A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » 35mm Photo Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Erwin Puts On The Fundamental Differences Between Film and Digital Imaging



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 18th 06, 05:03 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Erwin Puts On The Fundamental Differences Between Film and Digital Imaging

Thought-provoking comments from Erwin Puts' Website
"But with digital imagery we are in the business of constructing reality and
no longer in the realm of recording reality."
_______________________________________________

In a recent documentary by Arte, the German-French art TV channel the
revival of the Super 8 film was exposed. Young filmmakers, in particular,
seem to discover the peculiar characteristics of Super 8 in comparison to
the now ubiquitous digital recording with the handycam. This is again proof
of the classical adage that a new medium does not kill the previous one,
just joins it.

When photography was invented, the most famous exclamation was that from
this moment one painting is dead. The contrary happened and painting
flourished as never before. It just had to re-invent itself and find its
true self.

At first, the early photographers copied the classical masters and the style
of painting. There were no other role models as we would say today.
Photography flourished after the practitioners abandoned the approach of the
painter and studied the inherent characteristics of the new medium. In fact
they found new uses for the medium. The Economist has drawn attention to
this fact when they noted that a true revolution is only possible when users
find new goals for a medium well beyond the original ideas. This is
happening world wide with the cameraphone and every day people find novel
ways to employ the tools and the technique.

Today you need to master the digital imagery workflow and without software
tools as Photoshop, Raw Essentials, Noise Ninja you are not able to get a
decent image on screen or on print. What is happening behind the scenes is a
true revolution. A number of photographers have simply switched from film
emulsion recording to solid state recording and assume that the classical
photographic virtues will continue to be valuable. This is no doubt true to
a certain extent. As in the past it is possible for photographer sto make
pictures that look like paintings and there are painters who make paintings
that look like photographs. It is perfectly valid to make pictures on
solid-state media that resemble the technique of recording an image on film
emulsions. But doing this you are acting like the 19th century photographer
who finds inspiration in the tradition of painting.

Photography means writing with light. Without light and an object reflecting
light rays that can be captured by silver halide molecules, there can be no
image. This is the essence of photography. Painting on the other hand can
work from imagination and the painter only needs a brush and some paints to
create whatever image he has in mind (literally speaking). Photography
depends on what exists in front of the lens and freezes a scene in time.
Painting has no sense of the time dimension. A photograph is limited in time
and space. The decisive moment as it has been called is indeed the hallmark
of a photographic image.

The digital image is a strange beast. It is not an image in the photographic
sense: there is no negative to look at. But there is a tendency to refer to
a RAW image is a digital negative. The sensor of the digital camera records
luminance values in a matrix of 3000 by 2000 cells, called pixels. The
numbers may be replaced by whatever size of the sensor you use. A pixel is
dimensionless, whereas a chemical negative has physical dimensions. The meta
data that accompanies every digital file, has information how the colour
pattern is arranged and this info is used by the software to reconstruct the
colour information of the scene. Inherently a digital image (file) is a
semi-manufactured article. Without the meta data the file can not be
interpreted. And without extensive manipulation by the software in the
camera or the Photoshops of this world, the file is useless.

Many commentators in the digital scene will claim that there were many
darkroom techniques to manipulate the original negative. That is true, but
the amount of manipulation was and is limited. The essence of digital
imagery is its unlimited potential for manipulation on the pixel level (in
photographic terms that would imply addressing every single grain in the
negative).

I am now using filmbased photographic recording and solid-state imagery in
comparison and I find it remarkable how different both approaches are. There
is still a widespread but futile attempt to try to demonstrate that
filmbased images are better than the solid-state equivalents or the other
way around. In a recent issue of the German magazine "Fotomagazin" there was
an article that proofs that at the edge of recording performance the film
based images have an advantage. This is also my own position: filmbased
recording is still better than solid-state recording. Of course we can claim
that current digital cameras can record a ten stop brightness contrast, but
the current printing equipment cannot cope with this contrast range. And we
can claim that resolution of films is still better than what we can get with
solid-state imagery.

When we are arguing in this direction we miss the point! The convenience and
the possibilities of solid-state imagery outweigh the slight losses in
absolute image quality.

The whole idea of the digital imagery workflow points to a new way of
working with images. When I take pictures on film I know the limitations and
the possibilities of the material. And above all, I know that I am
definitely fixing an image for eternity. Manipulations are limited. Of
course I can take hundreds of pictures and hope that one if the images will
satisfy my imagination or emotion about the scene in front of me. But the
final image is still the fixing of the shadows.

When I use the digital camera, I am definitely aware that the pictures are
intermediate products, simply files that can be manipulated at will later on
the workflow process. Using the Olympus E-1 as I would use the Leica M7 is
simply a misunderstanding of the technique involved. Pressing the shutter of
the M7 creates a fixed recording of a instant of reality, probably
imperfect, but finalized. Pressing the shutter of the E-1 creates an
intermediate product, a digital file that can be manipulated in many ways.
Look at a Raw conversion program and see the infinite ways of manipulation
of the basic image. There is no hesitation to shoot scores of images at will
and to exploit your creativity from every possible angle and pose. Images
are free and at no cost and every possible mistake can be corrected. As soon
as you understand this, you note that a digital camera is a new tool that
introduces a totally new way of creating images. The digital workflow
supports this new way: as a start you can take pictures with a method that
is essentially what the painter's sketchpad was in the past. You can start
with a low resolution file which allows you take 1000 images on a 2 Gigabyte
CF-card, take images as often and as many as you want (12 per second if you
wish), at every angle and position, review the results immediately and when
the results are what you had on your retina, you can delete the files,
switch to RAW and create the real images. With the Raw processors you can
look at the light table, adjust the relevant parameters, as saturation,
colour, sharpness and dynamic range, and feed the files in into Photoshop
CS2 where you can do additional manipulations, fix the parameters and do a
batch conversion of every number of files you want. You can even superimpose
two pictures, one with highlights corrections and one with shadow
corrections to simulate a much higher dynamic range than can be put on
paper.

The options are indeed limitless and go far beyond what the chemical
darkroom can offer. Ansel Adams coined the term pre-visualisation to
indicate that it is photographer's job to think about an image and to start
searching for one. Henri Cartier-Bresson had a theory that you cannot create
an image but have to wait for reality to evolve into a meaningful pattern
that you can only capture at the right moment in time and place.

The emergence of the workflow approach in digital imagery makes these
visions obsolete and this can only be applauded. It means that the
traditional style of taking photographs is not appropriate for digital
imagery. As long as we assume that digital imagery is photography with a
solid-state sensor , we are like the photographer who tries to emulate the
process of painting. The often-praised approach of hybrid photography
(mixing film based photography with solid-state imagery) is as futile as
trying to mix painting with photography.

Photography flourished as soon as the practitioners shrugged off the
heritage of painting and started to use the new medium as a new tool with
its own laws and possibilities. Digital imagery or even engineering will
start to flourish when and if the practitioners shed off their heritage of
photography and start to use the medium as a new instrument for a new
language for visual expression.

It is really significant that in today's digital arena the traditional
photographic companies are doing worst of all. Kodak has a new boss and
sheds tens of thousands of people again and film sales are dropping not by
the projected 10%, but by an alarming 30% a year. We all know where Leica is
standing, losing money and changing bosses by the month. It is the stated
goal of HP, once a staid engineering company famous for boring but reliable
computer hardware, to become the digital equivalent of what Kodak stands for
in the 20th century as the leader of chemical photography. Contax/Kyocera is
dead; Pentax is struggling, as is Nikon and Konica/Minolta. The big names in
digital imagery are Seiko/Epson, Sony, HP and Canon, as one of the very few
of the traditional photographic companies who has made the transition from
photography to image engineering. And on the horizon we see the names of
Nokia, Ericcson, Samsung and others who promote the use of camera-phones as
the means of image capture of the future. Some of the best-known names in
fashion photography (Nick Knight is one of them) have abandoned the
classical gear fully to concentrate on the images possible with the
camera-phone ( 3 million pixels really suffice for full spread magazine
images).

The digital workflow encompasses the whole range form creating the basic
image file, manipulating the data with programs and printing the files to
get printed images. The software-programs and the computer are at every
stage necessary and an integral part of the flow. Extract the programs from
your digital camera and it will do nothing. The more you rely on
post-exposure manipulation with Photoshop, the more you are becoming an
image engineer. This is fine. I am no Luddite to protest against new
inventions. But with digital imagery we are in the business of constructing
reality and no longer in the realm of recording reality. There will be
hardcore traditionalists who insist on using the digital camera as a
convenient means of doing traditional photography, but they will be soon
outnumbered if not buried by the masses of persons who see digital imagery
as one of the many instances of an integrated digital entertainment network.

In the end, it may be possible that true chemical photography, at least the
BW version of it, will outlast the digital photographer, who will vanish in
the world of digital imagery that is mobile, virtual and personal: mobile
because you can do it every where you want, virtual, because it only exists
in the camera and you can show it to anybody around the globe and personal
because you can edit the digital file in any way you wish. Does this sound
like a revolution? You bet on it!

Some trivia: the first digital SLR was a Kodak DCS-100 in 1991 with a 1.3 Mp
sensor and $30.000 tag. In 1997 the Olympus D-6000L had the same size sensor
and costs a few thousand bucks. In 1999 the Nikon D1 had a 2.74 MP sensor
and a tag of $6000. The Canon EOS-1D from 2001 had a 4.48 Mp sensor and was
introduced as the camera tthat set the top for sharpness and resolution. Now
Canon has a 16 Mp sensor, but the claims are the same.

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c009.html


  #2  
Old March 18th 06, 10:32 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Erwin Puts On The Fundamental Differences Between Film and DigitalImaging



Jeremy wrote:

Thought-provoking comments from Erwin Puts' Website
"But with digital imagery we are in the business of constructing reality and
no longer in the realm of recording reality."
_______________________________________________

snipped article because of length; read it on the OP's post

OK Jeremy, thank you for posting that very lucid article from Erwin
Puts, a respected person in the field of photography. It reflects
almost exactly where I stand in respect of film vs digital photography,
with a few relatively minor differences.

A few of his statements I don't entirely agree with, such as where he
states that a film image is fixed for eternity - I guess he's trying to
make the point that the image is final rather than eternal, but maybe
that's his English usage. Also where he states that without light being
captured by silver halide molecules there can be no image. A nitpick
here; strictly, there is no image until the silver halide molecules are
developed by a chemical process; and secondly, there are other chemical
reactions that can produce an image - useless in practice for
photography, but they do exist.

Also, I don't entirely agree with digital imagery being in the business
of constructing reality rather than recording reality. Of course a
digital image can record reality as well as can film. It may be subject
to more manipulation, or construction, but that is not a given with
every digital image. And the more the image is constructed, the less is
the reality, or 'reporting accuracy'. I am rather in the position of
using digital images as I would silver images, it's just a different,
and to me, a better way of pursuing my photographic interests. But, we
can probably write those differences off to semantics, and they
certainly don't negate the thrust of the entire article.

I have printed the article, and will keep it for reference.

Thanks again,

Colin D.
  #3  
Old March 18th 06, 11:30 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Erwin Puts On The Fundamental Differences Between Film and Digital Imaging

In article [email protected], Jeremy wrote:
Thought-provoking comments from Erwin Puts' Website
"But with digital imagery we are in the business of constructing reality and
no longer in the realm of recording reality."
_______________________________________________


What a stupid article!

In a recent documentary by Arte, the German-French art TV channel the
revival of the Super 8 film was exposed. Young filmmakers, in particular,
seem to discover the peculiar characteristics of Super 8 in comparison to
the now ubiquitous digital recording with the handycam. This is again proof
of the classical adage that a new medium does not kill the previous one,
just joins it.


Some artists just want to be different. It doesn't have anything to do with
the inherent qualities of the medium. After a couple years, people will
be bored with low quality Super 8 movies and move on.

Today you need to master the digital imagery workflow and without software
tools as Photoshop, Raw Essentials, Noise Ninja you are not able to get a
decent image on screen or on print.


What kind of argument is this? There are plenty of DSLRs that can produce
a decent quality jpeg.

What is happening behind the scenes is a
true revolution. A number of photographers have simply switched from film
emulsion recording to solid state recording and assume that the classical
photographic virtues will continue to be valuable. This is no doubt true to
a certain extent. As in the past it is possible for photographer sto make
pictures that look like paintings and there are painters who make paintings
that look like photographs. It is perfectly valid to make pictures on
solid-state media that resemble the technique of recording an image on film
emulsions. But doing this you are acting like the 19th century photographer
who finds inspiration in the tradition of painting.


The only way to make pictures radically different is to take them into
the realm of graphics arts.

It there anything new? If you take everything that has been done on film and
compare it to what is being done with digital, I strongly doubt that
on average there is anything different.

Photography means writing with light. Without light and an object reflecting
light rays that can be captured by silver halide molecules, there can be no
image. This is the essence of photography. Painting on the other hand can
work from imagination and the painter only needs a brush and some paints to
create whatever image he has in mind (literally speaking). Photography
depends on what exists in front of the lens and freezes a scene in time.
Painting has no sense of the time dimension. A photograph is limited in time
and space. The decisive moment as it has been called is indeed the hallmark
of a photographic image.


This is why there is such a big difference between photography and painting.

The digital image is a strange beast. It is not an image in the photographic
sense: there is no negative to look at. But there is a tendency to refer to
a RAW image is a digital negative. The sensor of the digital camera records
luminance values in a matrix of 3000 by 2000 cells, called pixels. The
numbers may be replaced by whatever size of the sensor you use. A pixel is
dimensionless, whereas a chemical negative has physical dimensions. The meta
data that accompanies every digital file, has information how the colour
pattern is arranged and this info is used by the software to reconstruct the
colour information of the scene. Inherently a digital image (file) is a
semi-manufactured article. Without the meta data the file can not be
interpreted. And without extensive manipulation by the software in the
camera or the Photoshops of this world, the file is useless.


This is extermely silly. Without meta-data, a print film negative is nothing.
You need to know that there is an orange mask, you need to know color balance,
etc.

Without very complicated chemical processing, exposed Kodachrome film is
nothing.

Replacing chemicals with digital circuits is not a revolution in itself.

When I use the digital camera, I am definitely aware that the pictures are
intermediate products, simply files that can be manipulated at will later on
the workflow process. Using the Olympus E-1 as I would use the Leica M7 is
simply a misunderstanding of the technique involved. Pressing the shutter of
the M7 creates a fixed recording of a instant of reality, probably
imperfect, but finalized. Pressing the shutter of the E-1 creates an
intermediate product, a digital file that can be manipulated in many ways.
Look at a Raw conversion program and see the infinite ways of manipulation
of the basic image. There is no hesitation to shoot scores of images at will
and to exploit your creativity from every possible angle and pose. Images
are free and at no cost and every possible mistake can be corrected. As soon
as you understand this, you note that a digital camera is a new tool that
introduces a totally new way of creating images. The digital workflow
supports this new way: as a start you can take pictures with a method that
is essentially what the painter's sketchpad was in the past. You can start
with a low resolution file which allows you take 1000 images on a 2 Gigabyte
CF-card, take images as often and as many as you want (12 per second if you
wish), at every angle and position, review the results immediately and when
the results are what you had on your retina, you can delete the files,
switch to RAW and create the real images. With the Raw processors you can
look at the light table, adjust the relevant parameters, as saturation,
colour, sharpness and dynamic range, and feed the files in into Photoshop
CS2 where you can do additional manipulations, fix the parameters and do a
batch conversion of every number of files you want. You can even superimpose
two pictures, one with highlights corrections and one with shadow
corrections to simulate a much higher dynamic range than can be put on
paper.


Two rather strange ideas are combined in this paragraph.

First, I looks like the author never heard of scanners. For my workflow,
there hardly any difference between film and direct digital. Of course
film needs to be developed and scanned, and a digital image may need
raw conversion. But after that, it is just digital processing. There is
nothing inherently fixed in a film negative, that isn't just as fixed in
RAW.

The second argument is that you can take as many pictures as you like.
Well, you can do that with film as well.

With video, there is lots of experience with cheap recording media.
Unfortunately, without vision, recording more video doesn't help.

The samething applies to digital photography. Taking more picture mostly
results in more boring pictures.

The options are indeed limitless and go far beyond what the chemical
darkroom can offer. Ansel Adams coined the term pre-visualisation to
indicate that it is photographer's job to think about an image and to start
searching for one. Henri Cartier-Bresson had a theory that you cannot create
an image but have to wait for reality to evolve into a meaningful pattern
that you can only capture at the right moment in time and place.


I guess Erwin Puts didn't bother to visit the HCB exposition that is
currently in Amsterdam.

HCB's pictures show that you have be in right place at the right time and
press the shutter at the right moment. Many of his pictures are unique.

I guess that even with landscapes, there is only a very small window of
time when the light, clouds, etc. are optimal.

I wonder if he read "the negative". Small digital cameras are just as
limited as (or even more limited than) the print film Ansel Adams used.
Deciding what record when the subject contrast exceeds the capabilities
of the medium is just as important today as it was when AA was writing
his books.

Yes, digital does give a bit more feedback. But if have any idea what the
final image is supposed to look like, you will not get good results.

The emergence of the workflow approach in digital imagery makes these
visions obsolete and this can only be applauded. It means that the
traditional style of taking photographs is not appropriate for digital
imagery. As long as we assume that digital imagery is photography with a
solid-state sensor , we are like the photographer who tries to emulate the
process of painting. The often-praised approach of hybrid photography
(mixing film based photography with solid-state imagery) is as futile as
trying to mix painting with photography.


And a million monkeys will eventually come up with the works of Shakespear.

If you want random images, you can do that with film as well. There is
nothing new in this respect.

Photography flourished as soon as the practitioners shrugged off the
heritage of painting and started to use the new medium as a new tool with
its own laws and possibilities. Digital imagery or even engineering will
start to flourish when and if the practitioners shed off their heritage of
photography and start to use the medium as a new instrument for a new
language for visual expression.


Photography does not have anything in common with painting. But, most
photography is not really that different from painting upto the invention
of photography. Some paitings were pure imagination. But a lot of paintings
tried to show what the artist saw as the reality. Not really any different
from a lot of photography today.

Using DoF to isolate subjects is just about the only thing that is more
or less impossible with painting.

It was the painters who had to re-invent themselves.

It is quite possible in a digital world, artists working with film will have
to re-invent themselves as well.

Some of the best-known names in
fashion photography (Nick Knight is one of them) have abandoned the
classical gear fully to concentrate on the images possible with the
camera-phone ( 3 million pixels really suffice for full spread magazine
images).


Ones again an example where artists just need something that looks different.

But with digital imagery we are in the business of constructing
reality and no longer in the realm of recording reality. There will be
hardcore traditionalists who insist on using the digital camera as a
convenient means of doing traditional photography, but they will be soon
outnumbered if not buried by the masses of persons who see digital imagery
as one of the many instances of an integrated digital entertainment network.


Yes, photography can be combined with graphics arts. However, that doesn't
have anything to do with digital capture.

Graphics arts can be combined with photography. For example, you can
try to combine Escher-style patterns with photographic elements.

However, that is no longer photography. And I sort of doubt that the
people who feel a desire express themselves using photography will embrace
image construction using graphics arts techniques.

As long as the goal is to produce a photograph, direct digital is just a more
convenient way of doing what was also possible with (scanned) film based
photography.

There is nothing new. Just like most movies (whether recorded on film, or
using a video camera) are not really that different from what was done a
100 years ago.

Are cameras in mobile phones going to have much impact? They are going have
an impact on recording important events that were not often recorded
before. For any kind of news, it is much likely that there will also be
some images.

But other than that, snapshots tend not to have any photographic qualities.
Even worse, there is good chance that many snapshots will not be preserved.
Just like in the past people used to write each other lots letters and, more
importantly, used to archive those letters. There is of course no records
of most telephone calls (at least officially). With e-mail, some people
archive their e-mail, other people don't.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
  #4  
Old March 18th 06, 12:23 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Erwin Puts On The Fundamental Differences Between Film and Digital Imaging

He has some interesting ideas but I think missed perhaps the fact that
for most people who are still using film the image is still going
through a digital image phase before being printed. From this
standpoint then the film image can and is manipulated as much as the
digital image.

In some respects he has missing much of the point of the digital
revolution in photograph. A huge part is that photographer can have
full control of how their color prints look, this is true either
scanning film or starting from an image from a digital camera. Even
for BW work having the image in a digital format gives one far more
control when with a wet darkroom.

"In the electronic age, I am sure that scanning techniques will be
developed to achieve prints of extraordinary subtlety from the original
negative scores. If I could return in twenty years or so I would hope
to see astounding interpretations of my most expressive images. It is
true no one could print my negatives as I did, but they might well get
more out of them by electronic means. Image quality is not the product
of a machine but of the person who directs the machine, and there are
no limits to imagination and expression."
~ Ansel Adams, An Autobiography, 1985.

Scott

  #5  
Old March 18th 06, 02:14 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Erwin Puts On The Fundamental Differences Between Film and Digital Imaging

"Colin D" wrote in message
...

A few of his statements I don't entirely agree with, such as where he
states that a film image is fixed for eternity


I believe that he is comparing the "fixed" quality of the image negative (as
interpreted in the classic sense--before scanning and digital manipulation
came onto the scene) with the characteristic of images born digital to be in
a state of change--that the digital image is virtually guaranteed to be
tweaked, manipulated, changed--if only because it is so easy to do so. Back
in the days of negatives and enlargers, one could not easily change the
image that was fixed on the film. It could be dodged, burned and cleaned up
a bit, bit it remained fundamentally the same.




Also, I don't entirely agree with digital imagery being in the business
of constructing reality rather than recording reality.


Viewed in comparison to the "fixed" image on film, digital images can be
radically changed from what the original file looked like. I think he is
suggesting that the direction that digital imaging is headed is toward a
workflow where the original image is merely the starting point, and the
final product often bears little resemblance to the original image (not
always, but very often, of course).

It would appear that virtually everyone that takes digital imaging seriously
makes routine use of PS, PSP or other editing software. As one's skill set
improves, there is a tendency to try more types of image manipulation from
the editing software's tool kit. Back in the film days, before scanners,
the emphasis was to create the image at the time the camera took the shot.
The photographer had an entirely different orientation. Now, taking the
shot is the first step, not the last step.



  #6  
Old March 18th 06, 02:41 PM
sobolik sobolik is offline
Junior Member
 
First recorded activity by PhotoBanter: Jan 2006
Posts: 18
Default

"This is again proof of the classical adage that a new medium does not kill the previous one, just joins it."

I like reading rational approaches to the subject compared to emotional ones.
Photograph is like any other thing as long as there is a market there will be supplies. There is a huge market restructuring under way right now. That restructuring is not really reflective of rabid photographers needs and wants, just the masses. The muscle car era can be said to be done and dead by looking at the present market for the masses. The rabid Muscle car enthusiast has no trouble however.
I do not care if the masses embrace the digital such and such. I will still be able to pursue what ever I want including the Super 8 that is mentioned. I will still be able to take a 35mm photo of the guy as he takes fashion photos with his cell phone.

"This is again proof of the classical adage that a new medium does not kill the previous one, just joins it."
  #7  
Old March 18th 06, 04:21 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Erwin Puts On The Fundamental Differences Between Film and Digital Imaging

Jeremy wrote:
It would appear that virtually everyone that takes digital imaging

seriously
makes routine use of PS, PSP or other editing software. As one's skill set
improves, there is a tendency to try more types of image manipulation from
the editing software's tool kit. Back in the film days, before scanners,
the emphasis was to create the image at the time the camera took the shot.
The photographer had an entirely different orientation. Now, taking the
shot is the first step, not the last step.


Wouldn't you say that virtually everyone that takes photography
seriously makes uses of programs like Photoshop? The people I know who
are really getting all out of film that they can are all scanning and
adjusting to some degree their photographs. People like Gordon Moat
are quick to tell me that the old limits of 35mm photograph have been
expanded with the use of such things as noise reducing programs.

Scott

  #8  
Old March 18th 06, 04:36 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Erwin Puts On The Fundamental Differences Between Film and DigitalImaging

Scott W wrote:

He has some interesting ideas but I think missed perhaps the fact that
for most people who are still using film the image is still going
through a digital image phase before being printed. From this
standpoint then the film image can and is manipulated as much as the
digital image.


Shoot slide film. WYDIWYG


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
  #9  
Old March 18th 06, 04:46 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Erwin Puts On The Fundamental Differences Between Film and Digital Imaging


sobolik wrote:
"This is again proof of the classical adage that a new medium does not
kill the previous one, just joins it."

I like reading rational approaches to the subject compared to emotional
ones.
Photograph is like any other thing as long as there is a market there
will be supplies. There is a huge market restructuring under way right
now. That restructuring is not really reflective of rabid photographers
needs and wants, just the masses. The muscle car era can be said to be
done and dead by looking at the present market for the masses. The
rabid Muscle car enthusiast has no trouble however.
I do not care if the masses embrace the digital such and such. I will
still be able to pursue what ever I want including the Super 8 that is
mentioned. I will still be able to take a 35mm photo of the guy as he
takes fashion photos with his cell phone.

"This is again proof of the classical adage that a new medium does not
kill the previous one, just joins it."


In the case of photography you might be correct, but the statement that
a new medium does not kill the previous one is not in all cases
correct. There are any number of medium that are gone. The
Daguerreotype is gone. Glass plates are gone. Ask someone who owns a
Betamax VCR about the new just joining the old.

Kodachrome, one of my favorite films to use in the past is close to
gone.

What is clear is that the new medium can kill off the old when it
competes directly. For example there are other slide films that
compete directly with Kodachrome. Photograph never did really directly
compete with painters, at least not a painter who was any good.

In the end whether digital "kills off" film will depend on your
definition of killing off. But it is clear that film is moving into a
new state of existence where at best it will be harder to use and the
choices will be much more limited. I would be willing to bet that the
number of people who engage in painting today far exceeds the number
before photography. But the number of people who are doing film
photograph is greatly decreeing with the introduction of the digital
camera, because for the most part the digital camera does directly
compete with the film camera. When you sell more cameras you don't
sell less paint, when you sell more digit cameras you do sell less film
cameras.

Scott

  #10  
Old March 18th 06, 04:57 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Erwin Puts On The Fundamental Differences Between Film and Digital Imaging

Alan Browne wrote:
Scott W wrote:

He has some interesting ideas but I think missed perhaps the fact that
for most people who are still using film the image is still going
through a digital image phase before being printed. From this
standpoint then the film image can and is manipulated as much as the
digital image.


Shoot slide film. WYDIWYG


I find this an interesting area, it seems like side film makes more
sense not that we have fairly good cheap scanners and yet I believe the
fall of slide film has been faster then print. A good many of my
photos are in fact slide and for the most part this is where I get the
better scans. This is more luck then anything else, when I was young I
did not want to pay for enlargements but wanted to see my photos larger
then snap shot size, a slide projector was the answer at the time.

But I tend to like the colors that I can get from print film better
then slide, which often look a bit over saturated and high contrast to
me. But print film is not easy to scan and I have never gotten as good
detail with it as with slide film so it is a trade off either way.

Scott

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Digital Stock /Footage & Clips CDs, updated 24/Jan/2006 [email protected] Digital Photography 8 February 3rd 06 03:00 AM
"Nature's Best" contest and film vs digital Bill Hilton Photographing Nature 15 December 7th 05 11:03 PM
8Mp Digital The Theoretical 35mm Quality Equivelant Matt Digital Photography 1144 December 17th 04 09:48 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.