what's considered a digital looking image?

[clayne]

'someday' a key but as yet unspoken word in our discussion...

digital sensors are being improved/changed/re-invented on a near daily basis...
and films are being discontinued at an almost similar pace...
someday, this issue will be a moot point...

Check out Ilford films lately? They're profitable and customer usage isn't exactly going down. If you think film will be gone in your lifetime, sorry to disappoint, it won't be.

I've heard the "digital is constantly improving" line over and over but it continually ignores the *inherent* differences in analog representation and digital representation. Non linear, saturation, yadda yadda. Oh what's the point, these concepts have no substance here anymore.

 

[Ranchu]

It's basically the same ole digital hand waviness about "oh it's so insignificant it doesn't really matter" that most of the digital guys have lulled themselves into. It isn't insignificant and the mediums are not near each other.

Well, I posted that excerpt specifically to clarify that it wasn't just the highlights that were different, but the midtones mattered just as much and possibly more.

Like here-

I wanted to clarify this from earlier. Film doesn't only compress the highlights, it also has lower contrast is the midtones. From Basic Photographic ...

Then we're talking about the highlights again. With differential 2D.

 

[icebear]

....

And now I come back to the topic :
If the viewer can't distinguish between the process, the craft or "art" involved when just looking at the result, then the way leads to the same result.
It's up to anyone to value one or the other result more because of how it was obtained but that doesn't mean there is more art involved.
... "Art is what you can get away with" Andy Warhol

Surely you can see if someone sees things differently, even if the masses can't that means that product has value to those who can tell?
The fact that most can't tell the difference is irrelevant, the world is full of people who can't tell the difference between a camera phone and an SLR or care enough to look at those (to us) obvious differences.
You can't reduce things to the lowest common denominator.

The art world is a business and art is often sold because an expert said " That is great art by a famous artist" and then a big gallery puts a huge price tag on the piece.
If the exact same piece hangs in a small town gallery for only 5% of the big ticket price, is it less "art" here and more "art" there ? That's just how the market works. There is no all mighty definition of what is art and how something has to be made.

Whether film and silver paper is used or digital and high quality inkjet printer with archival ink on high quality paper, who thinks he can just by the method judge if the result is art or not? This is complete BS in my book.

A work just by itself without any background information will either "speak" to the recipient or not, it has a message or not.
If it is judged more valuable because of additional information about the process this is solely happening in the mind of the person. It does not have anything to do with the work itself. It did not change a bit.

People claim the ability to distinguish with great accuracy between all kinds of different products but when this is put to a reliable test, there are a lot of surprises.

If you arrange for a taste test of three identical samples and ask test persons to pick the odd one out and describe the differences, you will be astonished how many will pick one and describe perceived differences and how few people will honestly tell the truth, that they can't taste any differences ...because there are none.

How many critics of the digital process would be able to pick a framed silver print from framed ink jet print if both are carried out to the highest skill level?

A new process enables new possibilities and requires other tools and other skills. Craftsman ship in traditional processes is something that I do value highly but I am not that inflexible that I label progress of a new technology as being sub par.

 

[Contarama]

Another thing about film I have noticed...even the most run of the mill film exposures seem to have more "impact" to similar digital images. Hard to tell the difference though on a computer screen except for the white roll off... 😉

 

[Godfrey]

It's a good book.

I'm failing to see where you disagree that film records 2 stops of exposure as one stop of density in the midtones, and digital records one stop as one stop. Are you saying 'someday' digital will do this?

In the midtones, the media behavior and optimal processing techniques are so different tht the situation is not comparable.

G

 

[MIkhail]

I use both and have done for years.
Don`t have any issues but the differences as described in this thread are plain to see ... to me.

that's exactly right.

 

[MIkhail]

The only reason such nonsense is accepted, nodded over and repeated is because digital looks different, and for some, it just looks bad. Regardless of print, screen or whatever. People who shoot digital don't want to hear about that, and neither do the people selling cameras, software, or other crap.

this makes sense to you because you start off with and believe the premise that digital is inferior to film.
i don't buy your 'crap' because i believe that digital is different from film and that i like the difference and i prefer digital.

we can never agree.
and i can live with that.

It seems to me... and I can be completely wrong (but I am not)... that "digital shooters" still, after all these years of advanced science, creation of Leica 9 and whatever other fine cameras, still have some inferiority complex. I guess I can understand this but it should not be so. Just use the tool you see fit!
I shoot color mostly on digital, although sometimes slide. I shoot B/W mostly on film. Although sometimes I cheat and convert digital, usually I am not completely satisfied with the results. I use Photoshop for last 10 years, Lightroom- last 5-6, by the way, so I know a little bit about conversion and such. Still, sometimes ti's OK and most of a time I wish I shot that B/W on TriX-400...

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Yes, I do this often but not necessarily for the same reasons. I use it mostly to see the "look" of different camera/lenses (camera if it is digital) but I don't take sharpness too seriously because it depends on the camera/medium/scanner/post processing. I assume most lenses are sharp enough, but if I am concerned then I rely on gearheads.

Well, some copies are soft at the corners or at the edge. Just some particular units. Usually it is dirt cheap glass anyway, in my not so big experience.
And same here, new camera official or popular at search engine reviews sucks in terms of IQ pictures from digital cameras they are reviewing. Nothing but boring middle of the day crapshoot of the same bridge 🙂
Love Flickr dedicated groups for it.

 

[Contarama]

Last week I shot with a D300S and made one shot that put me in the mind of film. The sensor in my D5000 will blow that camera away in my mind...kind of like comparing Kodachrome to Fuji 200 C46 sort of...and the 5K will shoot the non Ai lenses too...My F2 shots with same lens are only equaled or bested by the lowly D5K...cameras for cameras baby! I can usually manage to make both of them look decent. Digital is more interesting to me because of it's accessibility and ease of use.

 

[Photo_Smith]

The art world is a business and art is often sold because an expert said " That is great art by a famous artist" and then a big gallery puts a huge price tag on the piece.
If the exact same piece hangs in a small town gallery for only 5% of the big ticket price, is it less "art" here and more "art" there ? That's just how the market works. There is no all mighty definition of what is art and how something has to be made.

Whether film and silver paper is used or digital and high quality inkjet printer with archival ink on high quality paper, who thinks he can just by the method judge if the result is art or not? This is complete BS in my book.

I this this is totally backwards thinking. First of all this thread is not about judging if it's 'art' or not its about being able to tell the difference between silver paper and inkjet, don't conflate the two.
Please don't muddy the waters with your cynicism of the art world, and the old chestnut of 'what is art' and it's fiscal worth which is totally irrelevant to the discussion.

True most won't be able to find a difference, it might be that 90% of the public are unaware of the differences between silver and ink; or even a magazine print and a real photo come to that.
That doesn't mean the difference doesn't exist, and to those who can see the difference (the other 10%) well those people are the market for the silver product and because of the difficulty (more labour intensive) in creating those prints they cost more.

To say that if you lined up a number of people and asked them the difference the result would be 'surprising' is betraying your opinion that most couldn't tell (which hasn't been my experience) when in fact the differences are there, real and open to those who can tell.
I'd say of the 10% mentioned above that can tell, if you tested them you'd find they knew the tell tale signs to look for, I can tell a C type print from an inkjet with ease, would be willing to demonstrate that. Also I can tell film from digital in a lot of cases and inkjet from a silver gel print–am I magic?

Obviously I'm not magic, or even alone in that ability.
All I am saying is that after 28+ years as a professional handprinter I find the differences unsubtle, if you can't tell the difference, fine–you just saved yourself a whole load of time and money.

But to those of us who can tell, that small difference is worth the extra trouble.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

The longer this thread goes on, the more it becomes a dialogue of the deaf.

Some like Silver, some like digital, some like both. Why get hung up on converting others to your views? I had a teacher who told us that "certainty is the sign of a small mind". The older I get, the more I understand what he was talking about.

Why not just learn from one another, instead of trying to force others into our own small minded certainty?

 

[alistair.o]

...Why get hung up on converting others to your views? I had a teacher who told us that "certainty is the sign of a small mind". The older I get, the more I understand what he was talking about...

Agreed.

The age old maxim suits very well :-

"Convince a man against his will and he remains of the the same mind still"

 

[Photo_Smith]

I had a teacher who told us that "certainty is the sign of a small mind". The older I get, the more I understand what he was talking about.

Was your teacher certain about that? 🙂

 

[Ranchu]

In the midtones, the media behavior and optimal processing techniques are so different tht the situation is not comparable.

G

Let me speculate, is that because in order to get the high bit compressed highlight exactly correct so that you can process zones 2 to 5 the only way they look right you have to take a 7 shot 1/3 stop bracketed raw for each pic?

 

[Ranchu]

Such a mystery. What could it be that makes the media behaviour and optimal processing so different that you couldn't actually describe the digital in terms of contrast? Sounds awfully convenient to me, but...

Help me out here, can no one say? Does no one know what this arcane property is either? Just think, this could be the holy grail, the codex that finally explains to all why film and digital look different!

🙂

Or maybe not, depending.

 

[clayne]

The silence is golden - and telling, of course.

 

[jsrockit]

It seems to me... and I can be completely wrong (but I am not)... that "digital shooters" still, after all these years of advanced science, creation of Leica 9 and whatever other fine cameras, still have some inferiority complex...

Both camps, digital and film, have this same complex... this thread has proven that. 😉

 

[DougK]

Both camps, digital and film, have this same complex... this thread has proven that. 😉

Indeed. I wonder if they had the same arguments when the medium switched from wet plates to film.

 

[Ranchu]

Indeed. I wonder if they had the same arguments when the medium switched from wet plates to film.

As we've seen, the difference between digital and film is much greater than that between plates and film, those are the same thing on different substrates. In the case of film I'd call this difference contrast, when talking about digital I think I'll call it jimjam, for lack of a better term..

😎

 

[icebear]

The longer this thread goes on, the more it becomes a dialogue of the deaf.

Some like Silver, some like digital, some like both. Why get hung up on converting others to your views? I had a teacher who told us that "certainty is the sign of a small mind". The older I get, the more I understand what he was talking about.

Why not just learn from one another, instead of trying to force others into our own small minded certainty?

I guess there is nothing more suitable to add to this thread :bang:😀.
THX and best regards to your teacher, if he might still be alive.