Not yet convinced

[SDK]

Good points, but a couple of points on the other side worth considering:
-- If you like to display your best pictures by hanging them on the wall, the latest pigment-based printers outlast wet-lab color neg prints by a substantial margin. The latest Wilhelm Research figures give Fuji Crystal Archive paper an estimated display life of only 40 years, while prints from the Epson R1800 rate at 150-200 years depending on what paper you use, and some other printers (e.g. the HP 9180) are rated at more than 250 years. (You might say that 40 years is long enough, and maybe it is -- but I'm vain enough that I like to imagine my friends' grandchildren might enjoy seeing my pictures of them after the friends and I are dead.)

I'm not sure I'm convinced Wilhelm Research is right. I have some Kodak EP2 prints that have been up on my walls for 15-20 years that show no appreciable fading, while Wilhelm's book had predicted they would be noticeably faded by now. Conversely some "archival" inkjet prints that I made following Wilhelm's recommendations have gone bad in less than one year. I'm printing color stuff on Fuji Crystal Archive and Kodak Endura exclusively now.

 

[RML]

Well articulated Surart only I have a few questions (noobness here). Can you please explain color management and workflow? My files are all over the place and I have trouble staying on top of this as I fill up hard drive after hard drive. I am sure I'm missing something and I'll bet you have answers.

I'd recommend you read the DAM book by Peter Krogh. A very comprehensive guide on digital assett management.

 

[rsl]

I have some Kodak EP2 prints that have been up on my walls for 15-20 years that show no appreciable fading

The only way you can be sure of that is to compare the ones on the wall with identical prints that have been stored in light tight containers and away from anything corrupting in the atmosphere. Color fading is subtle.

 

[DaveSee]

Yeah, this is pretty much what I mean when I say my thought processes need to change to accomidate the new technology.

[snipped]

That's where photoshop comes in. From scanned negs/positives the b/w world of printing techniques opens up new possabilities. You can dodge, burn etc. With digital I'm getting dissappointed because I expect to see the light represented in a certain way, like a flat neg scan, straight away in the c1 preview. At this point it takes a lot of imagination and knowhow to know the best way to interpret the raw data to best fit your intentions. Because I'm used to shooting slide I guess I've become used to the fact that what you see is basically what you get - learn to live with it and exploit it's characteristics. What I'm saying is that I'm yet to really find out what the limits of this M8 sensor are and how to push it in the right direction for me. If someone has said "you will be shooting digi in Jan 07" as little as six months ago I would have nearly cried with laughter then punched them for insulting me! Now I think it's the smart person who explores the possabilites of new technology and learns to live with AND explore it's limits as a creative tool. I see digital as an exciting area. There are definatly things that have not been done yet or explored in all the various genres of photography. Just listen to Constantine Manos and the excitement in his voice when talking about shooting in Time Square ant night at a 1/1000th of a second! For him, using the camera and film combo's he was using (kodachrome?), that was previously impossible.

Tim

Interesting that you titled this thread with the subject "convinced"... I and many here too are looking at this "digital workflow" for convincing results. Results not only in a print, but also in the cause/effect of a tool or process action. Perhaps a difficulty overcoming the "hand/eye/imagination coordination" we've known in film.

I've played with C1LE, RawTherapee, LightZone, VueScan and UFRAW for "souping" the M8 DNGs. Lots of bells and whistles, sliders and "live preview" capabilities. Too much, too soon, for me. Perhaps lovely programs, but what about the source of the data?

So I cobbled a dcraw/ImageMagick/NetPBM script--I run Linux, but the script could be ported easily to those other, more interactive OSes--and venture out to shoot; return to the 'puter and dump the DNGs; run the script; check the day's results... a digital 1-Hour Photo(actually, about 25 mins for a 1GB card ).

Optimal JPEGS, or TIFFs? No, but processing all of the files in the same way provides a constant to compare tricky new aspects of this rig. Like WB... ha, AWB is neither! When you may choose Kelvin values from 2000 to 13000(or fire a shot into a styrofoam cup), ISO from 160 to 2500, apertures from 1.4 to 22(not on the same lens! waddya think this is, LF?!) and shutter speeds to 8000... convinced? Heck no! And this is all PRE-processing. Oh, and don't forget lens filters(could you?)...

This camera has taught me to see a picture very differently than film. I've now got both views where I had just the one.

As StuartR has demonstrated in a few posts: and then there's POST-processing. I'll prolly move to an Apple system for that... but for now, it's raining and I gotta test the weather-ability of this rig

rgds,
Dave

 

[TJV]

After reading the replies to this thread a few days back I went back and really thought about how I want my images to look. I was working on a portfolio to submit for the initial selection round, Australia/New Zealand, of the World Press Photos Masterclass. Along with a book, I submitted a digi portfolio, of which about a third of the images happened to be taken with the M8. In the end the M8 shots fit pretty seamlessly with the slide scans, all the more impressive seeing as they're of the same body of work. In the end I was nominated and need to do a more impressive print folio to send to Amsterdam by the end of Feb. I'll keep you posted.
Tim