Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Photography General Interest

Photography General Interest Neat Photo stuff NOT particularly about Rangefinders.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 03-22-2019   #41
benlees
Registered User
 
benlees is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edmonton, AB
Age: 47
Posts: 1,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by giganova View Post
Its not pointless because I can only post digital files here.

Bit of a pickle isn't it?


The sky in the digital image is stunning, but that maybe due to timing...
__________________
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-22-2019   #42
giganova
Registered User
 
giganova is offline
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 1,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by benlees View Post
The sky in the digital image is stunning, but that maybe due to timing...
There was a storm with 60 mph, heavy rain and hail moving through, and all of a sudden the sun broke though the clouds!
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-22-2019   #43
teddy
Jose Morales
 
teddy's Avatar
 
teddy is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: South Australia
Age: 39
Posts: 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by giganova View Post
So I jumped into digital photography with a big leap of faith....
By the end of two days, I terribly missed my M4 and realized that I made a mistake bringing this digital monstrosity with me. It will from now on only be used for party and family vacation photos.
Hello giganova, welcome to the world of digital. I Have my Leica M's, R's, Rolleiflex, Hassy, Oly etc etc etc - only two digitals - a Sony a7 and a Fuji XE-1...
I have satisfaction with my Fuji when I have to rush and take photos of my kids doing something wonderful in their daggy clothes, or a group of people meeting and want me to send those pictures to them, or post them on Instagram... My friends love it, love me, I show love to me XE-1 and my 35/1.4 or my Fuji Zoom THEN... But that's it.

Digital has a plastic soul. Technically clinical, boring, superficial, unreal.
Useful, convenient - but my Leica's will consummate the love I have for photography in many more nuances compared to digital.

So, I feel the same as you - you CAN discipline yourself not to look at the digital capture on camera after exposure - I have, but like you frankly say, we still do.

Go back to your Leica's - you are fortunate to do so - enjoy!
__________________
View my Flickr space
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joseantoniomorales/
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-23-2019   #44
Brian Atherton
Registered User
 
Brian Atherton's Avatar
 
Brian Atherton is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Based in Blighty
Posts: 527
Quote:
Originally Posted by giganova View Post
Its not pointless because I can only post digital files here.
This is the crux of the issue: film has be to be converted to digital, so on the internet film cannot reasonably be compared to digital. However hard one tries film converted to digital is one step removed from its origin.

Make prints from both in their native mediums, then compare.

I use Acros with my X-Pro2, and have found it to be excellent in A4 sized prints when viewed with film and wet print equivalents.

There are plenty of examples on my website but they bear absolutely no comparison to the originals printed at A4.
__________________
Brian

"Maintenant, mon ami !"
http://www.asingulareye.wordpress.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-23-2019   #45
LCSmith
arbiter elegentiae
 
LCSmith's Avatar
 
LCSmith is offline
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 158
I suspect the reasons why we individually choose photographic mediums depend largely on the reasons why we individually make photographs.

The so-called debate about film and digital mediums in photography devolves into a self-righteous cacophony, like arguments about politics or religion. The one side will not see the logic of the other.

In truth, what seems to be the case is that we are human, and that we have preferences which depend on how we individually see the world and ourselves in it.

I can only speak for myself; but when I am making silver negatives with a camera I feel as though I am taking part in the pictorial tradition in which photography arose. For the amateur the sheer valency of this experience chuckles at the thin and ephemeral products of pixelated shimmer.

Photographs do not have objective values.

I suspect the feelings we have for photographs we make have much to do with how we made them. This is an altogether just and noble, an altogether human quality to be celebrated and admired.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-23-2019   #46
shawn
Registered User
 
shawn is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by giganova View Post
I went around the corner to the Capitol and took nearly-identical shots: digital vs film!

One with the Fuji X-T3 and one with a Minox 35 on HP-5. Very light touch in Photoshop for both, no cropping. I shot with the Fuji in color (Provia profile) and converted it to b&w in Photoshop, then another one with the in-camera monochrome profile (Acros profile). The differences are very subtle, so I post the one with the Acros profile here.
Nice comparison. If you want to get more of that HP-5 look on the Fuji crank up the ISO in Acros. Take the same shot at lots of different speeds to see how the look changes and then run with the one you like. Go very high with the ISO to see what it does.

Shawn
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-23-2019   #47
LCSmith
arbiter elegentiae
 
LCSmith's Avatar
 
LCSmith is offline
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by giganova View Post
I went around the corner to the Capitol and took nearly-identical shots: digital vs film!

One with the Fuji X-T3 and one with a Minox 35 on HP-5. Very light touch in Photoshop for both, no cropping. I shot with the Fuji in color (Provia profile) and converted it to b&w in Photoshop, then another one with the in-camera monochrome profile (Acros profile). The differences are very subtle, so I post the one with the Acros profile here.

Judge for yourself:

Fuji X-T3:

Minox 35 on HP-5:
What this comparison confesses more clearly than words is that a digital camera can make a bad photograph look not-so-bad, and that the film does not lie about the light and how one has decided to expose it. (edit: I say this with the full understanding that the poster did not intend to make an especially good photograph, only a photograph for the sake of comparison; this in fact makes my point about the difference in mediums)

A digital camera will do everything it can do to "correct" the mistakes of the sentient human. The film shows you exactly what you did wrong.

The professional photographer welcomes the digital medium for this very reason.

Last edited by LCSmith : 03-23-2019 at 18:21. Reason: Lest I be misunderstood as mean-spirited
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-23-2019   #48
fireblade
Vincenzo.
 
fireblade's Avatar
 
fireblade is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,140
B&W digital is more about taste. What one likes the other won't. From the "normal" editing to the "extreme"..(crushed blacks)...depends on the what the shooter likes and the image itself.
__________________
Vincenzo

"No place is boring, if you've had a good night's sleep and have a pocket full of unexposed film."
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-23-2019   #49
CMur12
Registered User
 
CMur12 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Moses Lake, Washington, USA
Age: 67
Posts: 1,015
I'm a film shooter, but my objective has always been to keep grain to a minimum - the less visible, the better. To this end, I almost always shoot slow, fine-grained film and I do it mostly in medium format (with a TLR on a tripod).


(The only case where I liked grain was shooting Agfachrome 1000 for window-light portraiture, years ago.)


The almost "no grain" quality of digital is something I think I would like.


- Murray
__________________
Still shooting film: Medium Format with assorted TLRs; 35mm with manual-focus Minolta SLRs and a Canonet.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-23-2019   #50
michaelwj
----------------
 
michaelwj's Avatar
 
michaelwj is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane AUS
Posts: 2,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto View Post
That look comes from over-sharpening then overdoing the noise reduction. When processed correctly, digital images look natural and beautiful.
Agreed. Take a look at @helenhill’s latest addition to the X100 images thread. Beautiful black and white digital.
__________________
Cheers,
Michael
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-23-2019   #51
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 43
Posts: 8,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelwj View Post
Agreed. Take a look at @helenhill’s latest addition to the X100 images thread. Beautiful black and white digital.



Helen's work is gorgeous. There's a few others in that thread with nice BW images, too.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-23-2019   #52
michaelwj
----------------
 
michaelwj's Avatar
 
michaelwj is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane AUS
Posts: 2,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto View Post
Helen's work is gorgeous. There's a few others in that thread with nice BW images, too.
This was the one I was thinking about. Beautiful. I wish I could do that with any camera.
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/for...postcount=2471
__________________
Cheers,
Michael
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-23-2019   #53
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 43
Posts: 8,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelwj View Post
This was the one I was thinking about. Beautiful. I wish I could do that with any camera.
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/for...postcount=2471



You probably could, it just takes practice. Some cameras do seem to produce files that convert to BW easier, though. The old Kodak DCS 14n, a 14mp camera that was one of the first fullframe digital bodies (it was based on a Nikon camera and took Nikon lenses), was one of the best for that in my opinion. It actually produced incredible color that no other digital I have owned could match.


It is the camera I used for all of the examples I posted earlier in this thread.


I made a couple of tutorials on digital BW conversions.


This one is for Lightroom, using only the tools built in to LR. No plugins: https://youtu.be/_jdMCqJdC2E


This one is for using the Nik B&W plugin. This is easier to get good results with, if you have the Nik plugins.
https://youtu.be/xvnkwa9Zwjw
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-24-2019   #54
michaelwj
----------------
 
michaelwj's Avatar
 
michaelwj is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane AUS
Posts: 2,098
Thanks Chris
__________________
Cheers,
Michael
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-24-2019   #55
Richard G
Registered User
 
Richard G's Avatar
 
Richard G is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: 37,47 S
Posts: 5,098
Good thread. Some wise words here. I liked the digital of the Capitol too.

For some, the look of the photograph is so much what is desired. I really loved the output of my iPhone 3GS: it had character. I lost it and replaced it with the 4, which had a better camera, and the magic was gone.

The emotion comes through more easily with black and white film photography, but it can be captured with digital too.

My first serious digital was a Coolpix for recording events with the children. Then the X100 in 2011 whose straight out of camera colour JPEGs have always been enough for me. The M9-P output is special, and the Monochrom a marvel. I have tried to exploit the properties of those cameras and not emulate film at all. The black and white jpegs straight out of the M9 are pretty good too. I haven't really explored the Fuji Acros setting in the X100 but now I will.

Giganova: stick with it. And your M4.
__________________
Richard
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-24-2019   #56
shawn
Registered User
 
shawn is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,147
The x100 doesn't have the Acros setting. That is only in the 24 megapixel Fuji's like the x100f.

Shawn
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-24-2019   #57
Richard G
Registered User
 
Richard G's Avatar
 
Richard G is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: 37,47 S
Posts: 5,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawn View Post
The x100 doesn't have the Acros setting. That is only in the 24 megapixel Fuji's like the x100f.

Shawn
What a shame. I remember it has Provia and Astia settings. I just looked now. It is simply Monochrome and various filters. Maybe it is Acros, but not designated so: they had to choose something for their Monochrome emulation......
__________________
Richard
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-24-2019   #58
robert blu
quiet photographer
 
robert blu's Avatar
 
robert blu is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Italy
Age: 70
Posts: 5,747
Thanks Chris for your always interesting tutorials.

In my opinion about B&W we should consider the time required to have a good B&W print in the darkroom. I sometimes could get one good print in one evening (and many prints in the bin in the same time!).

It's the same with digital: it is necessary to make an i"investment" in time and to process file in order to have a good print.

Unfortunately digital has given to many photographers the idea that it is possible to have everything soon without too much effort. LR, Nick plugs-in or others similar softwares are only tool, they can only give a starting point to properly "develop" a file.

Many times I hear photographers asking what conversion method do they photographer use in the assumption that the "trick" is there. But it is not: it is in the post processing work before and/or after the conversion to B&W. And here a previous darkroom experience is a great help.

Just my idea but worthwhile to think about...

robert, who photographs both, digital and film
__________________
Remember: today is the Day !
from Ruth Bernhard recipe for a long and happy life

my quiet photographer's blog

My RFF photos and my albums on RFF
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-24-2019   #59
shawn
Registered User
 
shawn is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard G View Post
What a shame. I remember it has Provia and Astia settings. I just looked now. It is simply Monochrome and various filters. Maybe it is Acros, but not designated so: they had to choose something for their Monochrome emulation......
It is not Acros. When they released it Fuji explained why they couldn't bring that to the earlier generations of cameras as they needed the higher resolution sensor and more powerful processor that went along with it. I had an X Pro 2 and Acros and Monochrome had different looks to them.

https://fujifilm-x.com/en-us/stories...ulation-acros/

Shawn
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-24-2019   #60
FujiLove
Registered User
 
FujiLove is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 575
Looking back at the things the OP likes about digital and film photography, I'm thinking a Contax G2 would be a nice middle-ground between the two. AF, light weight, auto-exposure and outstanding lenses, with the image qualities of film.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-24-2019   #61
gnuyork
Registered User
 
gnuyork is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Marietta, GA
Posts: 686
I agree with many points of the OP on love/hate for digital. I shoot both and if I had to choose one, I'd prefer film, if nothing else it's because it's more of a challenge to me, but fully agree with the points about selective shooting due to film scarcity and costs. Often I choose not to bring a film camera somewhere because I don't want to waste my precious film. With digital that leads to more freely shooting and experimentation.

One thing I do try to do is make my images not look digital. I'm not sure I succeed, because that is quite subjective. But I do like the flexibility with digital and I enjoy the post work in Lightroom.

Here are a few of my digital black and whites...











and here is a scan of a film version of the last pic...completely different days, and angle:




One thing where I find digital still fails is very large prints. A prime example, just yesterday I was at a gallery and saw very large 64x96" photo of one of my favorite trees in a local location...and when I got up close enough to it, you could just see the image fall apart...purple fringing around all of the branches, lack of detail... I was disgusted. And mainly because that's my tree, how dare he (joking)...but it was listed for $16,000!! If that were shot on 8x10 or 4x5 even it would be so much better.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-24-2019   #62
Axel
Registered User
 
Axel's Avatar
 
Axel is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Germany, north
Posts: 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by giganova View Post
... What I hate about digital:
  • Technology is distracting: tons of information in the viewfinder that distract from framing. Tons of buttons and flashing lights. The worse is the display on the back: no matter how disciplined you are, you will always look at the photo that you just took, for no apparent reason other than confirming that it is there. The display is too small, the resolution too low, and the dynamic range too narrow to make any judgements. In direct sunlight it is a waste of time to look at the display, but you will. All you see in the end is if the picture was stored. I finally get why the M10-P has no display, I want that in a digital camera! Plus, you always worry about the battery status. I ended charging the camera in my rental car each time between shots because one battery would have never taken me through the day. So now I carry extra batteries, chargers, cables ... what happened to the "not much gear" argument?
I carry as much batteries as I aspect to take photos. Same was with film. In this days batteries are smaller (and sometimes cheaper) than film rolls.
Quote:
Originally Posted by giganova View Post
  • Too much of a good thing? I took hundreds of photos within two days. Way too much and I ended spending another day sorting through the photos which all looked the same. With film, you are more selective, frame more properly (less cropping!), decide whether the scene is actually worth burning it on film. With film you quickly become a more critical photographer, because film costs money, because you can't carry an endless amount of rolls with you, and because getting from pressing the shutter to seeing the actually image costs time.
The amount of my taken photos does not depend on the medium. More photos are more costs of time and money anyway. So I go to take a picture.
Wouldn´t rant my car for that is so nice that I drive more kilometers as I do with my bike either

Quote:
Originally Posted by giganova View Post
  • No distance between you and your art: since you see the results instantaneously, you rush to decisions. I prefer not seeing the photos right way: you press the shutter on an analog film camera, you forget what you just shot and think ahead what you can shoot next. With digital you constantly go back & forth in time, which disrupts the flow. Days (sometimes weeks) later you finally develop the film, put the negatives on a light table, make a selection and start scanning. When the scan builds up on your screen, you see the scene again for the first time and make better decisions if the photo is good or not because you are emotionally detached from the experience of taking the photos.
I don´t want to see my photos immediately also. So the function is disabled and the back screen is closed on my camera.
Quote:
Originally Posted by giganova View Post
  • Lifeless? Here's my main concern: the photos are extremely sharp, the sensor is flawless to the point where it seems unnatural! My eye doesn't resolve all the detail of the landscape when I look at it, so why does my camera give me more information I can see & process? The totanality is so smooth that the photos are lacking micro-contras that you get with grain. Oh how I miss grain!
Maybe it is a huge process to find out so much when trying digital as a long term film user. I remember it was similar for me when I began to switch nearly 15 years ago.

But in the end there is a huge extension in creative possibilities in the new technologies. Sure I can do my photography like it was in the 60s or 70s. It does not depend on the question of "digital or film?". It only depends on my personal wishes and skills.

Have a look at our wonderful gallery here! There is nothing you can count on "digital" or "film". Sometimes you see grain, sometimes you see sharp or soft. But you will fail quickly if you try match the photos to one of your categories.
__________________
my photos here
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-24-2019   #63
Shac
Registered User
 
Shac is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: White Rock, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto View Post
That look comes from over-sharpening then overdoing the noise reduction. When processed correctly, digital images look natural and beautiful.
Totally agree Chris
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-24-2019   #64
Michael Markey
Registered User
 
Michael Markey's Avatar
 
Michael Markey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Blackpool ,England
Age: 68
Posts: 4,069
Quote:
Originally Posted by peterm1 View Post
Sorry film fans but I much prefer the digital rendition in this instance at least.

I find these threads a bit odd in 2019 .
Does it really matter ?
I use both film and digital.
I found film to be pretty useless for my sports shots though.

Never liked darkroom or film processing and after 50 years on and off I`ve called it a day.
Much admire those that do but its not for me.

Developing and printing now done by Ilford


PS
I prefer the first shot too and by a wide margin.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-24-2019   #65
nzeeman
Registered User
 
nzeeman's Avatar
 
nzeeman is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: belgrade
Age: 39
Posts: 1,194
everything that is made from stone looks like plastic in nowadays cameras-too much detail in new sensors... i like a bit more older digital sensors... and fully agree with OP about film vs digital...
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-24-2019   #66
Richard G
Registered User
 
Richard G's Avatar
 
Richard G is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: 37,47 S
Posts: 5,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawn View Post
It is not Acros. When they released it Fuji explained why they couldn't bring that to the earlier generations of cameras as they needed the higher resolution sensor and more powerful processor that went along with it. I had an X Pro 2 and Acros and Monochrome had different looks to them.

https://fujifilm-x.com/en-us/stories...ulation-acros/

Shawn
Thanks for the information: I’ve fallen behind in my knowledge of these. I was trying not to upgrade to the X100F. Here’s one reason to consider it.
__________________
Richard
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-24-2019   #67
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 9,025
I shoot with both film and digital cameras. And with instant film, which are different from either. It's all good to me. I get good quality from all of them.

Of course, that's not a "first impression". I've been shooting, processing, and presenting, selling film and instant film work since 1968. I've been scanning and rendering that same work since 1984. I've been working digital images out of consumer cameras since 2001 (longer for scientific instruments, but that's not applicable to the subject of artistic photography). So, over time, I've developed a lot of techniques that get me the results I want from all of them.

As with everything, first impressions are just that: first, not final. If you don't put the time and work in to learn the medium, the processing, etc, you'll be stuck with a first impression forever... Don't let a first impression be your last.

G
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-24-2019   #68
farlymac
PF McFarland
 
farlymac's Avatar
 
farlymac is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Roanoke, VA
Posts: 6,172
I've found that it takes a bit of experimenting to get the look you want with digital files, Mark. Possibly also shooting everything in RAW, which I've yet to do. And if you have a lab do your film scanning, they could be doing corrections that are giving you a false sense of accomplishment. I always tell them I want no corrections so I can tell when the camera or myself are to blame for over and under exposures and such. Especially since they could always over tweek a roll so that it's impossible to correct the scan back to a more neutral state.


PF
__________________
Waiting for the light
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-25-2019   #69
helenhill
Chasing Shadows ... Light
 
helenhill's Avatar
 
helenhill is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Location: New Yawk
Posts: 5,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelwj View Post
Agreed. Take a look at @helenhill’s latest addition to the X100 images thread. Beautiful black and white digital.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto View Post
Helen's work is gorgeous. There's a few others in that thread with nice BW images, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelwj View Post
This was the one I was thinking about. Beautiful. I wish I could do that with any camera.
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/for...postcount=2471
Just saw this...
Extraordinarily Kind, Touched indeed !
Thanks ever so much Michael and Chris

Overall I still prefer the Imperfections of Film but as of late have really been Enjoying digital. Certaiinly it has a look all it’s own, thats the Beauty so I try and bring out it’s own rather special atmosphere.
Oddly , I treat it not that much different than PP with film... nail expisure, a tweak in hilight, a tweak in shadow, sometimes a tweak in contrast
I don’t touch much else in PP. Just go for the way I ‘saw’ the Photo, the way I want it to ‘feel’.
All in Good Fun
__________________
Flickr.

________________________
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-25-2019   #70
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 9,025
Quote:
Originally Posted by helenhill View Post
Just saw this...
Extraordinarily Kind, Touched indeed !
Thanks ever so much Michael and Chris

Overall I still prefer the Imperfections of Film but as of late have really been Enjoying digital. Certaiinly it has a look all it’s own, thats the Beauty so I try and bring out it’s own rather special atmosphere.
Oddly , I treat it not that much different than PP with film... nail exposure, a tweak in hilight, a tweak in shadow, sometimes a tweak in contrast
I don’t touch much else in PP. Just go for the way I ‘saw’ the Photo, the way I want it to ‘feel’.
All in Good Fun
Yes.
Good to hear from you, Helen! I always love your photos!

G

  Reply With Quote

Old 03-25-2019   #71
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Atherton View Post
This is the crux of the issue: film has be to be converted to digital, so on the internet film cannot reasonably be compared to digital. However hard one tries film converted to digital is one step removed from its origin.

...
This is a fundamental, important point.

Internet image viewing is a nightmare. The effective MTF50 is significantly degraded by compression requirements. But this is trivial compared to the unavoidable, unknowable variations in viewing circumstances.

Eliminating compression effects and optimized screen viewing cannot eliminate the core problem.

There are inherent flaws in all mathematical models that transform continuous phenomena into a binary framework. The impacts of this issue can be negligible. But they are not zero. Often digital images are unintentionally undermined by improper technique.[1] Still, anytime we digitize film media we have abandoned the analog domain. The result is not a copy. It is a only a model for the original. The compromises are usually acceptable compared to the advantages of digital image rendering, storage and distribution.

Avoiding analog media altogether does not eliminate the fundamental problems of modeling human visual perception using binary methods. It use to bother me it's possible to take a digital image with a very high system MTF50 and simulate film image properties such as grain, development induced contrast effects, base-plus fogging and handling blemishes. Simulation may be derivative and therefore inferior, but it is not pointless.

Digital printing is another step where the impossible is attempted. Binary information must be transformed to represent continuous information. Fortunately, viewing distance is a powerful equalizer. Advances in printer technologies, media and paper formulations are significant. But it is not a simple, convenient process to make an excellent digital print.

These issues are exacerbated by the relatively low IQ of 35 mm film. If large negative photography became the standard after WW-II, preferences for analog photography could be different because visual perception of large-negative images are more similar to contemporary digital images.


1. Here's a study that "...demonstrate[s] methodologies, preferably analytical ones, for establishing and verifying digital imaging requirements for scanning resolution of photographic negatives and slides."
__________________
Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form.
Garry Winogrand
williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-25-2019   #72
markjwyatt
Registered User
 
markjwyatt's Avatar
 
markjwyatt is offline
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Southern California
Posts: 538
Quote:
Originally Posted by willie_901 View Post
This is a fundamental, important point.

Internet image viewing is a nightmare. The effective MTF50 is significantly degraded by compression requirements. But this is trivial compared to the unavoidable, unknowable variations in viewing circumstances.

Eliminating compression effects and optimized screen viewing cannot eliminate the core problem.

There are inherent flaws in all mathematical models that transform continuous phenomena into a binary framework. The impacts of this issue can be negligible. But they are not zero. Often digital images are unintentionally undermined by improper technique.[1] Still, anytime we digitize film media we have abandoned the analog domain. The result is not a copy. It is a only a model for the original. The compromises are usually acceptable compared to the advantages of digital image rendering, storage and distribution.

Avoiding analog media altogether does not eliminate the fundamental problems of modeling human visual perception using binary methods. It use to bother me it's possible to take a digital image with a very high system MTF50 and simulate film image properties such as grain, development induced contrast effects, base-plus fogging and handling blemishes. Simulation may be derivative and therefore inferior, but it is not pointless.

Digital printing is another step where the impossible is attempted. Binary information must be transformed to represent continuous information. Fortunately, viewing distance is a powerful equalizer. Advances in printer technologies, media and paper formulations are significant. But it is not a simple, convenient process to make an excellent digital print.

These issues are exacerbated by the relatively low IQ of 35 mm film. If large negative photography became the standard after WW-II, preferences for analog photography could be different because visual perception of large-negative images are more similar to contemporary digital images.


1. Here's a study that "...demonstrate[s] methodologies, preferably analytical ones, for establishing and verifying digital imaging requirements for scanning resolution of photographic negatives and slides."
translation: it ain't easy, but it kind of works.
__________________
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/markjwyatt/
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-25-2019   #73
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 9,025
I suspect that where you used the term "binary" you really meant "discrete", because binary is not an antonym of continuous.

G

Quote:
Originally Posted by willie_901 View Post
This is a fundamental, important point.

Internet image viewing is a nightmare. The effective MTF50 is significantly degraded by compression requirements. But this is trivial compared to the unavoidable, unknowable variations in viewing circumstances.

Eliminating compression effects and optimized screen viewing cannot eliminate the core problem.

There are inherent flaws in all mathematical models that transform continuous phenomena into a binary framework. The impacts of this issue can be negligible. But they are not zero. Often digital images are unintentionally undermined by improper technique.[1] Still, anytime we digitize film media we have abandoned the analog domain. The result is not a copy. It is a only a model for the original. The compromises are usually acceptable compared to the advantages of digital image rendering, storage and distribution.

Avoiding analog media altogether does not eliminate the fundamental problems of modeling human visual perception using binary methods. It use to bother me it's possible to take a digital image with a very high system MTF50 and simulate film image properties such as grain, development induced contrast effects, base-plus fogging and handling blemishes. Simulation may be derivative and therefore inferior, but it is not pointless.

Digital printing is another step where the impossible is attempted. Binary information must be transformed to represent continuous information. Fortunately, viewing distance is a powerful equalizer. Advances in printer technologies, media and paper formulations are significant. But it is not a simple, convenient process to make an excellent digital print.

These issues are exacerbated by the relatively low IQ of 35 mm film. If large negative photography became the standard after WW-II, preferences for analog photography could be different because visual perception of large-negative images are more similar to contemporary digital images.


1. Here's a study that "...demonstrate[s] methodologies, preferably analytical ones, for establishing and verifying digital imaging requirements for scanning resolution of photographic negatives and slides."
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-25-2019   #74
helenhill
Chasing Shadows ... Light
 
helenhill's Avatar
 
helenhill is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Location: New Yawk
Posts: 5,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
Yes.
Good to hear from you, Helen! I always love your photos!

G

Sweet, LOVE it G ... Good to 'see' YOU
xo !
__________________
Flickr.

________________________
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-26-2019   #75
olifaunt
Registered User
 
olifaunt is offline
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by nzeeman View Post
everything that is made from stone looks like plastic in nowadays cameras-too much detail in new sensors... i like a bit more older digital sensors... and fully agree with OP about film vs digital...
Yeah I find digital imaging even today to be really bad at textures, especially in black and white. Plasticky or oily (as in rocks seemingly covered with grease) comes to mind. Even a clear sky never looks that faky smoothed over in real life, and indeed, the skies in all the sample images jump out as unacceptable to me. Tonalities just always look off. Color images are either too drab or some colors are too loud - I seldom see any digital image with pleasingly balanced colors.

I don't mean the grain you see in scans of film - good film prints seldom have visible grain, but they have tons more and better tonality. None of that plastic look.

Some older CCD sensors indeed have a rep as being a little better.

Sure one can massage digital images to look halfway decent and I do that - takes tons of work... Color film is work too but is pretty much effortless in comparison. The opportunity cost of digital (hours lost editing) makes it a more expensive option than film for me.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-26-2019   #76
retinax
Registered User
 
retinax is online now
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 872
Quote:
Originally Posted by olifaunt View Post
Yeah I find digital imaging even today to be really bad at textures, especially in black and white. Plasticky or oily (as in rocks seemingly covered with grease) comes to mind. Even a clear sky never looks that faky smoothed over in real life, and indeed, the skies in all the sample images jump out as unacceptable to me. Tonalities just always look off. Color images are either too drab or some colors are too loud - I seldom see any digital image with pleasingly balanced colors.

I don't mean the grain you see in scans of film - good film prints seldom have visible grain, but they have tons more and better tonality. None of that plastic look.

Some older CCD sensors indeed have a rep as being a little better.

Sure one can massage digital images to look halfway decent and I do that - takes tons of work... Color film is work too but is pretty much effortless in comparison. The opportunity cost of digital (hours lost editing) makes it a more expensive option than film for me.

I agree with your points about color. Getting digital color right is really really hard.
I can't follow your argument about black and white though. Especially if we're talking about looking at pictures on a computer screen, that only underwent different steps before they were digitized, but now are all digital. I, too, mostly prefer the appearance of film when things are printed but don't care for most scanned small formats because of grain aliasing. If it's not about grain, what is it then? Can you explain in more detail or better yet, give examples? I could understand if you mean effects of noise reduction, sharpening, "clarity" and jpeg compression, and contrast/dynamic range issues than can often be solved with exposure, processing and dodging and burning. Can you definitely rule these out? I do see some of these in some of the shots posted in this thread, but I don't see them as problems inherent to digital capture but rather is technical challenges.

I'm not trying to antagonize anyone, for disclosure, I only shoot film presently, but I'd like for us to get as concrete as possible about these things in order to learn something about perception, aesthetics and practical image processing.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-26-2019   #77
nzeeman
Registered User
 
nzeeman's Avatar
 
nzeeman is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: belgrade
Age: 39
Posts: 1,194
i think he meant same as me-that we have more detail in digital than eye can resolve in reality so it comes unnatural... same giesy for 4k tv or biggest fps rates of video... our eyes work in lower frequencies so image with high fps look like they are sliding/slipping... hard to explain if you dont notice and especially since english is not my mother tongue ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by retinax View Post
I agree with your points about color. Getting digital color right is really really hard.
I can't follow your argument about black and white though. Especially if we're talking about looking at pictures on a computer screen, that only underwent different steps before they were digitized, but now are all digital. I, too, mostly prefer the appearance of film when things are printed but don't care for most scanned small formats because of grain aliasing. If it's not about grain, what is it then? Can you explain in more detail or better yet, give examples? I could understand if you mean effects of noise reduction, sharpening, "clarity" and jpeg compression, and contrast/dynamic range issues than can often be solved with exposure, processing and dodging and burning. Can you definitely rule these out? I do see some of these in some of the shots posted in this thread, but I don't see them as problems inherent to digital capture but rather is technical challenges.

I'm not trying to antagonize anyone, for disclosure, I only shoot film presently, but I'd like for us to get as concrete as possible about these things in order to learn something about perception, aesthetics and practical image processing.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-26-2019   #78
retinax
Registered User
 
retinax is online now
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 872
Quote:
Originally Posted by nzeeman View Post
i think he meant same as me-that we have more detail in digital than eye can resolve in reality so it comes unnatural... same giesy for 4k tv or biggest fps rates of video... our eyes work in lower frequencies so image with high fps look like they are sliding/slipping... hard to explain if you dont notice and especially since english is not my mother tongue ...

Hmm motion picture aside, if you can see less detail in nature than in digital images in web resolution on a computer screen, you might need (new) glasses. Or are we talking about oversharpened detail that throws itself at the viewer? That's not inherent in the medium. It's a given that w.r.t. detail smaller digital formats look more like typical medium format film. Do larger film formats look equally unnatural for you? In any case, getting rid of detail is easy. Lens selection, digital blurring and fake grain in pp... I have little experience with simulating grain, but matching the grain aliasing from medium resolution film scans like in this thread is easy. These seem to be separate points from Olifaunt's who said it's not about the grain, though. And he talked about skies, so not about detail either.
I'm not sure why I as a film user find myself challenging arguments against digital here, I guess I want to hear the right arguments for film (and that the look can't be replicated digitally is't it IMHO), vagueness goes against my grain (ha!), as does when people don't fully explore the possibilities of the medium before judging it. Hope I'm not driving this thread further toward the dreaded film-vs-digital-debate.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-26-2019   #79
olifaunt
Registered User
 
olifaunt is offline
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by retinax View Post
I agree with your points about color. Getting digital color right is really really hard.
I can't follow your argument about black and white though. Especially if we're talking about looking at pictures on a computer screen, that only underwent different steps before they were digitized, but now are all digital. I, too, mostly prefer the appearance of film when things are printed but don't care for most scanned small formats because of grain aliasing. If it's not about grain, what is it then? Can you explain in more detail or better yet, give examples? I could understand if you mean effects of noise reduction, sharpening, "clarity" and jpeg compression, and contrast/dynamic range issues than can often be solved with exposure, processing and dodging and burning. Can you definitely rule these out? I do see some of these in some of the shots posted in this thread, but I don't see them as problems inherent to digital capture but rather is technical challenges.

I'm not trying to antagonize anyone, for disclosure, I only shoot film presently, but I'd like for us to get as concrete as possible about these things in order to learn something about perception, aesthetics and practical image processing.
This is all speculation:

I think bad scanning complicates things. The Capitol film picture posted here seems like a bad scan so it is not helpful. At that size you really shouldn't see any visible grain in a good scan of hp5-400 film, which I assume it is. My normally exposed and developed trix 400 or portra 400 don't show grain viewed at that size.

One big difference with digital I find is that, for example, in negative film there is always detail present in whites and you can see it in a good scan as slight tonality variation even in "blown-out" areas. If you magnify a good scan you can usually see some grain even in the whitest whites (meaning they are not "blown" as in digital), but I am not talking about this grain itself but rather slight variations on a larger scale in the grain density, which gives slight tonal variation. One doesn't usually pick up these variations consciously (it might just look like even white) but I tend to notice when it is not there, most obviously in blown areas of digital photos, but also in other smoothed areas of many digital photos. Not all digital photos...

Even the clearest blue sky, for example, is not smooth in real life - there are slight random local tonal variations. Some of it is the actual sky - after all, stars flicker at night because of constant random fluctuations in optical properties of air - and some is randomness in the visual system. I think film either reproduces this or has very slight random variations in texture that looks like this. Most digital photos I see have this NR-ed out of existence.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-26-2019   #80
Ronald M
Registered User
 
Ronald M is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,491
I have many digital and film cameras. Leica M, and Pro Nikons. F2 Nikons and M6 are fun and my skill comes out in the darkroom. Digital is nice for color and cookbook mono.

Any bozo can make digi photos and they can be acceptable. A decent darkroom mono print is an acquired skill mastered by only a few.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:39.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.