40oz
...
nightfly said:
Pretty sure it was this one:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Fujifilm/fuji_finepixa303.asp
But I'm not sure it's going to satisfy for B&W conversion. It's got a pretty good lens that combined with the internal software and hardware manages to take a pretty decent pic, depsite the auto-only operation. The pictures are pretty good, IMHO, but anyone looking for technical specs or huge prints would find it seriously lacking. I just learned the way it behaved, and figured out how to manipulate it so that I could get what I wanted.
I don't have any examples on this computer to share, but you've spurred me dig them up again.
40oz
...
M. Valdemar said:
Why bother? What's the point, again? I'm supposed to do something for you because you don't believe in reality?
Save your time and money and take two images on Kodakchrome and call it a day.
If you want to see what I am talking about, take an image on Kodachrome and one with a DSLR, of the same scene in the same light through the same lens. Compare the untouched digital shot to the projected slide. See what you see.
If you want to get my attention, use pushed Tri-X and a DSLR, shooting in a dark neighborhood bar (highly contrasty light) without flash at 6400 EI. Take a good handheld exposure of each, and only correct for contrast (and conversion to B&W for the DSLR if you want). Don't bother trying to make the digital look like film because if that's what we wanted, we'd just be shooting film in the first place, wouldn't we? As an exercise, you could try, but you'd have to take a good handheld exposure with both cameras of the same scene with the same lighting, no flash. Take pictures outside, inside, shots of the sky and roads and snow and dirt. See how futile it is to use digital for such an endeavor.
They're both fine for what they are. I prefer film, and that's because I can actually see a difference. Sure, I can take images that could be digital captures, but why would I do that fo it's own sake? I'd rather just get on film what I want on film, and leave it at that. We all know that digital has limitations that film doesn't, and the expanded flexibility and range of film is one of the things I like about it. I could care less if you or anyone else can make a digital shot look plausibly like film, because at the end of the day, it's only "plausible," and that's the best it can get.
M. Valdemar
Well-known
Well, you say you can tell, so why not put your money where your mouth is? I'm willing to test your assertions.
40oz
...
M. Valdemar said:
Because it's my money?
I'm not at your beck and call. I've got nothing to prove. I actually know what I am talking about. You in fact agree with me, since you willingly admit a person has to somehow manipulate a digital image to make it look like scanned film. So the way I see it, I already won your bet, and am simply waiting for you to ask where to send the money.
M. Valdemar
Well-known
I don't care how good you think your graphic artist buddy is, he can't add range that isn't there. Sure, he can add grain to a digital shot, or take range away from a film shot, but trying to fool someone isn't the same as fooling someone with experience. I'd bet you could spot digital images from film in a heartbeat if you bothered to look for it.
I believe the above is what you originally said.
I believe the above is what you originally said.
Krosya
Konicaze
What do you mean?
What do you mean?
I was wondering what you mean when you say that you use black ink inly on 1280? Since you can't take out the colour cartridge to use just black one, as printer will "tell" you that it will not print with just black one, with clour one either empty or not inserted. Or is there some setting to just print using black only? Could you explain pls?
Thanks.
What do you mean?
nightfly said:
I was wondering what you mean when you say that you use black ink inly on 1280? Since you can't take out the colour cartridge to use just black one, as printer will "tell" you that it will not print with just black one, with clour one either empty or not inserted. Or is there some setting to just print using black only? Could you explain pls?
Thanks.
fbf
Well-known
VinceC said:
Agree with Vince. Love the smell of film but i do all darkroom work with photoshop (usually takes less than 2 mins / photo, but for digital photo, it takes up to 1 hour for one photo).
nightfly
Well-known
Regarding the black ink only:
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
Look at the section called "Digital Tri-X" this is where I got my info from. The guy who wrote it has since moved onto the newer, fancier, Epsons but basically it's a checkbox in your printing preferences to just use black ink. I use the Eboni cartridges from inksupply.com and find the results very pleasing.
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
Look at the section called "Digital Tri-X" this is where I got my info from. The guy who wrote it has since moved onto the newer, fancier, Epsons but basically it's a checkbox in your printing preferences to just use black ink. I use the Eboni cartridges from inksupply.com and find the results very pleasing.
R
rich815
Guest
M. Valdemar said:
What the point? Of course it "can" be done. Paint me two pictures, one with acrylics, one with oils, and they can be made to look so similar as to look identical from normal viewing distance. But that's not important, it's what the creator or artist prefers to use, is comfortable using, and in how he/she creates, that is just as important and also completely effects, his or her end result, and lest we forget(?), the enjoyment of producing such. So, yes, you're right. It can be done. But then, who really cares? Except as a discussion of what is technically possible. But if that's all I cared about in my photography I'd be doing something else....
M. Valdemar
Well-known
It's just that all this pontificating about how someone can instantly tell the difference between web images of "real film" and digital images gets old very quickly.
It's silly. Hubris and not a small amount of self-righteousness.
When someone makes a grand statement about something like this, I like to say "OK, prove it".
It's easy to make pronouncements on a forum, but the braggadocio fades quickly when someone asks someone else to back up their assertions.
It's silly. Hubris and not a small amount of self-righteousness.
When someone makes a grand statement about something like this, I like to say "OK, prove it".
It's easy to make pronouncements on a forum, but the braggadocio fades quickly when someone asks someone else to back up their assertions.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Before this thread becomes more painful to read (a.k.a going bad), I'll just mention a relevant info about this "hybrid" approach.
In the latest Shutterbug (once in a while they surprise me with good contents
), there's a writing about film and digital workflow. Now, I am not saying I am impressed by the writing per se, but I'm glad that the fact is out there informing more people about the validity of film as a medium of choice without making digital technology "the enemy".
In the latest Shutterbug (once in a while they surprise me with good contents
), there's a writing about film and digital workflow. Now, I am not saying I am impressed by the writing per se, but I'm glad that the fact is out there informing more people about the validity of film as a medium of choice without making digital technology "the enemy".
R
rich815
Guest
M. Valdemar said:
I guess I'd agree in some respect. Just as bad from the other "side" in terms of "digital beats film, come look at these 1000% enlargements of a film scan vs raw file and see for yourself!" posts.
nightfly
Well-known
I'm not sure why the challenge to post an image was directed toward me, I have no doubt a talented photoshop person could fool me particularly at web resolutions. I'm a web developer and I work with some very talented graphic artists and don't deny their abilities one bit.
However, I couldn't do it myself, but I'm sure someone could. Plus the only real way to do this would be to look at some nice big prints. The web's a pretty crappy tool to test this.
I think it's a very interesting thread. I do the hybrid process out of necessity more than love. I can't get my digital images to look the way I want in Photoshop, but I'm sure someone could. For me the hybrid process is the best compromise. All the filters and adjustments are essentially encoded in my film/developing process and the only photoshop stuff I do is basically curves and levels.
At some point, I have no doubt there will be a digital camera I like using that produces files I like without too much manipulation for a price I can afford. Right now, it's not the case, but there's no doubt it will happen.
I'm sure someone can get the files the way I want them with current technology, that person isn't me.
However, I couldn't do it myself, but I'm sure someone could. Plus the only real way to do this would be to look at some nice big prints. The web's a pretty crappy tool to test this.
I think it's a very interesting thread. I do the hybrid process out of necessity more than love. I can't get my digital images to look the way I want in Photoshop, but I'm sure someone could. For me the hybrid process is the best compromise. All the filters and adjustments are essentially encoded in my film/developing process and the only photoshop stuff I do is basically curves and levels.
At some point, I have no doubt there will be a digital camera I like using that produces files I like without too much manipulation for a price I can afford. Right now, it's not the case, but there's no doubt it will happen.
I'm sure someone can get the files the way I want them with current technology, that person isn't me.
Krosya
Konicaze
Thank you
Thank you
Thank you very much!, I'll check that out!
Thank you
nightfly said:
Thank you very much!, I'll check that out!
40oz
...
M. Valdemar said:
Go back and read what I actually wrote. What you quoted.
How is it "pontificating" when someone points out you have the very same ability if you'd just exercise it? I am by no means claiming some special powers here. It's not self-righteousness when one states the fact that a difference exists that is not negated by any amount of skill.
I notice you haven't posted any images yet. Why is that? Go mock up a digital example of Tri-X pushed to 6400, and see if you are right and nobody can tell the difference. Post your faux Kodachromes. Show your point without trying to make it personal. But accept that it will be little more than a pleasant diversion. I am hardly going to give up film and cameras I like because some guy somewhere can imitate them passably well on his computer.
The basic equation is that by using film, I can take the picture, develop the film, and print it. And have the look I want. I don't have to allot additional time manipulating the image just to get the look of film. There's nothing wrong with digital shooting, just like there's nothing wrong with using 100 ISO color films or 50 ISO B&W or Kodachrome or Velvia. They're all different, is all. I could just as well shoot Kodak Gold 200 and fake every other film to my taste if I so desired. But it still wouldn't be anything other than Gold 200 manipulated to look like other films, and in a side-by-side, most people familiar with the faked films would see the difference.
I already know I can tell the difference between film scans and digital images. That's enough for me. You, on the other hand, have the point to prove, and yet aren't willing to do so unless someone is willing to pay you. Don't put this on me. As I see it, you are making all kinds of claims but are reluctant to put them to the test. Which is silly. If you are right or wrong is a moot point. IMHO, making a digital shot look like Kodachrome would be an improvement for the digital shot. Not so much for making it look like grainy Tri-X, IMHO, except as compared to normal noisy high ISO digital.
Pan F looks different than Tri-X. There really isn't any practical way to take a Tri-X shot and make it look like Pan F. That's why people use both. The idea isn't that there is some single film or medium that is best for everything. It's that there is a variety of films and mediums, and each has a strong suit, so one should play to the strengths of each and not worry if one has abilities the other doesn't. We can always change films or pick up a different camera if we need a special capability. There is no reason to try to make one look like another.
40oz
...
Krosya said:
I've experiemented with the approach in the link, and it works very well, IMHO. You need to tweak the image for the printing, of course, but the results can be quite nice.