Ruvy
Established
Hi
I was saddened by Morris stupid and mean response to your issues. I do however feel that you are confusing purism and art in photography. there is not a whole lot artistic about the source image you took in, its not a big thing to remove dust and your processing of the images either way leaves a lot to be desired. fact it took you few minutes or the fact you may like it one day and another the other day is equally true to your film images with their richer tonality and has nothing to do with artistic quality. I am not familiar with your photoshop skills but there are things there you will not be able to do in a million years in your wet lab. I agree though that sometime there is a definite advantage to film butlets do no rule about it as it serves no purpose
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Morris,
Come on. This is feeble and you know it. Or if you don't know it -- well, as I said before, none of us knows as much as he thinks he does.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Keith,
I'm not defending Nh3's attitute and behaviour. I said I don't always agree; I said he doesn't always phrase things tactfully. But two wrongs don't make a right, and the insults that Morris hurled at him (and then dismissed as a 'minor tiff') are hardly in the normal spirit of RFF.
Cheer,
R.
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
I love these old regional definitions with smudged borders.
Aquitaine, Alentejo, Basque, Galicia, Wessex, Provence.
Much more enjoyable than the modern countries.
Even more is that Roger is living in Aquitaine not so very far from Pitxu who is in Basque* and neither seems to ever mention France.
Delightful.
[*Edit - 'The Basque Country', after a correction from Roger of Aquitaine.]
Aquitaine, Alentejo, Basque, Galicia, Wessex, Provence.
Much more enjoyable than the modern countries.
Even more is that Roger is living in Aquitaine not so very far from Pitxu who is in Basque* and neither seems to ever mention France.
Delightful.
[*Edit - 'The Basque Country', after a correction from Roger of Aquitaine.]
Last edited:
Fred Burton
Well-known
"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?"
I think you don't have much experience with darkroom work. Ansel Adams, for example, extensively "altered" his originals in the darkroom. Ever seen a contact of "Moonrise." The sky is not dark. The original is completely different from the print we've all seen. I've reprinted many of my negatives over the years, as my own skill and tastes changed, burning and dodging and toning in different ways. Which one is the "true" picture? They are all the true picture. Digital or film, it's all a combination of technology and art, and a vision that, hopefully, changes over time as we change.
I think you don't have much experience with darkroom work. Ansel Adams, for example, extensively "altered" his originals in the darkroom. Ever seen a contact of "Moonrise." The sky is not dark. The original is completely different from the print we've all seen. I've reprinted many of my negatives over the years, as my own skill and tastes changed, burning and dodging and toning in different ways. Which one is the "true" picture? They are all the true picture. Digital or film, it's all a combination of technology and art, and a vision that, hopefully, changes over time as we change.
Morris
-
Of course it is.
Give the same, one negative to a hundred different printers and you'll get a hundred different prints back, none of them the same.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Fred,
But to broaden your (indisputable) argument, there's also a question of sympathy for the medium. If I have the choice of making something out of metal or wood, I will invariably choose metal, regarding wood as nasty, splintery, refractory stuff that never really does what I want. This is, I suspect, the result of being the son of a steam engineer: if my father had been a cabinet-maker, I might have exactly the opposite sentiments.
Of course, there are also those who try to make things out of metal that any sane person would make in wood, and vice versa -- and there are those who say 'What the hell' and buy ready-made plastic instead.
Some film users feel threatened by digital: they don't want to see their beloved medium threatened. Some digital users are impatient with film, often out of ignorance or arrogance. But in both cases it's 'some', not 'all'.
The reason why so many of these threads turn nasty is that people confuse their own prejudices and experiences with eternal verities. For another example, from another thread, there seem to be those who believe that all you need to do in order to love computers is to learn to use them. Well, I've been using 'em since the days of mainframes, and owe and have owed quite a bit of my livelihood to them. But I still don't like the damn' things.
Cheers,
Roger
Gaspar
Established
Character assasination
Character assasination
Come on, discuss the guys posting not what you think about him. Particularly as it seems largely unjustified.
Character assasination
Come on, discuss the guys posting not what you think about him. Particularly as it seems largely unjustified.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Keith,
I fully second all that you say. I am perhaps unreasonably sensitive to such things as I would find it all too easy to castigate someone as (let us say) an arrogant ignoramus with an excessively high opinion of himself.
Then I reflect that someone else might easily form the same opinion of me, which is why, if I respond to such people, I try to be as polite as possible, even though it does not always come easily.
Of course this runs an even greater riisk of descending into pointless (and usually non-photographic) arguments, so it is a fair question why I might respond at all. Well, having been on the receiving end of a fair number of insults, I know how it feels, and I know the consolation I receive from the support of others.
And at the end of it all, there's always the ignore option. Only one person on it at the moment.
Cheers,
R.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
After four pages, this is the best answer IMHO and there really is no one true image from a negative or sensor. It is your interpretation of a scene and it my not be mine, so who is right?
Bob
Nh3
Well-known
I think more than the question of 'true image', my problem is the infinite possibility of variations that comes along with using digital.
I also think comparing darkroom to photoshop is one of the greatest fallacies that is commonly thrown around. There are no undo buttons in a darkroom and also its impossible to shoot drugstore C41 color film and then in the darkroom make it look like Kodachrome.
I have been living in a fool's paradise by thinking that I could do what I wanted with digital. It has been a costly mistake. I learned my lesson... Now I have gone back to basics and starting from zero with film.
I also think comparing darkroom to photoshop is one of the greatest fallacies that is commonly thrown around. There are no undo buttons in a darkroom and also its impossible to shoot drugstore C41 color film and then in the darkroom make it look like Kodachrome.
I have been living in a fool's paradise by thinking that I could do what I wanted with digital. It has been a costly mistake. I learned my lesson... Now I have gone back to basics and starting from zero with film.
maddoc
... likes film again.
I was at exactly the same point two and a half years ago, tried some things with PS plug-ins to convert my digital images (taken with a Nikon D1x) into something that looked similar to the photos that I had taken 15 years before with my Nikon FM and F3HP (and some fixed focal lenses) on film. It didn't work out, albeit I could produce some interesting stuff using PS it wasn't near to that what I remembered from my film days...
Remembering that I had difficulties to focus a manual SLR properly and that I had no experience with RF cameras, I gave the Epson R-D1s a try (to avoid the "hassle" with film...) just to realize soon (within a month) that a) RF cameras work better for me and b) that the combination of a RF camera with film could be what suits my needs best. I bought a Leica (M6 classic) and from this point the D1x and "advantages of digital" were forgotten.
Film is inconvenient and takes time to process and scan (I don't have a darkroom) but I liked the results so much better that I changed back to film and never looked back.
Cheers,
Gabor
Remembering that I had difficulties to focus a manual SLR properly and that I had no experience with RF cameras, I gave the Epson R-D1s a try (to avoid the "hassle" with film...) just to realize soon (within a month) that a) RF cameras work better for me and b) that the combination of a RF camera with film could be what suits my needs best. I bought a Leica (M6 classic) and from this point the D1x and "advantages of digital" were forgotten.
Film is inconvenient and takes time to process and scan (I don't have a darkroom) but I liked the results so much better that I changed back to film and never looked back.
Cheers,
Gabor
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.
kevin m
Veteran
God, what a holy war this subject always becomes.
I simply can't get as attached to a piece of gear or a process as seems so common here, so I'll offer my hopefully more objective POV. Hint: There are no easy answers.
1. Digital flat out-resolves film. Even my lowly 6mp R-D1 trumps 35mm film in resolution, i.e., the ability to resolve detail. In fact, it can even out resolve medium format film depending on the quality of the film scan. I was stunned at that a bit. The R-D1 set at iso 800 matches Portra 800 from my Mamiya 645. That was a shocker. So if you imagine your M2 loaded with Tri-X can match up to a Canon 5D, Nikon D700 or even a decent APS-C sensor camera in the resolution department, well, you simply must apply that imagination to your image gathering, where it will do some good.
2. Digital flat trumps film in low-light color shooting. It's not even close. Digital's "highlight problem" is nothing, nothing compared to negative film's "shadow problem." Using modern software, one touch of a slider can dig detail from a digital shadow that's stunning to see, and with film the detail often simply isn't there. And it's much, much easier to get good color fidelity and skin tones from a digital image. Again, the contest isn't close.
3. If you think shooting E-6 is the answer to the above problem, let me say that scanning sucks. I have a wonderful Nikon scanner with a bulk loader, and it still sucks. More than being trapped in a stinky darkroom on your feet all night, even.
4. Color negative film, under ample lighting, still delivers the best skin tones going. Fuji 100, NPH 400, Porta NC 400, etc., all deliver excellent skin tones that digital capture has a hard time matching, and no post-processing software can quite duplicate. However, when the lighting levels fall to "less-than-ideal," see #2.
5. The wild card: B&W. Here, I feel, is where film really plays as an equal. Under some circumstances I find I do prefer the look I get with a converted digital image, largely in cases where I want to preserve shadow detail in dim settings. But in most cases, I think B&W film capture, including C41 film, has a tonality that digital can't quite match. I don't know why, but my eyes tell me it's true. I must also add that the current "state of the art" software (I'm currently running a demo version of the highly-regarded Nik Silver Efex Pro) doesn't come close. I suppose their Tri-X and BW400CN plug-ins might please those who've never used the real thing, but otherwise, it's a laugher. You're better off shooting your digital capture at a high iso to simulate film grain than using this program in particular, I feel. A real disappointment.
Conclusion: There is no one-size-fits-all correct answer for the thoughtful photographer. There are some things each medium can do that the other can't. Having said that, I will say that it's easy to see why digital has largely replaced film. Apart from convenience, it offers stunningly clean high-iso capture and remarkable resolution. And, with some training in the digital darkroom, it's possible to tame digital's flaws enough so that the average viewer can't really tell the difference. Having said that, if you really find you prefer the look of your favorite film, then shoot it; as far as I can tell, there's no software yet that can quite duplicate it.
I simply can't get as attached to a piece of gear or a process as seems so common here, so I'll offer my hopefully more objective POV. Hint: There are no easy answers.
1. Digital flat out-resolves film. Even my lowly 6mp R-D1 trumps 35mm film in resolution, i.e., the ability to resolve detail. In fact, it can even out resolve medium format film depending on the quality of the film scan. I was stunned at that a bit. The R-D1 set at iso 800 matches Portra 800 from my Mamiya 645. That was a shocker. So if you imagine your M2 loaded with Tri-X can match up to a Canon 5D, Nikon D700 or even a decent APS-C sensor camera in the resolution department, well, you simply must apply that imagination to your image gathering, where it will do some good.
2. Digital flat trumps film in low-light color shooting. It's not even close. Digital's "highlight problem" is nothing, nothing compared to negative film's "shadow problem." Using modern software, one touch of a slider can dig detail from a digital shadow that's stunning to see, and with film the detail often simply isn't there. And it's much, much easier to get good color fidelity and skin tones from a digital image. Again, the contest isn't close.
3. If you think shooting E-6 is the answer to the above problem, let me say that scanning sucks. I have a wonderful Nikon scanner with a bulk loader, and it still sucks. More than being trapped in a stinky darkroom on your feet all night, even.
4. Color negative film, under ample lighting, still delivers the best skin tones going. Fuji 100, NPH 400, Porta NC 400, etc., all deliver excellent skin tones that digital capture has a hard time matching, and no post-processing software can quite duplicate. However, when the lighting levels fall to "less-than-ideal," see #2.
5. The wild card: B&W. Here, I feel, is where film really plays as an equal. Under some circumstances I find I do prefer the look I get with a converted digital image, largely in cases where I want to preserve shadow detail in dim settings. But in most cases, I think B&W film capture, including C41 film, has a tonality that digital can't quite match. I don't know why, but my eyes tell me it's true. I must also add that the current "state of the art" software (I'm currently running a demo version of the highly-regarded Nik Silver Efex Pro) doesn't come close. I suppose their Tri-X and BW400CN plug-ins might please those who've never used the real thing, but otherwise, it's a laugher. You're better off shooting your digital capture at a high iso to simulate film grain than using this program in particular, I feel. A real disappointment.
Conclusion: There is no one-size-fits-all correct answer for the thoughtful photographer. There are some things each medium can do that the other can't. Having said that, I will say that it's easy to see why digital has largely replaced film. Apart from convenience, it offers stunningly clean high-iso capture and remarkable resolution. And, with some training in the digital darkroom, it's possible to tame digital's flaws enough so that the average viewer can't really tell the difference. Having said that, if you really find you prefer the look of your favorite film, then shoot it; as far as I can tell, there's no software yet that can quite duplicate it.
Last edited:
IlijaB
-
Guys, do you realize you're talking about internet characters? No need to fret.
About the original post, it's sad to see the OP lost so much time and effort into nothing.
About the original post, it's sad to see the OP lost so much time and effort into nothing.
Rogrund
Antti Sivén
IlijaB
-
back alley
IMAGES
...I also think comparing darkroom to photoshop is one of the greatest fallacies that is commonly thrown around. There are no undo buttons in a darkroom and also its impossible to shoot drugstore C41 color film and then in the darkroom make it look like Kodachrome...
yes there is, it's called a clean sheet of paper.
yes there is, it's called a clean sheet of paper.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Kevin,
(1) If you believe that 6 megapixels always outperforms film, on the basis of experiment and rigorous testing, you are in a minority.
(2-5) No significant argument.
Cheers,
R.
(1) If you believe that 6 megapixels always outperforms film, on the basis of experiment and rigorous testing, you are in a minority.
(2-5) No significant argument.
Cheers,
R.
K
Kin Lau
Guest
Therefore, you spent 15 min's fuzzing around in photoshop with a digital image that you cannot stand using a process that you don't like?
Did you sell your D40 & D200 yet?
Then you can do your own Tri-X developing instead dropping it off at Digital FX.. I know the folks there are nice, but if you're starting from zero, do it right, dev it yourself.
kevin m
Veteran
A fallacy how?