J. Borger
Well-known
Roger,
Do you think you can lose the 'dead look' by
shooting film, scanning and inkjet-printing (the best possible way).
So by just substituting digital capture by capturing on film, after that digitizing and follow the same workflow ----?
Or only by a complete analogue workflow, including a wet print .. ?
Just curious .... because i'm sitting on the fence trying film instead of digital...
Ruvy
Established
Roger,
I often think that shooting film in a digital age is a lot more about intimacy with the "craft" and the moment and the creative experience. As you know, at the moment I am testing my interest in shooting RF. Among other things I plan to compare my feelings toward images taken by my Sigma DSLR vs. Leica M6. Being strongly drown to film, I would like very much to see a noticeable advantage of a b&w image taken by film camera and post processed digitally.
Your post made all the sense in the world for me except this line. What did you mean by "dead look"? Did you mean no contrast? no gradient? no grain? short DR? too sharp?... and what out of it can't be achieved by post processing (short of excessive over or under exposure)
That's and more - how different can two images be if one was scanned in camera and one scanned out of camera?
Perhaps the its about the "flavor" each type of film gives but how much different is this flavor from just simple tint?
Nh3
Well-known
Here is the main problem with digital?
1- The actual image with no post processing (check the sensor dust).
2- With basic processing and sharpening.
3- Converted to B&W with red filter.
3- With Velvia 50 knockoff.
4- With Tri-X knockoff.
5- Another b&w version.
I did all of this in the last 15 minutes and how many other variations I can do is almost infinite... So which is the final version? Which one is the true picture? Which one should I keep? Right now I might like one of those based on my current mood, tomorrow I might like the other one, but wait, it gets even more complicated because this is just one photograph, what if i shoot 100 shots or more?
This is the illusion of photography. This is digital imaging with infinite possibilities of digital manipulation. This is neither art nor craft, this is computer technology.
1- The actual image with no post processing (check the sensor dust).
2- With basic processing and sharpening.
3- Converted to B&W with red filter.
3- With Velvia 50 knockoff.
4- With Tri-X knockoff.
5- Another b&w version.
I did all of this in the last 15 minutes and how many other variations I can do is almost infinite... So which is the final version? Which one is the true picture? Which one should I keep? Right now I might like one of those based on my current mood, tomorrow I might like the other one, but wait, it gets even more complicated because this is just one photograph, what if i shoot 100 shots or more?
This is the illusion of photography. This is digital imaging with infinite possibilities of digital manipulation. This is neither art nor craft, this is computer technology.
Morris
-
back alley
IMAGES
and we used to do the same thing in a darkroom, just took longer, was wetter and i breathed in more chemicals.
nothing new here.
nothing new here.
Nh3
Well-known
First of all your counter argument is silly and not worth answering.
Come up with examples or take your "before you were born" argument and ...
Last edited:
Nh3
Well-known
Exactly, there were so many reasons not to and it was impractical.
... But sitting in front of the computer and in 15 minutes coming with all those pictures - that's just not right.
Morris
-
Morris
-
Nh3
Well-known
That's not that point!
... But if you insist, I set you a challenge, achieve all of the above pictures from a single negative in 15 minuets while you listen to music and post in the forum.
jbf
||||||
I find it interesting that you, of all people, are claiming someone's couter-argument is silly and not worth answering.
If anything, you constantly make all of these grand claims about things, but the only thing you end up proving, is that you are incredibly close-minded and know far less than you think you do.
Morris
-
Nh3.
I've only been a member of this forum for about two weeks, but I've got you nailed as a poor, confused wannabe, who reads too much and practices too little. You are incredibly close-minded and know far less than you think you do.
I've only been a member of this forum for about two weeks, but I've got you nailed as a poor, confused wannabe, who reads too much and practices too little. You are incredibly close-minded and know far less than you think you do.
Nh3
Well-known
Great, and you finish it of with a lame ad hominem.
Whatever you just posted is a reflection of your own insecurity, think about it.
good night,
Morris
-
Lame? Rather tame, yes.
I'm perfectly secure with half a century of darkroom experience.
BTW. Did you hear that Salgado's gone digital?
I'm perfectly secure with half a century of darkroom experience.
BTW. Did you hear that Salgado's gone digital?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Morris,
Perhaps you should be a little less generous with your nails.
My own view of nh3, formed over a good deal more than two weeks, is that he has taken some excellent pictures and has strong views. Not always views I agree with, nor yet always tactfully expressed, but even so, I do not recognize the person you have 'nailed'.
Oh: and most of us know less than we think we do. I do not exclude myself.
Cheers,
Roger
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
(Reply also to Ruwy)
No, I don't think you can lose the 'dead look' that way. Most conversions from colour -- whether from a film scan or a digital file -- seem to suffer from 'deadness' to me, and although scans from mono film seem to me to make vastly superior prints, they're still inferior to wet prints in most cases -- given equal skill levels, of course. For 'equal skill levels' I'm taking 'the best', manufacturers' original demo prints at major shows, made to show what their materials can do.
The best mono digital prints I've ever seen are from the Cone Editions process, Piezography, and they're very nice -- but they're very different from wet prins, and I've yet to see more than half a dozen other 'fine art' inkjet mono prints, using other processes, including manufacturers' demonstration prints at major shows, that match an average-to-good silver gelatine print.
In other words, while conversions are the first great hurdle, ink-jets are the second, and as the wet printing process is much easier with film, that strikes me as the route to take. I've not had the opportunity to try the De Vere digital head at any length (all I've seen was a demonstration that it worked, from one of my own M8 shots), nor have I tried the trick of writing digital files to film and wet printing that (Frances has arranged to do this sometime soon). Either approach is of course more expensive and difficult than printing from film.
As for the uninformative phrase 'the dead look', I apologize, but if I could analyze it better, I would. You can get the same look with film, but it's not easy: Konica's late, unlamented chromogenic gave it automatically.
It's a bit like 'sparkle', which (after considerable analysis, independently by Zeiss and Ilford) turned out to be very high MTF at modest frequencies (in fact, come to think of it, this may even be the answer), so I suppose it's closer to tonality than anything; but another analogy is with with vegetables that have been boiled for so long that they are grey and unappetizing.
Ultimately, I'm not a purist. I've been using an M8 for two years; there's an M8.2 on the way. I like the look of some colour films over digital, and I have high hopes of Ektar 100; I really must go and pick up the roll I took in last wek. But with mono, I simply find it easier to get better results with film and wet printing.
Cheers,
R.
Morris
-
I'm glad to see that you don't exclude yourself as it seems to me that you don't even know where you live.
I measured just short of 100 miles between your location and Aquitaine.
You don't like the sound of Poitou-Charentes?
Rogrund
Antti Sivén
And I think you're rude. We don't need that tone on RFF.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Morris,
You really are a cheery fellow, with a kind word for all the world.
Study a little history -- a subject about which, perhaps, you do not know quite as much as you think -- and you will find that the Aquitaine is a very flexible concept. To quote the Britannica, "Aquitaine, as it came to the English kings, stretched, as of old, from the Loire to the Pyrenees." Now consider that I am a Briton, and that while my definition of the Aquitaine may not match yours, it matches the Roman and English definitions.
Out of 24 posts, you have now achieved 2 direct insults in the last few hours. Checking your other posts, I find such helpful injunctions as 'If you've nothing to say, shut up.' (in the 'Do I really have anything to say?' thread). Do we see a trend here?
Cheers,
Roger
Morris
-
But not the French definition and Aquitaine is a French region.
I had ONE minor tiff with Nh3 which was over and finished. You caused the second by needless interference.
The "shut up" reference was completely in good context in that thread.
The only trend I see are your references to your own alcohol consumption, the last not but a few minutes ago.