That's it I'm done chasing technolgy...

[pvdhaar]

I've seen few scanners with the dmax of film. Are you saying a Fuji Frontier captures perfectly the dynamic range of film?

No, why would I say that?

This is what it's about: film has a non-linear toe and shoulder response to brightness. The brightest parts of the scene get compressed in a rather graceful way instead of merely clipped. So what you have is a medium that captures a wider range of brightnesses than it passes to the scanner in terms of density range..

Irrespective of whether the scanner can read all the finesses in the density range on the neg, the preservation of highlights is there, and it's done by the film..

 

[Socke]

Irrespective of whether the scanner can read all the finesses in the density range on the neg, the preservation of highlights is there, and it's done by the film..

Like this Kodak E100 shot in a Contax G2 with 35/2 and scanned with a dedicated Canon Slide scanner?

 

[pvdhaar]

Like this Kodak E100 shot in a Contax G2 with 35/2 and scanned with a dedicated Canon Slide scanner?

My D50 would totally gag on a situation like that..

It can't even handle this reflected light only situation with the berries..

The scene with the bridge is as far as I can push the D50, and it still does some really nasty things to the sky in the top center..

 

[moonwrack]

I have kept every negative and trasparency I have shot since 1950. Going back through them I have found one or two that have some pictorial merit, while most of the other have historical value now. If they had been shot on digital they would have disappeared long ago.

 

[Socke]

If they had been shot on digital they would have disappeared long ago.

Why should they?

 

[Uwe_Nds]

My D50 would totally gag on a situation like that..

It can't even handle this reflected light only situation with the berries..

The scene with the bridge is as far as I can push the D50, and it still does some really nasty things to the sky in the top center..

Peter,
Were these shot in RAW or plain jpg?

Best regards,
Uwe

 

[mfunnell]

Adobe Camera Raw can recover highlights to the point where it is almost magical.

Especially for B&W - different channels unrecoverably clipping at different points can produce, um, funky colours in recovered highlights. A very useful property, though.

However, negative film's ability to record details in highlights that would unrecoverably clip on a digital sensor at the same EV is also useful. Those details are there and can be picked up by a scanner. Each technology has its pluses and minuses, but the fact that a scanner produces digital output in no way prevents it from picking up details that are on the film (though things like multi-scan/HDR might be needed, and some scanners are better than others).

...Mike

 

[Socke]

When I compare technology available to ME, a scanner isn't that much better.
A used Nikon Coolscan V ED is as expensive as a used Canon 30D dSLR.

A used 5000ED with feeder and Software is more expensive than a new Canon 40D.

I still use my five year old Canon D60 and six year old Contax G2 and the 9 year old Canon FS2710 scanner.

As I said before, I don't chase technology because I a) don't need the newest and b) can't afford it.

 

[pvdhaar]

"Irrespective of whether the scanner can read all the finesses in the density range on the neg, the preservation of highlights is there, and it's done by the film.."

This is a nonsense statement. A scanner turns your analog, non-linear negative into a digital stream of 1's and 0's, just as a digital camera does when capturing an image. The scanner can, and does, clip highlights and bury shadows, with varying degrees depending on the scanner in use.

The scanner scans film but is never exposed to the scene itself. The brightness range in the scene has been compressed to a smaller density range on the neg. A digital camera gets to chew on the scene itself. When comparing two imaging chains, you can not point to the starting point in one, and halfway in an entirely different one and claim they're equal..

 

[pvdhaar]

Peter,
Were these shot in RAW or plain jpg?

Best regards,
Uwe

Both jpg at settings fine and L.

Well, I didn't care about the berries, that's not a nice shot anyway. But I was definately gnashing my teeth when I got home and saw the morning scene in detail.. if only I had taken the plastic fantastic F75 along instead! And yes, I know they could have been shot in RAW.. and that it might have given more leeway than jpg.. But hindsight can not cure a (digital) picture.

To my defense though, I did watch the histograms and the highlight 'blinkies' and the camera showed them to be all right..

I've since shot RAW too on the D50. And my experience with this camera at least is that I do get better detail particularly in medium shadow (e.g. bird feathers), but I still can't tweak the shots so that I get the same nice highlight handling that I get with a $5 roll of Reala..

 

[DCP]

And its back to the film vs digital debate...
Why dont you guys go out and shoot with film or digital instead of wasting time debating something you cannot do anything about?

 

[marke]

I've seen few scanners with the dmax of film. Are you saying a Fuji Frontier captures perfectly the dynamic range of film?

Not to be argumentive, but are you saying that the dynamic range of a Fuji Frontier is less than that of a typical DSLR sensor?

 

[DCP]

DCP, there isn't a debate. We've all bought into digital. That's the point. Unless we are shooting film and only processing it in a wet darkroom, we are at some point converting light to pixels.

Yeah. A true photographer takes a camera and shoots with it.. regardless of whether its a rangefinder shooting on chemicals or receptors. At the end of the day, our satisfaction comes from the pictures we see... could we really care less about whether a bit of highlight here is blown or a bit of shadow detail is lost as long as we've captured the picture that we want? Don't you guys think its a bit overboard getting nitty gritty in something as an image? I seriously think you've all lost your love for photography and gone into some sort of scientific cult. The best images are ones captures the viewer's attention and stirs up emotions... not the ones with the most attention to highlights and shadows...

 

[Socke]

And its back to the film vs digital debate...
Why dont you guys go out and shoot with film or digital instead of wasting time debating something you cannot do anything about?

Because I have to sit in the office and pretend to work for another three hours 🙂

 

[Socke]

At the end of the day, our satisfaction comes from the pictures we see... could we really care less about whether a bit of highlight here is blown or a bit of shadow detail is lost as long as we've captured the picture that we want?

Shadow detail is overrated 🙂

Contax G2, 45/2, APX100 in Tetenal Ultrafin Liquid.

 

[mfunnell]

I seriously think you've all lost your love for photography and gone into some sort of scientific cult.

You don't know me at all. Occasionally, on a thread like this I'll say something like this:

Each technology has its pluses and minuses

with at least some reasons to support that. Despite knowing it'll make not a bit of difference to the partisans.

I take photos. I print them. (Rather more work on the latter recently.) Occasionally I need to know technical details to get the results I want. Condem me, if you like, for learning 'em but it helps me produce what I want so I probably won't care that much.

...Mike

 

[pvdhaar]

best images are ones captures the viewer's attention and stirs up emotions... not the ones with the most attention to highlights and shadows...

I don't care about capturing attention and stirring up emotions, I store or trash my pictures on whether they've got clipped highlights.. Now, what's wrong with that? 😎

 

[pvdhaar]

Because I have to sit in the office and pretend to work for another three hours 🙂

You're not alone..

Oh, and please stop posting these photos. I don't have the money to buy a G2..

 

[mfunnell]

I don't care about capturing attention and stirring up emotions, I store or trash my pictures on whether they've got clipped highlights.. Now, what's wrong with that? 😎

Couldn't agree more. Here's one for the bin:



...Mike

 

[DCP]

Ok! Now that we've all done chasing technology.. 🙂 Does anyone have any experience having their prints done on Durst Labs? I've got a partner who's considering investing in one.. and since you guys are the first and foremost authority on image QC 😉 Hehe.. kind enough to spare any thoughts on them? Durst USA

This was one I thought didnt have enough shadow detail 🙂

 

[moonwrack]

Bailey says it

Bailey says it

In the Daily telegraph of 6 December, there is a quote attributed to David Bailey.In case anyone has not heard of him he is a very famous British photographer who established himself in fashion photography in the Sixties (Cf the film "Blow-up") and who is still practising. He is also notable for, at one time, being married to Catherine Deneuve, but I digress... Anway, he said "I've always thought digital photography is like socialism. It reduces everything to the same level."