BobYIL
Well-known
Just out of curiosity: How they maintain the digital pictures in the museums having no archival conditions? (I know some of them do not..)
paulfish4570
Veteran
km, that is a good system for limited space for printing. perhaps i can give our cabin another look-through ...
gustavo peña
spanish speaker
Vinyl records do not make any noise if they are clean and without scrachets. What I like about vinyl records is they sound more warm and you also kind of get the feeling you are listening to live music compare to cd.
Analog noise is more beautiful, is like a guitar with distortion. The digital noise is not as good looking for my taste. Otherwise, if you like your picture clean I guess you are okay with digital.
Analog noise is more beautiful, is like a guitar with distortion. The digital noise is not as good looking for my taste. Otherwise, if you like your picture clean I guess you are okay with digital.
Teuthida
Well-known
I prefer to eat my meat raw, as I believe fire to be a relatively new and untested technology. Raw meat just has a taste you can't dupilcate.
135format
Established
I think just won't last as long. It's as simple as that. But even with museums trying to preserve all sorts of artefacts, they are still degenerating. It's entropy at work. The normal order of things. Nothing in nature is designed to last for ever. Why should our pictures?
Harry Lime
Practitioner
- Lack of dynamic range, most visible in the highlights
- Spectral sensitivity is too broad compared to b/w film
- Spectral sensitivity is too broad compared to b/w film
JayM
Well-known
- Biggest reason as with all digital is archival options suck.
- Out of camera images acceptable at best and it seems silly to try to make them look like film that you can still buy and shoot in a camera that probably is more joy to use
It's not like I look at a picture and say "that sucks because I can tell it's digital." That almost never happens. Like many photos though, I enjoy them, but do not necessarily feel like I want to make pictures in the same manner.
- Out of camera images acceptable at best and it seems silly to try to make them look like film that you can still buy and shoot in a camera that probably is more joy to use
It's not like I look at a picture and say "that sucks because I can tell it's digital." That almost never happens. Like many photos though, I enjoy them, but do not necessarily feel like I want to make pictures in the same manner.
Can you explain this more?
sevres_babylone
Veteran
Amen.
Confession. I printed black and white in a home basement wet darkroom for close to 20 years, but was never a particularly good printer. After that, for about 10 years, I mostly shot in colour, and mostly made c-prints, renting darkroom time at West Camera in Toronto it was a an exhibition of black and white digital prints by Pedro Meyer that I saw in an exhibition at Epson's Mexico City offices that inspired me to start printing digitally. I scanned and printed for quite a while before I got my Epson camera.
Digital has brought me back to black and white. My printing is much better than my darkroom printing was. I have shown and sold digital black and white prints. Generally, when I've shown them, the only people concerned with whether they are from film or digital, are RFF friends and flickr friends.
I have an appreciation for good silver prints of good photographs, and have some hanging in my home. For instance, Ruth Kaplan is an excellent photographer and stellar printer.
I don't know what a pure digital print looks like. Maybe a sheet of ones and zeroes. I use silver efex pro for most of my digital work, though I've also printed straight from black and white jpegs. I don't see the latter as being any purer.
Good thread, Joe. It's made me think, and taken my mind away from which bag I need to buy next
MarkoKovacevic
Well-known
I don't know about the rest of the people here, but all my digital work (when i want to put it on a wall) is printed on Lambda machines, so I don't have the issues associated with inkjet. I can understand that people in smaller cities may not have places with these machines, though.
dee
Well-known
No matter , I shall still use my M8 in monochrome 'cos it's the only option I have .
It seems more at home this way somehow .
The few A4 prints I indulge in will never rival those film prints which I admire , but then again , I would love a vintage Alfa Romeo rather than my battered 147 LOL.
Within my svere limitations , I simply strive to do the best I can .
It seems more at home this way somehow .
The few A4 prints I indulge in will never rival those film prints which I admire , but then again , I would love a vintage Alfa Romeo rather than my battered 147 LOL.
Within my svere limitations , I simply strive to do the best I can .
135format
Established
Well yes that is an option but not one many people want to pay for. It ain't cheap. (assuming FB B+W silver gelatin paper not c prints).
MarkoKovacevic
Well-known
true. it's around 20-30$ for the FB BW silver gelitan per foot (29xhowever long) though it is only 9$ for the C prints, and they don't look bad.
BobYIL
Well-known
I herewith will try to shed a light on the discussions of film B&W vs. digital B&W from -a little- engineering point of view; with as simple terms as possible.
First the Sensitivity vs. Wavelength of the recorded spectrum of visible light. In the below illustrations please note that the vertical axis is always Sensitivity for film or Quantum Efficiency for sensor- meaning almost the same- and the horizontal axis are the visible color wavelengths in nanometers.
First let's see how a hi-speed panchromatic film HP5+(thicker silver-halide spread over the surface for longer tones & longer exposure latitude; for digital this is equivalent of Dynamic Range) also an orthochromatic film APHS Litho(limited bandwith for solely hi-contrast applications ) will react to the visible spectrum.
Please note how the HP5+ reacts to different wavelengths and the respective colors in nanometers too.
To simplify the view the HP5+ alone:
The Tri-X curve now:
Note how the two top films cover the spectral range with their characteristic responses to colors. (Both exhibit excellent responses, do not mind about the cut-off frequency in testing the Tri-X.. the HP5+ is more linear/balanced while the Tri-X is more "blues loving" )
How about a CCD sensor from the Leica M9 neighborhood? (16MP) First the curves for individual colors. Note the "discrepancies" and how CFAs (color filter arrays) affect the sensitivity responses for each color:
Do they look any similar to the HP5+ or Tri-X color response curves above? (Hardly.. )
Bear in mind that ANY sensor, CCD or CMOS, is monochromatic by construction, it's the array filters that turn the "assigned" cells into color-sensitive ones with some sacrifices from the sensitivity too. The following is the ACTUAL response of the same CCD sensor above with no-CFAs (i.e. similar to the one the new B&W M-Leica is going to have):
Now you can compare this curve to the ones of the HP5+ and the Tri-X.
Shortly:
- We still need years to duplicate the characteristics of silver halides crystals following the chemical reactions as seen on the film through digital means.
- The more silver halide involves with further chemical reactions (film developing + image developing on paper thru wet printing) the more the differences between these characteristics curves.
Regards,
Bob
First the Sensitivity vs. Wavelength of the recorded spectrum of visible light. In the below illustrations please note that the vertical axis is always Sensitivity for film or Quantum Efficiency for sensor- meaning almost the same- and the horizontal axis are the visible color wavelengths in nanometers.
First let's see how a hi-speed panchromatic film HP5+(thicker silver-halide spread over the surface for longer tones & longer exposure latitude; for digital this is equivalent of Dynamic Range) also an orthochromatic film APHS Litho(limited bandwith for solely hi-contrast applications ) will react to the visible spectrum.
Please note how the HP5+ reacts to different wavelengths and the respective colors in nanometers too.
To simplify the view the HP5+ alone:
The Tri-X curve now:
Note how the two top films cover the spectral range with their characteristic responses to colors. (Both exhibit excellent responses, do not mind about the cut-off frequency in testing the Tri-X.. the HP5+ is more linear/balanced while the Tri-X is more "blues loving"
)How about a CCD sensor from the Leica M9 neighborhood? (16MP) First the curves for individual colors. Note the "discrepancies" and how CFAs (color filter arrays) affect the sensitivity responses for each color:
Do they look any similar to the HP5+ or Tri-X color response curves above? (Hardly.. )
Bear in mind that ANY sensor, CCD or CMOS, is monochromatic by construction, it's the array filters that turn the "assigned" cells into color-sensitive ones with some sacrifices from the sensitivity too. The following is the ACTUAL response of the same CCD sensor above with no-CFAs (i.e. similar to the one the new B&W M-Leica is going to have):
Now you can compare this curve to the ones of the HP5+ and the Tri-X.
Shortly:
- We still need years to duplicate the characteristics of silver halides crystals following the chemical reactions as seen on the film through digital means.
- The more silver halide involves with further chemical reactions (film developing + image developing on paper thru wet printing) the more the differences between these characteristics curves.
Regards,
Bob
paulfish4570
Veteran
it will not be long before digital display screens will be less expensive than display frames and matting. so, whether it's film or digital, photos will be displayed digitally. no fuss, no muss, no fading. change your mind? upload a new one ...
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Nothing wrong with using photoshop to adjust contrast, color, etc. I do think adding grain in post processing is silly. Grain is not intrinsic to digital as it is with film, and adding it to digital files is just dumb. If you want grain, use the medium that has it: fast films. So much of our modern world is falsehood built on lie built on delusion. There is nothing wrong with authenticity; with using an artistic medium in a way that is honest and honors that medium's nature.
That said, digital is absolutely valid as a medium for fine art photography. Those who slam all digital are ignorant of photography's history, which includes literally hundreds of different processes. Digital is just one more choice. I shoot both digital and film.
celluloidprop
Well-known
I remove grain in SEP2 (or at least set it to 500) - not for any concerns with authenticity or honesty but because it doesn't look right. And every now and then I've forgotten to remove it until too late, only to discover the randomization has created worms of grain that look downright hideous.
ChrisLivsey
Veteran
Thank you Bob.
Of course we have already had a black and white sensor the Phase One Achromatic back. This was discussed at "another site" with graphs which confirm the ones posted. The discussion there does shed light, pardon the pun, on the "problems" (inverted commas because they can be advantages) the extended spectral response gives. If the rumoured M9M comes to market the filter choices made will be fascinating. We M8 users may be gaining another group needing filter advice
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/achromatic.shtml
BobYIL
Well-known
Thank you Bob.
Of course we have already had a black and white sensor the Phase One Achromatic back. This was discussed at "another site" with graphs which confirm the ones posted. The discussion there does shed light, pardon the pun, on the "problems" (inverted commas because they can be advantages) the extended spectral response gives. If the rumoured M9M comes to market the filter choices made will be fascinating. We M8 users may be gaining another group needing filter advice
I could not see any "extended spectral response" on that curves as beyond 650-700nm everything is in "undesired" IR-range; means nothing but a requirement for filters, either over the sensor or on the shooting lens. BTW, the curves of KAF-39000 are not impressive at all (quite similar to the monochromatic CCD sensor response above).
Like many others I too am looking forward to seeing how the new sensor from Leica would "response" and hopefully Leica makes us all stunned this time. . However this is physics..
anjoca76
Well-known
For me, the only images I ever convert to b&w are the ones I hated in color or had something wrong with them where i couldnt tweak the colors to my liking. It is usually a last ditch effort to save an image. If I want b&w, I shoot b&w. Otherwise it just feels like cheating to me. Just my opinion.