T_om
Well-known
richard_l said:
Which leads me to paraphrase one of Garry Winogrand's quotes: Nothing matters except the picture.
I think what we end up with, the result, is more important that the way we produced it. Film, digital... makes no difference to me actually, as long as it produces the image we want.
Further, I believe that at this point in its development we are just scratching the surface of digital's capabilities. I also believe nothing looks like Tri-X except Tri-X.
But, we digress.
Tom
zeos 386sx
Well-known
T_om said:
Would anyone know where I could download a high quality digital sample that demonstrates that? I'd like to see it with my own eyes.
GeneW
Veteran
Nicely put, Tom. And no argument from me -- a longtime Tri-X & HP5 user -- and a new digital user. There's plenty to be excited about in both older and newer technologies.T_om said:I think what we end up with, the result, is more important that the way we produced it. Film, digital... makes no difference to me actually, as long as it produces the image we want.
Further, I believe that at this point in its development we are just scratching the surface of digital's capabilities. I also believe nothing looks like Tri-X except Tri-X.
Gene
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
zeos 386sx said:
The most pros don't complain because their clients can't see the difference anyway, an the very most amateurs seem to be contented with this converted junk stuff, which is still far away from scanned C41 B&W, not to speak of silver based flims.
Those who aren't happy with conversions shoot film for B&W parallel but this group seems to be too small to make a market for a digital B&W chip.
Regards,
Bertram
T_om
Well-known
zeos 386sx said:
It was pretty much beaten to death on Luminous Landscape (for one site example).
Here is one item from "way" back in 2002: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dq.shtml
Here is some info on resolution: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/res-demyst.shtml
Last but not least, here is his "shoot out" article: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml
Please note I am only referencing Reichmann's site out of pure sloth. There are scores of other sites addressing this issue, but the LL is easily searched and referenced and I have been keeping up with Reichmann's transition ever since he was recommending Rollies and Provia.
Speaking of easily searched, just go to LL and type in "Film vs. Digital" and see what pops up.
Tom
zeos 386sx
Well-known
T_om said:
Tom,
It may be "pure sloth" for you because you are familier with it, but it is new information for me so I thank you for pointing it out to me.
Please understand that I am not interested in rehashing endless and fruitless arguments about digital v. film. I am asking these questions because I'm on the verge of spending, what is for me, alot of money to buy into high end digital and I don't want to waste it. I'm coming to you and the others in this forum to get first hand, educated, experienced help - the truth. Pardon, me if I appear confrontational. I just don't want to waste time dancing around the poseys. I really do appreciate everyones help.
If anyone else, out of pure sloth, wants to recommend other reading then I give you my thanks in advance.
zeos 386sx
Well-known
Ok, I looked at the "shootout" on LL and this is what I saw. The Canon 1DS matches a drum scanned medium format negative from a Pentax 67II. Or, as Reichmann puts it, "Here's what I see. On a 13X19" print there's little to choose between the 1Ds print and the drum scan. I sometimes think that one is sharper or displays higher resolution than the other, and then I look at a different part of the print and think the opposite". Either way, I'm impressed by the Canon.
However, if a photographer decides to stay with a wet darkroom the Pentax 67II produces a negative every bit as sharp as the Canon image. If we extrapolate then I have to assume that Tom is correct when he states "that digital has equaled or surpassed scanned 35mm film in technical quality".
One other issue that has been taken up in this forum is the issue of digital "clipping". It concerns me because I think the chances of it happening in ordinary situations is greater than some think. One circumstance that I have mentioned is wedding photography where you can have a sunlit bride in a blindingly white dress in front of a dark background. For that reason I was interested to read that Reichmann found the 1DS had a greater dynamic range than film. That, in itself, recommends the camera to me.
Do I have to buy a $4000-$8000 Canon body to get that kind of quality or is it available in less expensive cameras for us mere, and less wealthy, mortals? How does the Leica DMR compare (at only $5000)?
However, if a photographer decides to stay with a wet darkroom the Pentax 67II produces a negative every bit as sharp as the Canon image. If we extrapolate then I have to assume that Tom is correct when he states "that digital has equaled or surpassed scanned 35mm film in technical quality".
One other issue that has been taken up in this forum is the issue of digital "clipping". It concerns me because I think the chances of it happening in ordinary situations is greater than some think. One circumstance that I have mentioned is wedding photography where you can have a sunlit bride in a blindingly white dress in front of a dark background. For that reason I was interested to read that Reichmann found the 1DS had a greater dynamic range than film. That, in itself, recommends the camera to me.
Do I have to buy a $4000-$8000 Canon body to get that kind of quality or is it available in less expensive cameras for us mere, and less wealthy, mortals? How does the Leica DMR compare (at only $5000)?
R
RML
Guest
Bertram2 said:
No offence meant, Bertram, but I'm getting a little tired of hearing your opinion on digital in this rude and confrontational way.
We know you don't like digital but do you have to spout that opinion every single time you get the chance? As it is, I do like digital and don't give a rat's patout about B&W film but you don't hear me whine about that, do you? So, please, if you don't have anything useful to say about digital and users of digital than don't say nothing.
I respect your opinion but don't need to hear about it all the time and be made out to be a "contented" user of "converted junk stuff", implying I'm a fool to use digital and not silver-based B&W film. You offend me with such allegations and I don't come to RFF for that. IMO you're an outstanding photographer but need to work on your conversation skills a lot.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
zeos 386sx said:
There's good news and bad news about that; the good news is that Medium Format "quality" is becoming more readily available as the cost of digital technology goes down as its quality goes up. The bad news is that the statement that you quoted forgets to mention something: most digital equipment does not deal with high contrast scenes (i.e. those with very bright and very dark areas) very well, and skin tone treatment leaves much to be desired when using very contrasty light or uneven lighting, if you're going to make prints beyond letter-size. But it is catching up very very very quickly. Many people are dumping their MF gear over digital equipment and some of them then kick themselves for having done so when they realize the shortcomings of most current digital equipment.
Digital is not a dirty word, and it is also something that should not be taken as a battle cry. But it must be recognized that this relatively new photo technology is trying to catching up with many decades of film research and development; it is, to its credit, catching up with incredible speed.
zeos 386sx
Well-known
gabrielma said:
gabrielma,
I'm not looking to dump my M gear - especially the lenses - I want to use them on the new digital M that we are supposed to see in '06 (If Leica gets through its current financial difficulties). That's why I was asking about the DMR's output. I think Brian Sweeney mentioned that he thought the digital M would use the same chip as the DMR (Brian, don't flame me if I got that wrong).
However, I am trying to avoid the pitfalls that you just mentioned. Before I jump in with both feet (and much money) I want to be certain that at some point in the digital picture making process I can exert what all of us have come to accept as fundamental picture making controls. When I started this thread I wasn't certain that was possible. Now, I'm starting to fell much better about digital's prospects for the kind of work I like to do.
nemjo
Avatar Challenge
road to hell is stoned with goodwill
road to hell is stoned with goodwill
The most interesting part of this thread to me was on 'emulate' or 'simulate'.
Could anyone explain me wether the photo in general is the emulation or the simulation of the subject?
AFAIK pasta is made of flour egg salt and water just as lasagne. It is very normal that different people prefers different...what's more I know people hate both.
BTW there ARE monochrome sensors in production. The camera makers are who think there is no need for them. Maybe they're right. I think that only a significant quality difference could make sense to produce dedicated B&W digital cameras as I don't know the price diffrence between the pure and RGB-d sensors.
nemjo
road to hell is stoned with goodwill
The most interesting part of this thread to me was on 'emulate' or 'simulate'.
Could anyone explain me wether the photo in general is the emulation or the simulation of the subject?
AFAIK pasta is made of flour egg salt and water just as lasagne. It is very normal that different people prefers different...what's more I know people hate both.
BTW there ARE monochrome sensors in production. The camera makers are who think there is no need for them. Maybe they're right. I think that only a significant quality difference could make sense to produce dedicated B&W digital cameras as I don't know the price diffrence between the pure and RGB-d sensors.
nemjo
vincentbenoit
télémétrique argentique
I think you can download full-size images from various digital backs on the Phase One website (www.phaseone.com).zeos 386sx said:
Cheers
Vincent
wdenies
wdenies
On the site:
http://www/thelightsrightstudio.com/digitaldarkroom
you will find a good tutorial on how to make and to apply your own Photoshop filters.
Wim
http://www/thelightsrightstudio.com/digitaldarkroom
you will find a good tutorial on how to make and to apply your own Photoshop filters.
Wim
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
richard_l said:
What is the difference? If the results cannot be distinguished from one another what is the importance of the way these results were obtained? After all, taking a photograph is an artificial, mechanical way of recording one's subject matter in a way that is influenced by the method, be it physical (filter) or digital. To differentiate by the tool used seems to be, to me, irrelevant. Your argument sounds a bit like: "If you didn't come by train, you are not here"
Last edited:
wdenies
wdenies
I agree that a digital back on a medium format camera will give the ultimate result.
But seen the present prices this is an utopia for most of the non-profs amongst us.
If I want to buy a Phase one back I will have to sell my house,car and boat and... will be killed by my wife.
Final quality?
A picture taken with a 5-6M pixel camera alreay requires resampling to make a decent 20x25 cm print> What with the initial quality?
(Is there a photoshop trick to produce large prints without loosing too much?)
Wim
But seen the present prices this is an utopia for most of the non-profs amongst us.
If I want to buy a Phase one back I will have to sell my house,car and boat and... will be killed by my wife.
Final quality?
A picture taken with a 5-6M pixel camera alreay requires resampling to make a decent 20x25 cm print> What with the initial quality?
(Is there a photoshop trick to produce large prints without loosing too much?)
Wim
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
wdenies said:
There is PhotoZoom Pro, by Shortcut Software which works very well. The PS trick is to resize in 110 % increments. That will enable you to make very large prints (at least up to 75 cm) from 6 Mp without losing smoothness or sharpness. Obviously detail that isn't there in the original file won't be in the print either.
(Let's buy a MF dig camera together and after being killed sit on a cloud in heaven comparing pictures
:angel: )
Last edited:
I just read through this...
WHAT, you mean YOU GUYS do not have Digital cameras with Monochrome sensors?
My Kodak is monochrome, and does not have a cut-off filter on it. There are companies that will convert cameras to IR by removing the cut-off filter, but getting the Bayer mask off is impossible. Companies, including Kodak, make CCD's mostly for the scientific and engineering field in monochrome. Limited production of them shoots the price way-up. To replace the KAF1600 (1.6MPixel CCD) in my Kodak DCS200 would cost $2,500 TODAY!!! High pixel count monochrome arrays are made, but the cost is high (probably) due to limited production.
Oh, and an Emulator executes machine instructions of a target executable one-by-one on a host CPU, a simulator is a computer model. MAC users are about to find out how slow an emulator is and will be BEGGING software companes for a port. At least that is what the simulations indicate.
My Digital camera is also a one-of-a-kind DCS200IR, Kodak made it in 1992. The last image posted is made using my own RAW converter written in FORTRAN. I found that the Kodak TWAIN driver was losing 12 rows and 12 columns, and was losing dynamic range. I can't figure that last one out!
I'm a Digital Dinosaur.
WHAT, you mean YOU GUYS do not have Digital cameras with Monochrome sensors?
My Kodak is monochrome, and does not have a cut-off filter on it. There are companies that will convert cameras to IR by removing the cut-off filter, but getting the Bayer mask off is impossible. Companies, including Kodak, make CCD's mostly for the scientific and engineering field in monochrome. Limited production of them shoots the price way-up. To replace the KAF1600 (1.6MPixel CCD) in my Kodak DCS200 would cost $2,500 TODAY!!! High pixel count monochrome arrays are made, but the cost is high (probably) due to limited production.
Oh, and an Emulator executes machine instructions of a target executable one-by-one on a host CPU, a simulator is a computer model. MAC users are about to find out how slow an emulator is and will be BEGGING software companes for a port. At least that is what the simulations indicate.
My Digital camera is also a one-of-a-kind DCS200IR, Kodak made it in 1992. The last image posted is made using my own RAW converter written in FORTRAN. I found that the Kodak TWAIN driver was losing 12 rows and 12 columns, and was losing dynamic range. I can't figure that last one out!
I'm a Digital Dinosaur.
Last edited:
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
RML said:
Uhh, seems I made you really upset.
Seems I hit a nerv, did not know you like converted digital so much. If so this is no reason anyway to take my words as a personal offense.I did not say idiot nor did I mean it, I just said some accept a technical result which is in my eyes junk. In their eyes it isn't, so what ?
This can be called confrontational yes, but not rude.
It wasn't said to offense anybody, this is just my personal opinion. And as long as there are some here in the forum ( I don't mean you) who cannot resist to open this can o' worms whenever they see it and do not miss a chance to declare again and again that film is dead or surpassed by digital and put an enormous effort on proving it by pointing out all kind of pseudo scientific articles I will give them an answer. If I feel like wasting a bit of time .
This kind of (BTW pretty confontational ) stuff is what I am getting tired of . Didn't we all agree again and again that we don't need it here and that all od use best use what they like ?
Let me add some words to your several , hmmm, let's say unkind suggestions: Sorry, my contribution was not thought at all to be "useful" , I just wasted a bit time and said what my opinion is .
And my style of conversation, on which I have to work a lot as you say: Well it varies , I always try to keep it adaequate to issue, content and person. And so I did this time. Reading your answer I have serious doubts that I could learn a lot from you , leaving aside the arrogant schoolmasterish sound it's YOU who use explicit personal offenses, I didn't.
Enuff said, I'm out here, if you want to sent me more suggestion please do it
off - list.
Emulsionly,
Bertram
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Brian, I wish I could understand just one sentence of your post
Jaap,
Lucky are those who do not understand computer-speak. I've worked with computers for 30 years and digital imaging for 25. In 1992, I talked to Kodak about using a CCD without the IR cutoff filter in it. It was from knowing the spectral response of the CCD and asking why the off-the-shelf camera did not work with IR. The Army later asked for the same thing and Kodak came out with an Infrared version of the then new Kodak DCS200.
I've written "emulator" and "simulation" software for a long time, and I thought the conversation on the difference was funny. I had to throw the computer terms in, just to try to lighten it. Apple is about to switch processors "again" and will come out with an emulator to allow old programs to run on the new machines. If the past is any indication, the software will be so slow and "buggy" that it will be virtually unusable on the new machines. Intel CPU's have "modes" in them that execute old software in hardware, and emulators are not required. So I can run my 1984 DOS software on a new Pentium 4 without problems. I used some 20-year old software tools to read the RAW images from the Kodak DCS200 to convert them to a new file format that Photoshop could read. In doing so, I found the images were larger (more pixels) than what the original Kodak software provided and that the range from black to white (pixel values) had a greater range. My software produced a larger image with more grey-scale values than what the Kodak software could do. I think it was trying to apply some sort of response curve to the image to mimic what you would get with film.
Lucky are those who do not understand computer-speak. I've worked with computers for 30 years and digital imaging for 25. In 1992, I talked to Kodak about using a CCD without the IR cutoff filter in it. It was from knowing the spectral response of the CCD and asking why the off-the-shelf camera did not work with IR. The Army later asked for the same thing and Kodak came out with an Infrared version of the then new Kodak DCS200.
I've written "emulator" and "simulation" software for a long time, and I thought the conversation on the difference was funny. I had to throw the computer terms in, just to try to lighten it. Apple is about to switch processors "again" and will come out with an emulator to allow old programs to run on the new machines. If the past is any indication, the software will be so slow and "buggy" that it will be virtually unusable on the new machines. Intel CPU's have "modes" in them that execute old software in hardware, and emulators are not required. So I can run my 1984 DOS software on a new Pentium 4 without problems. I used some 20-year old software tools to read the RAW images from the Kodak DCS200 to convert them to a new file format that Photoshop could read. In doing so, I found the images were larger (more pixels) than what the original Kodak software provided and that the range from black to white (pixel values) had a greater range. My software produced a larger image with more grey-scale values than what the Kodak software could do. I think it was trying to apply some sort of response curve to the image to mimic what you would get with film.