16 bits/channel images), I'll likely never consider digital as primary for the photos that are important to me until I can store the results on film after initial proofing and editing. For that matter, the above suggested film recorder/scanner could be used to produce cheap (if slow) archival backups of immense amounts of data by recording as pseudo-images (with error correction codes, of course). And yes, there is film readily available with that level of resolution -- it's called microfilm, and is available in 16 mm and 35 mm (perfed and unperfed), as well as a number of larger sizes. -- I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz! -- E. J. Fudd, 1954 Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth and don't expect them to be perfect. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Jytzel wrote:
Helge Buddenborg wrote in message ... We condemn a lot of things when it does not seem to fit into our way of doing things. That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it, "Digital Photography is "GREAT". Helge Agreed... only if it gives me the same quality and tonality (since we are posting this on rec.photo.darkroom).., but it doesn't... so far. J. And this is what i really comes down to, isn't it? I have not till this date seen a digital B&W print as good as "any" given B&W print from conventional film - the digital still lacks the whites, the blacks, the tonality and the punch of a good conventional B&W print. Digital color prints are very close, but still can't capture the detail an tonality of a fine grain slide film. KO ************** Norway - home of giants |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Knut Otto Pedersen wrote: I have not till this date seen a digital B&W print as good as "any" given B&W print from conventional film - the digital still lacks the whites, the blacks, the tonality and the punch of a good conventional B&W print. I can agree with that, although I have not seen every example to derive a set conclusion. Even Chromogenic BW negative materials seem superior "actually quite good in this aspect in the 35mm. Digital color prints are very close, but still can't capture the detail an tonality of a fine grain slide film. This I don't know if completely accurate, judging my new F100 35mm against my new D70 using the same lens its a very very close call and subject to some speculation. MF cameras, there still is no comparison if max sharpness is desired in the end result. -- LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Gregory Blank wrote: In article , Tom Phillips wrote: In article , Gregory Blank wrote: Ok what do you need a darkroom for then? In article , Helge Buddenborg wrote: That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it, "Digital Photography is "GREAT". What he misses (completely) is that digital imaging, though an imaging medium, is not a *photographic* medium. The physics simply don't support this. And when people begin to see through the marketing hype and in 20 years lose all those non-existent image files on their hard drives they will realize film is the better medium. There simply is no permanent archival storage for digital and never will be, since as mere data it's dependent on 100% on electronics rather than concrete materials. Manufacturers market digital as "photography" instead of data imaging because that's the only way they can sell it. Digital cameras aren't "cameras," they're scanners. Consumers buy into it for the convenience, but experienced photographers are better educated. As the ISO has noted digital doesn't produce a photograph, it produces representational image data. Film, OTOH, is a permanent tangible image, not "data." And that's why film will always be around. I see this as a catch 22 problem, on one hand it would be nice if digital images approached the archival nature of film. (I won't hold my breath). Mainly because I can see its benefits for certain types of work/Fast turn around, streamlined workflow, etc. But interesting enough if you give a customer a choice at least here in Maryland they hands down in 95% of the cases choose film. Must be partially the result of bad experiences with people jumping into "pro work too soon, or jumping into Digital camera work too soon. End result it muddies the market for everyone. That's really what digital is about: money. But the problem for professional work as I see it is what's the benefit of a streamlined work flow (which in fact requires significant investment not only in high end digital cameras but constant computer upgrades...) if at the end of that work flow all you have is the money and not concrete images? A professional's portfolio is what gets them work. I've never interviewed with a potential client yet who wasn't "Oooh!" and Ahh!" impressed when they see an actual 4x5 transparency. Digital just doesn't have the same impact. A lot of things can go wrong with electronics; I witnessed a photographer recently lose all his images due to a bad storage card (don't let anayone tell you these storage cards are reliable...) Film is less problematic and more reliable. I'd always rather rather add the extra step of shooting and then scanning the image. -- Tom Phillips |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
3rd RFD: rec.photo.digital.slr | Thad | Digital Photography | 86 | December 14th 04 04:45 AM |
3rd RFD: rec.photo.digital.slr | Thad | 35mm Photo Equipment | 31 | December 14th 04 04:45 AM |
Will digital photography ever stabilize? | Alfred Molon | Digital Photography | 37 | June 30th 04 08:11 PM |
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? | Michael Weinstein, M.D. | In The Darkroom | 13 | January 24th 04 09:51 PM |