Ralph Gibson: Why would you ditch film in your 76th year?

[Ranchu]

er.... it's digital-- you can make the curve any shape you want, preserving contrast as you please in the zones you please

That's incorrect, you can't lower contrast in one area without increasing it in another, and vice versa.

 

[wogg]

That's incorrect, you can't lower contrast in one area without increasing it in another, and vice versa.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. You make a steeper slope at the top and bottom and flatter in the middle. You can certainly have different contrast profiles in different zones.

edit-- actually, I do understand what you mean, but what's happening in film is the darkest or brightest edge being pushed to the asymptotic vertical as you push the curves to edges. You can do the same thing in digital, but it's harder to get the highlights, and easier to get the shadows. --end edit

As to color. Sure, digital has side effects going on, that sensor interpreters must deal with. Color emulsion also has all sorts of whacky side effects-- that's why there so many choices. Why is that less f***** up?

 

[Ranchu]

I'm not sure what you are talking about. You make a steeper slope at the top and bottom and flatter in the middle. You can certainly have different contrast profiles in different zones.

Please review the discussion.

As to color. Sure, digital has side effects going on, that sensor interpreters must deal with. Color emulsion also has all sorts of whacky side effects-- that's why there so many choices. Why is that less f***** up?

Because it looks better.

 

[Photo_Smith]

... you didn't say that?

I refer you to the three previous posts answers, i put those in a language that was very simple straight forward and concise.

If you can't bother to read my posts, respond to things I never said.

There can be no further discourse.

 

[Richard G]

Ralph Gibson must surely know of this thread by now. Anyone follow him on twitter? Any clues, like "RFF, please. Loving the Monchrom."??

 

[YYV_146]

that said, the non-linear BW film response does make it easier to manage at the bright end-- but then digital sensor usually makes it easier to manage at the dark end

Expose for the highlight. I usually dial in a scene, time permitted, at about .5 stops over the 100% exposure of the brightest point in the photo. Half a stop is easily recovered in post, and most digital cameras today can do wonders to any level of shadow....

Ralph Gibson must surely know of this thread by now. Anyone follow him on twitter? Any clues, like "RFF, please. Loving the Monchrom."??

I'd imagine him being amused. Leica went all out and made him this beautiful digital camera, and people wonder why he's shooting digital. If Leica did that for me I'd sleep with the camera under my pillow for the next quarter-century.

 

[YYV_146]

Please review the discussion.



Because it looks better.

Curious. I can perfectly imitate the response of any film via a digital file. Printing techniques aside, if we are talking about scanning/printing vs. printing from raw, I challenge you to identify the film scan print in a group of digital prints. There won't be any difference. I can even perfectly simulate imperfections caused by chemical processing.

Digital is approaching infinitely versatile with the latest sensors. With a camera such as the A7r or M type 240, I can make a single shot, aim for maximum dynamic range and make something entirely different out of it. My understanding of film processing may be limited, but the very best low iso 645 film only offers ~10 stops of DR, and color adjustment is much, much more difficult.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

With a camera such as the A7r or M type 240, I can make a single shot, aim for maximum dynamic range and make something entirely different out of it.

Digital has many tricks. My little Panasonic TZ40 can work out the dynamic range across the frame, decide it's too much for the basic profile, shoot two frames and merge them on the card. I could do something similar with film but it would be a somewhat longer and more involved process.

😎

 

[Photo_Smith]

My understanding of film processing may be limited, but the very best low iso 645 film only offers ~10 stops of DR, and color adjustment is much, much more difficult.

Low ISO film generally has less DR than faster, I don't think that DR is related to film format size. Most colour neg will have at lest 10 possibly 13. kodak tell me Portra 400 can give around 14.
Here is some information:
http://www.motion.kodak.com/motion/About/The_Storyboard/4294971099/index.htm

B&W will typically have more and a fair bit of process latitude as well as film range.
Kodak tell me that TMax 400 has 18 stops of range.
From this link I think that might be true:
http://figitalrevolution.com/2009/1...range-technique-tmy2-tmax400-pmk-kodak-leica/

That said, DR has become a film vs digital battleground , one that can be partly ameliorated by HDR of PP combination of lots of images at different exposures.

 

[Sparrow]

I refer you to the three previous posts answers, i put those in a language that was very simple straight forward and concise.

If you can't bother to read my posts, respond to things I never said.

There can be no further discourse.

... that's good news

 

[Sparrow]

Digital has many tricks. My little Panasonic TZ40 can work out the dynamic range across the frame, decide it's too much for the basic profile, shoot two frames and merge them on the card. I could do something similar with film but it would be a somewhat longer and more involved process.

😎

... but just think how smug you could be afterwards 😉

 

[Michael Markey]

This thread started off with Bruce expressing his concern that a process which he loved was being further marginalised because one of its most well known exponents was abandoning it.

Since then a lot of heat and passion has been generated but not a great deal of light. .

If the idea behind threads such as these is to encourage a revival of wet printing I`m not convinced that banging on about tonal ranges and artisan practises is the best way forward.

Whether you have a darkroom or not seems to me more a matter of inclination and the way which like to enjoy your free time.

Seeking to somehow describe that enjoyment through technical means is more liable to turn people off rather than encourage them.

Nothing said here makes me think that I must rush out and build another darkroom.

Rather I think the salvation of wet printing lies within the colleges and art schools where , I understand, it is still taught.

Maybe it is something which needs to be experienced rather than talked about.

 

[RichC]

This thread started off with Bruce expressing his concern that a process which he loved was being further marginalised by one of its most well known exponents abandoning it.

Since then a lot of heat and passion has been generated but not a great deal of light ...

If the idea behind threads such as these is to encourage a revival of wet printing I`m not convinced that banging on about tonal ranges and artisan practises is the best way forward.

Whether you have a darkroom or not seems to me more a matter of inclination and the way which like to enjoy your free time.

Seeking to somehow describe that enjoyment through technical means is more liable to turn people off rather than encourage them ...

Rather I think the salvation of wet printing lies within the colleges and art schools where , I understand, it is still taught.

Quite agree. Rather than eliciting passion, this thread seems bitter with entrenched positions...

For those worried about the demise of film, every university offering a photography degree still has a darkroom (at least here in the UK), and I can assure you that students use it - a large proportion shoot film exclusively, granted 35mm has fallen out of favour (can't print large!) so it's mostly medium and large format.

My university (Brighton) has a huge darkroom, way larger than my flat!

So, film in UK art schools is not decreasing in popularity. Neither do we have foolish arguments about "artisan" film vs "mechanical" digital!

 

[icebear]

Ralph Gibson must surely know of this thread by now. Anyone follow him on twitter? Any clues, like "RFF, please. Loving the Monchrom."??

I'm not on FB and I don't tweet but for sure someone has a good laugh and is shaking his head 😉

#1 Expose for the highlight. I usually dial in a scene, time permitted, at about .5 stops over the 100% exposure of the brightest point in the photo. Half a stop is easily recovered in post, and most digital cameras today can do wonders to any level of shadow....

#2 I'd imagine him being amused. Leica went all out and made him this beautiful digital camera, and people wonder why he's shooting digital. If Leica did that for me I'd sleep with the camera under my pillow for the next quarter-century.

ref #1:
+1 ... ooops, maybe digital has less lattitude for sloppy technique and you have to expose correctly to garner what the new medium is offering. Is that why so many folks just lay back and say I'll stick with film 😉 😉 🙄.

ref #2 :
Unfortunately I had to pay for mine myself, so I skipped the pillow thing 😀.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

... but just think how smug you could be afterwards

True, very true.

However, having spent all that extra time on merging the images, I'll have less time to be smug in...

"I think I'd better think it out again!"

😀

 

[JoeV]

Yes, you may have 14 stops flat, but as you say to must apply a curve to make it look right. That increases contrast in the mid tones and decreases it in the shadows and highlights. C-41 film records .7 stop of density for every stop of light in the midtones, and then less for shadows and highlights. Digital records 1 stop for 1 stop flat, then you have to add contrast.

So at the end you always have more contrast with digital. IE it is not as good at eating light.

You can increase contrast of the entire image evenly without applying an S-curve by dragging the upper right highlight point to the left, and the lower left shadow point to the right. The entire tone curve gets increased contrast slope evenly at all tonal positions.

You can also set your black and white clipping points using this method on the tone curve, rather than on the histogram.

~Joe

 

[wogg]

You can increase contrast of the entire image evenly without applying an S-curve by dragging the upper right highlight point to the left, and the lower left shadow point to the right. The entire tone curve gets increased contrast slope evenly at all tonal positions.

You can also set your black and white clipping points using this method on the tone curve, rather than on the histogram.

~Joe

That's what I was trying to say with "pushing the asymptotic to the vertical". Thanks for clearer explanation.

 

[taxi38]

Time for a coffee,...open the packet,real coffee,..what a gorgeous smell !..now where's the coffee maker,unscrew it ,fill the bottom with mineral water,in with the filter and to the brim with freshly ground coffee ,screw on the top and light the gas; a few minutes and all that taste will be bubbling and forcing its way through those dark brown grains,time to prepare the cups......etc,etc,etc,etc🙂

 

[Thardy]

Time for a coffee,...open the packet,real coffee,..what a gorgeous smell !..now where's the coffee maker,unscrew it ,fill the bottom with mineral water,in with the filter and to the brim with freshly ground coffee ,screw on the top and light the gas; a few minutes and all that taste will be bubbling and forcing its way through those dark brown grains,time to prepare the cups......etc,etc,etc,etc🙂

Or, you can use a Keurig. Open the top, pop in the pre-filled coffee cartridge press start and voila! A "fresh" cup of coffee. 🙂

I'm just joking and understand your analogy perfectly.

 

[daveleo]

Real men grow, harvest, roast and grind their own coffee beans.
"Packets" ? "Cartridges" ?


😛