Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I'm fine with digital where I need it. Product photography, macro, BIF and sports - I like digital for sure.
B/W street, landscapes and portraits is where I like film.
I don't make religions, I use what I like where I want.
I use digital to provide pictures within one hour after event.
But instant film is still faster.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Maybe I'm a little picky with the language but you are obviously generalizing by a huge margin.
Of course some people do over sharpen and crank up saturation and clarity and what ever else there is to modify the look but this is how they like it.
It's not that digital has to have that look.
As for film users trying to emulate digital :
If you have a grainy image you can't emulate grain less unless you overdo noise reduction and then it will look like three layers of makeup
Arcos 100 shot on MF will yield a certain look. The MM for example goes in the same direction but the color sensitivity of film vs sensor is different. And I don't try to emulate film look. I played around with SFX Pro and I don't like it at all. For me the presets look artificial.
I'm sorry, those fine grain discussions are not so relevant to me.
I became experienced photographer only after switching to digital.
This is where I can get it noise(grain) free.
I started to use film again only after realizing I was going insane with all of those LR film like plug-ins and film scan structures to use in PS to emulate film in digital.
I like film grain
wallace
Well-known
Well, I guess that would be the only reason for some of us to quit film!
Steve George
Established
I used to think I could tell the difference between film and digital a lot more than I now can. Check out the latest Salgado exhibition which was part (mostly?) digital and I'll challenge anyone to tell the difference or which was shot with which medium.
Not just black and white, colour work too is now harder to tell for us keen amateurs - I shot a family wedding last year and a respected pro photographer who knows I use film occasionally said he would guess from the colours in a 16x12 print that I had used Fuji film in one shot...but it was a RAW file from a 5dmk2 carefully processed to be quite neutral and then professionally printed.
So to answer the question, I think a digital looking image is one that has been post processed to death - either in software or in-camera JPG rendering.
The counter to that story about the family wedding is another wedding I shot in the past when I was a pro where I processed everything my usual accurate way and the couple gave feedback that the grass wasn't green enough(?!?)...the example shot they showed was a OOC jpeg from the camera of a guest, with suits, flowers and grass all saturated to intense ugliness and the highlights all blown from the bride's dress. A very digital looking image but so much the norm they expected at least some of those "qualities" in my files too
Not just black and white, colour work too is now harder to tell for us keen amateurs - I shot a family wedding last year and a respected pro photographer who knows I use film occasionally said he would guess from the colours in a 16x12 print that I had used Fuji film in one shot...but it was a RAW file from a 5dmk2 carefully processed to be quite neutral and then professionally printed.
So to answer the question, I think a digital looking image is one that has been post processed to death - either in software or in-camera JPG rendering.
The counter to that story about the family wedding is another wedding I shot in the past when I was a pro where I processed everything my usual accurate way and the couple gave feedback that the grass wasn't green enough(?!?)...the example shot they showed was a OOC jpeg from the camera of a guest, with suits, flowers and grass all saturated to intense ugliness and the highlights all blown from the bride's dress. A very digital looking image but so much the norm they expected at least some of those "qualities" in my files too
_mark__
Well-known
I have never, ever seen a print from a sensor/inkjet/indigo that captures the emotive nature of well processed & printed B&W photographs. It's an old fashioned term but the chiaroscuro of digital prints does not have the same richness and depth. Like trying to reassemble the best steak from mincemeat.
How you done an extensive comparison of master wet printers vs. master digital printers?
clayne
shoot film or die
I wasn't even aware there was such a thing as "master digital printers". Wet printing takes both work and ART.
icebear
Veteran
and so does digital printing. I've done cibachromes, c-prints (extensively), and B&W fiber prints (extensively). A good digital print takes just as much work and effort just with different tools.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
I just had a 13x19 sample portfolio from Jon Cone last week. BTW digital printing also takes both work and ART.
Then there's this capability of making a digital negative to contact print which IMHO is the best of both world's.
Questions: Do the people who complain about blown highlights in digital also complain about slide film which also demands good/proper exposure for good results? Do the people who have shot a Leica Monochrom use filters to control contrast onto the sensor to avoid using or minimizing contrast control in post and to avoid and minimize clipping, or do they rely on LR5 or photoshop for contrast control? Do people who say they hate Fuji Arcos because it looks digital and has no grain also hate medium and large format? Do these same people ever print big?
Anyways exploring a medium to the fullest like an artist, where resolution, enhanced dynamic range (ISO), and enhanced dynamic contrast range (if done properly, meaning use of filters, minimizing post processing, good exposure, and good technic) seem to be discounted in a very negative way by some. I've been lurking and find some of the comments rather silly. LOL.
Thanks Joe for starting this thread. I have found it entertaining. LOL.
Keep the laughs coming.
Cal
gns
Well-known
Clayne, Mark,
Have you seen prints from say, Greg Conniff or Joel Leivick? (I mean prints, not internet reproductions).
Have you seen prints from say, Greg Conniff or Joel Leivick? (I mean prints, not internet reproductions).
Well, they can rely on compensating exposure too... and there is nothing wrong with relying on LR / PS too. Without Lightroom, that print of mine that you have on your wall (women in window) would not look anywhere near as good.
animalhairs
Member
Do you have to explore these things to be an artist?
No, of course not. I think Cal is speaking to the fact that some tend to think that learning the technical aspects of photography is a waste of time.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
It's the internatter. People feel free to say anything and expect to be both believed and agreed with.
It seems to me that a "digital looking image" is rather like a "good book" or a "bad song". The term means whatever someone alleges it means.
raid
Dad Photographer
Could we define a digital image as a sharp and flat image (if focused correctly)? Who knows.
My wife identifies digital images, and she somehow does not like them.
My wife identifies digital images, and she somehow does not like them.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
John,
Steve H. from the New York Meet-Up said, "You can't print what's not there." LR5 and Photoshop are great-great tools, but comparing the histogram of the same shot under bright lighting with and without filters tells me that controlling the light and contrast by use of filters onto the sensor is the better way to go. The histogram does not lie: using filters allows a digital sensor to capture more information and helps avoid that over processed look that makes people prefer film.
Love that shot of yours BTW. I remember when we went out shooting that night on "Fashion Night Out I shot film," and I got skunked, while you were getting shots.
Cal
That's just it Cal...the info is there in digital and it can be recovered (outside of completely blown highlights). There is nothing wrong with doing so via LR/PS. Whatever works to get the image you need.
Cal, you haven't use either PS or LR, so it'll become more apparent once you do.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
No. Things like basic exposure I mention in my post applies to both analog and digital. It seems that some people shoot digital like they would film and get blown highlights and just complain.
Other people discover that digital is a separate medium and make adjustments. I think overall as photographers exploring new technology we should try to make the most of their exploration and do it fully. It is obvious that some have not been able to make digital work for them. Perhaps critical thinking should have been used instead of the word artist in my post.
DISCLAIMER: I'm still a die hard B&W film shooter, and I'm new to digital. I received my Monochrom earlier this year in February. I intend on continuing to shoot as much B&W film as I can in both small and medium format.
Cal
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
John,
On my Monochrom I have the clipping indicators set at 1%. On a brightly lite subject I can compare the levels of clipping with and without filters of the same scene, and I see that either clipping is moderated and minimized or that clipping is totally eliminated.
Steve's comment, "You can't print what's not there" applies because clipping is lost information. Even without using Lightroom or Photoshop I can safely say that using filters is the better way to control contrast.
I greatly appreciate the addition level of control that post has to offer, but clearly I see how the use of filters enhances image capture onto the sensor.
Like I said, "The histogram does not lie."
Cal