This is the sad truth

[Nh3]

A fallacy how?

Physical environment vs. a digital computer program?

 

[Nh3]

Therefore, you spent 15 min's fuzzing around in photoshop with a digital image that you cannot stand using a process that you don't like?

Did you sell your D40 & D200 yet?

Then you can do your own Tri-X developing instead dropping it off at Digital FX.. I know the folks there are nice, but if you're starting from zero, do it right, dev it yourself.

I develop b&w myself. I have never developed B&W in a lab.

I will keep the DSLRs, selling would be a mistake.

 

[Kin Lau]

I develop b&w myself. I have never developed B&W in a lab.

Then go the whole way... get an enlarger, print on fibre, do the real darkroom work.

 

[bobbyrab]

"1. Digital flat out-resolves film. Even my lowly 6mp R-D1 trumps 35mm film in resolution, i.e., the ability to resolve detail. In fact, it can even out resolve medium format film depending on the quality of the film scan. I was stunned at that a bit. The R-D1 set at iso 800 matches Portra 800 from my Mamiya 645. That was a shocker. So if you imagine your M2 loaded with Tri-X can match up to a Canon 5D, Nikon D700 or even a decent APS-C sensor camera in the resolution department, well, you simply must apply that imagination to your image gathering, where it will do some good."

Digital's a strange thing, I wouldn't want to be without its low light capability, colour balance etc, there's far more I can do with digital than I can't do with film than vice versa, but this resolution business puzzles me, if I look at a scanned 35mm image [not huge, noritsu scan, could be better], and an image taken with a 5d, to my eye, at 16% or whatever, the film image looks more detailed, especially fine detail, but if I then zoom into 100%, the digital keeps revealing more detail while the film grain starts to break up the image. Now this is just my opinion, but I think it's where digital falls down against film, especially in B&W, colour tends to fill in the gaps somewhat, but as a B&W image it can look one monotonous tone siting on top of another monotonous tone, the detail's there, but film seems to convey it better without resorting to the zoom button. Or it might just be me......Robert

 

[IlijaB]

I will keep the DSLRs, selling would be a mistake.

Now that's a huge contradictin. No wonder you're not taken seriously by many in here (concluded after following your posts)

 

[sojournerphoto]

"1. Digital flat out-resolves film. Even my lowly 6mp R-D1 trumps 35mm film in resolution, i.e., the ability to resolve detail. In fact, it can even out resolve medium format film depending on the quality of the film scan. I was stunned at that a bit. The R-D1 set at iso 800 matches Portra 800 from my Mamiya 645. That was a shocker. So if you imagine your M2 loaded with Tri-X can match up to a Canon 5D, Nikon D700 or even a decent APS-C sensor camera in the resolution department, well, you simply must apply that imagination to your image gathering, where it will do some good."

Digital's a strange thing, I wouldn't want to be without its low light capability, colour balance etc, there's far more I can do with digital than I can't do with film than vice versa, but this resolution business puzzles me, if I look at a scanned 35mm image [not huge, noritsu scan, could be better], and an image taken with a 5d, to my eye, at 16% or whatever, the film image looks more detailed, especially fine detail, but if I then zoom into 100%, the digital keeps revealing more detail while the film grain starts to break up the image. Now this is just my opinion, but I think it's where digital falls down against film, especially in B&W, colour tends to fill in the gaps somewhat, but as a B&W image it can look one monotonous tone siting on top of another monotonous tone, the detail's there, but film seems to convey it better without resorting to the zoom button. Or it might just be me......Robert

Just a thought, but I think that a part of the answer is to look at a decent print (digital can also do this!). If you use PS to view an image from a 5D at 16% and compare it to a low res sscan the internal algorithms used to display the reduced image are far from ideal - hence they may well damage the apperent content of the bigger image. A good example is if you look at an image at 16% or 33% say and there are jaggies on the diagonals - go up one notch to am inverse power of two (50%, 25% etc) and they tend to disappear - this is because PS doesn't really interpolate properly for screen display.

Mike

 

[JohnL]

... but the best nh3 could do was to state that the pics were ok but were nothing that couldn't heve been done with a G9 Canon !!! ...

Keith,
Don't take this as an insult (even though it does sound as though it was meant to be dismissive) -- one can do quite a lot with a G9 Canon. If I have any complaint about mine, it is still less responsive than my film cameras or digital SLRs, but it's not that far off even on this count, and the IQ is impressive, except that it's virtually impossible to do selective focus on such a small sensor.

 

[bobbyrab]

Just a thought, but I think that a part of the answer is to look at a decent print (digital can also do this!). If you use PS to view an image from a 5D at 16% and compare it to a low res sscan the internal algorithms used to display the reduced image are far from ideal - hence they may well damage the apperent content of the bigger image. A good example is if you look at an image at 16% or 33% say and there are jaggies on the diagonals - go up one notch to am inverse power of two (50%, 25% etc) and they tend to disappear - this is because PS doesn't really interpolate properly for screen display.

Mike

No I do understand this, I see it in prints as well, sometimes it suits an image, sometimes not, it was more a thought that resolution in itself is not the whole picture.

 

[IlijaB]

Resolution is so irrelevant. Viewing distance is the key. If you view 13x19 prints at 12" distance, then it is relevant. But as far as I know, we're all a bunch of amateurs and none of us is shooting for magazines nor billboards (where 4MP will suffice. Remember, viewing distance).


I overcame the "resolution" complex loooong ago. Resolution is a pointless argument for 99% of the shooting population.

 

[hitmanh]

I think more than the question of 'true image', my problem is the infinite possibility of variations that comes along with using digital.

I also think comparing darkroom to photoshop is one of the greatest fallacies that is commonly thrown around. There are no undo buttons in a darkroom and also its impossible to shoot drugstore C41 color film and then in the darkroom make it look like Kodachrome.

I have been living in a fool's paradise by thinking that I could do what I wanted with digital. It has been a costly mistake. I learned my lesson... Now I have gone back to basics and starting from zero with film.

This sounds to me that you do not have 'vision' for what you want the finished photo to look like. It's a problem I often have, and I've found my best pictures come from shots where I can visualise what I want to the final result to be before I even take the shot. When shooting with film, this is a much lesser problem (you've already decided to shoot in B&W or kodachrome, etc).
I also found it helps when you use the DSLR in a way that suits your picture taking. For example when I shoot sports and action stuff, I use alot of the inbuilt automation (AV, AF, AI servo focusing, etc), but when I shoot portaits I'll go manual for everything except focus (viewfinder isn't great for MF), pretty much using the camera in the same way as I would use my Oly OM1.
The advantage and disadvantge of the DSLR is the sheer number of options and flexibiliy. However, you are in charge, so use the tools that help you and forget about the rest. Cheers Matt