Freakscene
Obscure member
Because you are either not looking at digital prints at all, you have a very fixed idea of what a photographic print should look like, or you are not looking at good digital prints.
This is by far the biggest difference from a technical perspective, and the “expose to the right” philosophy makes it worse, because it gives you less headroom. I see many more digital photos made technically unpleasant because of blown highlights than noise. When processing digital photos, especially monochrome ones, looking at the top 25% or so of the tonal curve and maintaining a smooth rolloff is critical, but hardly anyone does it. This is where the @Calzone trick with the uv/ir cut filter helps a lot. Because the highlights typically get IR contaminated proportionally more, and many camera meters also get fooled. It’s hard but it can be done.
I’m out of this thread.
Marty
Erik van Straten
Veteran
I am very disappointed with this answer from you.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Completely agree re noise and highlights blown.
yossi
Well-known
What is there to be disappointed about? To each their own. Just continue doing your gelatin silver prints and be happy
wlewisiii
Just another hotel clerk
The wisest statement by anyone yet.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
I am disappointed by Marty's reaction. He says that I am not looking at digital prints at all, but I look at them! I am since 1971 into photography on a professional level. Overall, I couldn't agree more with Marty. That does not mean that we always have to agree with each other. I think that artistically digital photography is a step back. You can of course have different opinions about that. I hope Marty agrees.What is there to be disappointed about? To each their own. Just continue doing your gelatin silver prints and be happy
shawn
Veteran
Fuji's Super CCD sensors did well with this. The seemed to meter for the high sensitivity pixels and then had the low sensitivity pixels to capture extra highlights.
Realistically though, with the DR available on most cameras now I think this is more of a metering issue, not a technology issues. Cameras push the exposure to the right. Use a DR 'expansion mode' which really is just underexposing 1,2 or 4 stops and then it just adjust levels after the capture. Digital can handle underexposure much better than film can.
Some cameras also have a highlight priority mode. With that you won't loose any highlights at all.
shawn
Veteran
Extremely easily.
Your continuing to bring up archiving with regard to digital suggests you have no experience with the tools available to do this.
Archiving and cataloging is *dramatically* easier with digital compared to analog. All my photos are literally in a library/database where I can view them them by date, by keywords, by location, by camera, by lens, by ISO, by aperture, shutter speed, by file type, by rating or combinations of the above. I can literally have it search by faces if I wanted to.
As an example, if I want to find all the pictures for a specific wedding or event I just search by keyword. All images are instantly displayed as thumbnails.
If I want to find all images taken on a certain date, I do that and they are instantly shown as thumbnails.
If I want to find all the pictures taken by my M240 I simply select it from the metadata tab and in literally less than 1 second I now have every picture ever taken by that camera displayed as thumbnails. I can further sort through them using the fields listed above.
I didn't have to get off the couch to do this.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Marty,
Thanks for giving me the credit. I’m sure there are others that discovered this but kept it secret.
Modern Heliopan filters marked “Digital” really clean up the histogram and help eliminate clipping.
Another trick is to use the back of your hand as a grey card. Since I’m an Asian pretty much works for me to nail exposure which is especially important with Digital. If you have a lighter completion of course you need to know the offset in F-stops.
The original MM I still shoot. It is really a great camera. The advantage to exploit though is to use a Heliopan “Digital” yellow filter to add contrast so as to minimize post processing and digital noise. The idea is to shoot like a large format shooter maximizing the image at time of image capture.
I get results that make large format shooters think my digital images are large format wet prints, but I use Piezography. This is a skill that took a lot of paper and ink to develop. This is with an 18 MP camera and I print 20x30 image size on 24x36 sheets.
As for the film verses digital, I shoot both and keep them as separate mediums. So far no scanning.
This is an interesting thread for me because I now lack a workspace because of and even though I own a house. I bought a 1912 house that I have been working on, and one day I’ll get back into being a serious printer. Don’t know if I will go all analog or all digital, but it may come to that. BTW I’m retired.
One thing to consider though is digital requires a bigger workspace. I have a 27 inch Ezio and will need a new computer with a large screen, then there is a free standing printer that I call the “Jersey Barrier,” and then there is the scale of the prints.
Analog printing of course is on a smaller scale…
Cal
Thanks for giving me the credit. I’m sure there are others that discovered this but kept it secret.
Modern Heliopan filters marked “Digital” really clean up the histogram and help eliminate clipping.
Another trick is to use the back of your hand as a grey card. Since I’m an Asian pretty much works for me to nail exposure which is especially important with Digital. If you have a lighter completion of course you need to know the offset in F-stops.
The original MM I still shoot. It is really a great camera. The advantage to exploit though is to use a Heliopan “Digital” yellow filter to add contrast so as to minimize post processing and digital noise. The idea is to shoot like a large format shooter maximizing the image at time of image capture.
I get results that make large format shooters think my digital images are large format wet prints, but I use Piezography. This is a skill that took a lot of paper and ink to develop. This is with an 18 MP camera and I print 20x30 image size on 24x36 sheets.
As for the film verses digital, I shoot both and keep them as separate mediums. So far no scanning.
This is an interesting thread for me because I now lack a workspace because of and even though I own a house. I bought a 1912 house that I have been working on, and one day I’ll get back into being a serious printer. Don’t know if I will go all analog or all digital, but it may come to that. BTW I’m retired.
One thing to consider though is digital requires a bigger workspace. I have a 27 inch Ezio and will need a new computer with a large screen, then there is a free standing printer that I call the “Jersey Barrier,” and then there is the scale of the prints.
Analog printing of course is on a smaller scale…
Cal
shawn
Veteran
Yes.
On the flip side, if something happens to that unique, precious thing (lost, damaged, etc) you are screwed.
With digital it is easy to keep perfect backups and also to keep the original file to yourself while only releasing a lower quality version either as a file or a print.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
As far as the smooth roll-off on highlights goes one should look at Salgado’s large prints from “Genesis.”
Pretty much it can be achieved with digital to a certain extent. When I say this I frame it in the context that Salgado used the best lab in Paris to do his printing.
I went to see this show at ICP twice, and the second time was to look for the difference. I was able to tell accurately and reliably, but this relied on my skills as a printer.
Film had a tiny amount of smoothness in the highlights that I would describe as “fluffy.”
The digital images though had slightly more shadow detail.
Anyways, all I’m trying to say is that it is all about skill…
Remember my Piezography prints get mistaken for large format film.
Cal
Pretty much it can be achieved with digital to a certain extent. When I say this I frame it in the context that Salgado used the best lab in Paris to do his printing.
I went to see this show at ICP twice, and the second time was to look for the difference. I was able to tell accurately and reliably, but this relied on my skills as a printer.
Film had a tiny amount of smoothness in the highlights that I would describe as “fluffy.”
The digital images though had slightly more shadow detail.
Anyways, all I’m trying to say is that it is all about skill…
Remember my Piezography prints get mistaken for large format film.
Cal
Disappointed_Horse
Well-known
@CalZone—I'm curious if you've tried any other UV/IR Cut filters. The Heliopans are expensive and B+W and Hoya UV/IR Cut filters seem to be more available and less expensive.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Well, I bought my first digital cameras in the late '90s and, thus far, if this is happening, it has not evidenced itself in any of them. Most of those cameras were sold to friends ... who still have them, and still occasionally use them.
That said, I wouldn't call any digital camera I purchased prior to 2004ish really worth ballyhooing, however, just as I would not consider a point and shoot from 1987 to be a fine quality example of what a film camera might be. Certainly nothing I've owned made since then has shown any sign of such problems, and certainly most of such problems could be repaired if a camera was determined to be worth the effort.
So I wonder about the credibility of such "reports". I will say that materials used in automobiles since the early '00s have a much more restricted lifespan than older automobiles ... the insulation on my '06 Mercedes headlamp wiring is a definite example: It is designed to be biodegradable and, less than twenty years on, I had to replace both headlamp assemblies because the wiring used to make them disintegrated purely from age.
Old mechanical cameras (and other devices) are not immune to age degradation either. Every single Kodak Retina, Voigtländer Vito or Vitessa, Hasselblad 500, etc, I've bought has needed a thorough CLA and often minor repairs due to worn out parts in order to be put back into reliable and consistent service. Same goes for my lovely old 1960s Omega watches and such. Such servicing is not inexpensive, often higher cost than the purchase price of the camera or device...
In the end, I don't care. I love older cameras and watches, cars, and putting them right, making them work the way they were designed to, is a source of great joy and pleasure to me. The value of such a thing cannot be measured purely in terms of money. And at the same time, I love state of the art equipment that works far far far more competently than all those old things, when that is what I am looking for. So I also have a modern car, and modern cameras, and a new-ish watch or two.
We're a long, long way from "what do I like about film captured photographs" at this point.
And I answered that already ... I like the challenge of making this obscenely difficult recording medium with all its defects and problems do what I want. Just like I enjoy the challenge of making the obscenely complicated and limited digital capture recording medium do what I want. It's all much of the same to me.Whether a beautiful digital print is any less beautiful than a beautiful darkroom, silver gelatin print, as Erik proclaims ... well, MY eyes aren't fine enough to see that difference if the beautiful digital print is actually beautiful, or if the beautiful darkroom print is actually beautiful. And I'm much more interested in what the two prints are saying to me than whether one is more or less beautiful than the other. LOL!
G
1960s Omega Seamaster De Ville
raydm6
Yay! Cameras! 🙈🙉🙊┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘ [◉"]
Similar to mine!Well, I bought my first digital cameras in the late '90s and, thus far, if this is happening, it has not evidenced itself in any of them. Most of those cameras were sold to friends ... who still have them, and still occasionally use them.
That said, I wouldn't call any digital camera I purchased prior to 2004ish really worth ballyhooing, however, just as I would not consider a point and shoot from 1987 to be a fine quality example of what a film camera might be. Certainly nothing I've owned made since then has shown any sign of such problems, and certainly most of such problems could be repaired if a camera was determined to be worth the effort.
So I wonder about the credibility of such "reports". I will say that materials used in automobiles since the early '00s have a much more restricted lifespan than older automobiles ... the insulation on my '06 Mercedes headlamp wiring is a definite example: It is designed to be biodegradable and, less than twenty years on, I had to replace both headlamp assemblies because the wiring used to make them disintegrated purely from age.
Old mechanical cameras (and other devices) are not immune to age degradation either. Every single Kodak Retina, Voigtländer Vito or Vitessa, Hasselblad 500, etc, I've bought has needed a thorough CLA and often minor repairs due to worn out parts in order to be put back into reliable and consistent service. Same goes for my lovely old 1960s Omega watches and such. Such servicing is not inexpensive, often higher cost than the purchase price of the camera or device...
In the end, I don't care. I love older cameras and watches, cars, and putting them right, making them work the way they were designed to, is a source of great joy and pleasure to me. The value of such a thing cannot be measured purely in terms of money. And at the same time, I love state of the art equipment that works far far far more competently than all those old things, when that is what I am looking for. So I also have a modern car, and modern cameras, and a new-ish watch or two.
We're a long, long way from "what do I like about film captured photographs" at this point.
Whether a beautiful digital print is any less beautiful than a beautiful darkroom, silver gelatin print, as Erik proclaims ... well, MY eyes aren't fine enough to see that difference if the beautiful digital print is actually beautiful, or if the beautiful darkroom print is actually beautiful. And I'm much more interested in what the two prints are saying to me than whether one is more or less beautiful than the other. LOL!
G
1960s Omega Seamaster De Ville
Omega Seamaster Pro (2254.50 Chronometer), Seamaster De Ville, Speedmaster Pro (3570.50) by rdc154, on Flickr
Godfrey
somewhat colored
These classic Omega watches are so nice! The Seamaster De Ville is just a delight ... right size, right weight, simple, beautiful...Similar to mine!
...
I'm considering an Omega Speedmaster Pro "Moon Watch" as the final piece in my small collection of nice watches.
It will sit in a place of honor alongside my Longines "Charles A. Lindberg Navigation Chronometer" ...
G
raydm6
Yay! Cameras! 🙈🙉🙊┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘ [◉"]
Go for it! It will be a nice homage to the Apollo missions. It is for me and brings me back to that time in the 60's as young boy watching the Apollo missions on TV.These classic Omega watches are so nice! The Seamaster De Ville is just a delight ... right size, right weight, simple, beautiful...
I'm considering an Omega Speedmaster Pro "Moon Watch" as the final piece in my small collection of nice watches.
It will sit in a place of honor alongside my Longines "Charles A. Lindberg Navigation Chronometer" ...
G
Last edited:
joe bosak
Well-known
There were problems with non-lead solder in the consumer computer market at least, where (allegedly) the new non-lead solder was prone to cracking. As far as I recall this (allegedly) showed up in XBox360s and a wide range of nVidia-based graphics cards (I had a number of such cards that died of this myself, as well as an xb360) where ball grid arrays suffered, presumed to be because of non-lead solder cracking under the repeated heating and cooling. The graphics cards started to exhibit problems around 2004 (shortly after RoHS was introduced by the EU) and it possibly continued until 2009-ish. Presumably mamufacturers improved processes andmaterials etc. I'd guess that sporadic use of old cameras from that period is unlikely to precipitate the problem. Touch wood I've not had problems yet and a lot of my cameras are from back then.
Retro-Grouch
Veteran
I prefer film, but really, what I want to see is images that sing. I want beauty, mystery, and engagement with the world. Film shooters, digital shooters, and those pursuing a hybrid path can all do that. Find the process that best suits your needs and your vision, then work hard. Then work some more. You just might create some great work, regardless of your choice of tools.
JohnWolf
Well-known
A perfect post with which to close this thread. Please.
Last edited:
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
AAIfano,
The other filters I tried were B+W. The Heliopan filters marked “DIGITAL” have the UV and IR filters that pretty much remove signal I would consider “noise.”
The B+W filters did not improve my histograms in the same way as the Heliopan marked digital.
Very easy to see the difference on a digital camera and do an A-B test with changing filters as the only variable.
The IR and UV that are removed do not contain any visual information.
Cal
The other filters I tried were B+W. The Heliopan filters marked “DIGITAL” have the UV and IR filters that pretty much remove signal I would consider “noise.”
The B+W filters did not improve my histograms in the same way as the Heliopan marked digital.
Very easy to see the difference on a digital camera and do an A-B test with changing filters as the only variable.
The IR and UV that are removed do not contain any visual information.
Cal