|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/05/2004 05:17:05 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Looking at some recent film shots I start wondering if I'm getting bored of the technically lifeless digital 'feel' The obsession about perfectly noiseless images (neat image et al) the absolutely correct colour balance, crisply sharp, infinite depth of field.
It starts feeling soul destroying.
|
Digital is just different. I remember a lot of the same type of arguments when Fuji came out with Velvia, one of the first really saturated slide films.
|
|
|
|
07/05/2004 05:25:48 PM · #102 |
Another random thought for consideration. It seems likely, for the mainstream, that still cameras (digital or otherwise) will probably dissappear in 10 years or so, replaced with video camera and single frame selection.
The resolution/ frame rate is almost there now as it is - it won't take a whole lot longer before video capture is high enough resolution for most print needs - yes the fundamentals are different - but the end results will be the same.
|
|
|
|
07/05/2004 05:42:03 PM · #103 |
Gordon, you crack me up :)
I think i have already told you in a much earlier post (like a year ago) and gotten into heated discussion with you and mag9999 about velvia film versus digital and how it's reallyd ifficult to achieve film quality images (in terms of depth and "soulness") with digital cameras :) with you and mag saying that i was wrong and that increasing saturation and tone will achieve this....
Glad to see you have moved to the right side :-)
BTW, take a look at the NIK filters (don't know their website, search for NIK multimedia). Their pro version has a ton of photoshop filters, one of them, PRO CONTRAST, has restored my hope in digital :) Getting more film like results with that contrast imaginer.
Also, my wife got a D70 recently -- the photos on the D70 is more neutral tone and more film like than my 10D. I am not sure why, still trying to figure it out. I think the problem with 10D is that it tends to shift toward the warm side and creating that digital photo look.
(BTW, i like the venetian shots)
Tony
|
|
|
|
07/05/2004 05:48:40 PM · #104 |
here it is, NIK multimedia:
//www.nikmultimedia.com/index/usa/entry.php?
The photo effects have some really nifty filters (pro contrast is one of the best ones).
|
|
|
|
07/05/2004 05:58:11 PM · #105 |
Best way to learn about things is to talk about 'em :) The vegas/ Venetian images were with a $20 fully auto camera. Worked out quite well...
Message edited by author 2004-07-05 17:59:22. |
|
|
|
07/05/2004 06:14:58 PM · #106 |
Just my 2c on this topic..
I took some photos with my old Kodak D50 that had a great deal of 'soul' if that is taken to mean feeling, emotion etc. And that was a digital with some serious colour shift issues, low resolution (0.3M) and doubtable optics. Equally I think that camera took some of the worst photos I've ever seen.
I can say the same for my OM10 which I loved like an only child, the MjuII I took everywhere with me, the Nikon coolpix 2500, and the G5. Although I suppose to some extent modern digitals do have the potential to 'clean' the soul from some shots, it is still just a small part of the process in the scheme of things.
Light, Mood, Time and place are all far more important parts of an image than the bit of metal and plastic you point at people.
|
|
|
|
07/05/2004 06:17:48 PM · #107 |
You're right about resolution. But there are qualities in film that i have not seen a d rebel produces, nor a 10d for that matter. It has less to do with noise and sharpnessa nd more to do with colors and color saturation and contrast (film can retain far more details at the highlights than digital, by the way), unless your goal of photography is point cameras at a resolution chart.
Personally i'd like to see what the FUJI S3 would do shortly. It suposed to have two sensors at each pixel location to preserve highlights. Given S2 performance (great skin tones, much closer to film on skin tones tha ihave seen in any digital camera), it'd be interesting on their next gen camera.
Originally posted by doctornick:
That's an inaccurate statement. The 11 MP Canon 1Ds can capture a LOT more detail than 35mm film can. And do it at any ISO. Let me quote Michael Reichmann from Luminous Landscape:
"Here's what I see on prints, not just on the JPGs that I've created for this page, but real-world 11X17" and 13X19" prints made on an Epson 2200. In any print size up to 13X19" (Super A3), prints made from the 1Ds are sharper and have less grain than those from 35mm or 645 film scans. There is no area in which 35mm film scans are superior, and the 645 scan is only superior in terms of its ability to make prints larger than 13X19"."
And the 8MP DSLR's like the 1D MII produce prints with a LOT LESS noise at any ISO than film at the same ISO. In fact my lowly Digital Rebel produces images that are a LOT LESS noisy at any ISO than film. I've done the comparison by shooting my Elan II with ISO 400 Kodak Gold and my Rebel at ISO 400, there is NO comparison, the DSLR wins hands down. |
|
|
|
|
07/05/2004 06:32:11 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by melismatica:
The persistance of vinyl recordings decades after the release of CD's is testament to this. If you doubt that there are people purchasing turntables, styluses, and vinyl I am here to attest that they do. My husband manages a privately owned stereo store that sells new and used turntables and a wide range of styluses to people of all ages.
|
There will always be film, but it, like vinyl records and turntables are now, will gradually become a specialty industry that caters to a select few. I'm sure that there is a market for turntables and styluses, but that the sales volume of CD players and CDs far outweighs that of turntables and Vinyl LP's. |
I did not mean to imply that vinyl is as popular as CD. That is ludicrous. For the past few years we have been telling folks that if they are going to spend big money on a television they should be sure it is a high definition set because by 2006 all stations will be required to convert to HD signal. We also try to sell Super Audio CD as much as possible, depsite the fact that there aren't a lot of Super Audio CDs available.
(This part was edited in--my thoughts got ahead of my typing) We are in the business of making money and have managed to survive through the opening (and closing) of several big box businesses, the current competitor being Best Buy. The reason we sell turntables, styluses, etc, is because people buy them in enough quantity throughout the year to justify stocking them and re-stocking them. The home theater and audio business gives one first hand experience with the fallibility of trade magazine predictions.
My point was that a few decades ago, people were predicting the obsolecense of vinyl just as now they are predicting the obsolecense of film. Vinyl is in no way obsolete. I'm not offended by someone's preference for digital over film--it is understandable. As I've repeated many times, my presence on this site and in the challenges attests to my own satisfaction with digital. However, I'm a logical person and illogical debate of a premise which bases its foundation on surmise, no matter how impassioned, irritates me.
The fact that certain industries such as the medical industry has switched to digital surprises me not in the least.There will always be losses in an industry as diverse as photography. However, there is a thriving photographic community out there who depend on film for their art. It was once predicted that photography would destroy paint as a medium. After more than a century of photography there are no signs that folks have quit buying paint, brushes, turpentine, linseed oil, and the like.
My daughter's best friend, who only just turned 17, is an avid b&w film photographer with a bias against digital. He won the Silver in this year's National Scholastic Photography contest. In a recent issue of one of my photo mags (it might have been Popular Photography) there was a letter from an impassioned 16 year-old against digital photography. I'm not saying I agreed with the young man's statements. I only offer these two examples as evidence that there are new film photographers emerging every day.
There is room for both in the world. I don't understand the stubborn insinstance that film is a dying medium.
It may already have been surpassed financially by digital, for all I know, but that does not equal extintion or even obscurity.
Message edited by author 2004-07-05 18:42:26. |
|
|
|
07/05/2004 06:50:13 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
This has almost come full circle :) It may be technically cleaner and noise free - but is that aesthetically better ? or just more technically sterile. As more and more effort is made to entirely remove any visible side-effect of the capture media on the resultant image - does that improve photography ? In every possible way, without any disadvantages at all ?
There is a current fashion for high grain 'reportage' style wedding photography - typically B&W, typically heavily grainy, certainly not the best for large reproduction. Digital could easily be enlarged a whole lot more, with a whole lot less noise - yet people pay a lot of money to reject that digitally lifeless, perfectly noiseless result and desire the noisey, grainy, imperfect film results.
You could go back and approximate that in each case with a lot of post processing - seems like a lot of extra work for no real reason ? |
Gordon, a competent film photographer can alter the 'feel' of his/her shots depending on a multitude of things from film type, speed, brand, age to lighting, settings, time of day, and still from camera settings, model, lens, etc etc
Likewise a competent digital photographer will use in-camera settings / filters and basically tips 'n' tricks to get the effect he/she or how the client wants it.
So I can't agree 100% on your film has different feel to digital - to me in my experience it comes down to paper more than anything. A glamour shot of Mrs Spears in OK! Magazine will look pretty much the same whether taken on film or CCD.
But get a decent print framed or in your hands and sometimes it becomes more obvious.
It all depends on the shot, location and how it is finally delivered.
Saying that, compare on of your own film shots with feel, then go shoot some Ilford B&W and develop it yourself and come back and tell me how much feel you have then ;) I am sure you'll love it.
Self processed pictures inhert feel that the Fuji et al printers can't match.
My plans are basicaly to get 100% confident etc with my digital SLR, then perhap next year or a couple of years down the road, buy a film SLR and master that.
Once that is done, I would like to develop my own prints.
Kind of a backwards way to do it, but to me anyway, the easiest.
I look forward to the day when I regain my excitement of getting prints back, not being able to see them beforehand and delete them, and take pride in my judgement of the situation and it's results (hopefully).
That is one feeling that digital will never match.
Well, that's my 2 pence worth anyway ;)
Reagrds
JP
|
|
|
|
07/05/2004 08:07:43 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
It starts feeling soul destroying.
|
To me, it helps me feed my soul, because I would not be photographing anything otherwise.
Quite simply, if I were to return to film, a medium that I do love, I would be unable to retain the level of control that I would need to have for it to be as satisfying as I know it can be. I have neither the space, nor the money to invest in a darkroom capable of producing images to my satisfaction.
I know there are custom labs that can do wonders, but it is not the same.
I also don't have to worry about allergic reactions to the requisite chemicals. I know some photographers that can't even go to the film lab without breaking out in hives from the chemicals.
That said, I will probably buy a film camera in the near future.
Gordon, maybe you need to spend some more time shooting film to get your mojo back. My suggestion is to buy a used 2 1/4 camera, nothing fancy, something like a Yashica TLR, whatever you get, don't spend more than a couple hundred. Go shoot some film, Plus X, TriX, maybe even some Kodachrome. Meter by the seat of your pants or get a cheap incident light meter. Have fun. Be sure to share, both the images and your experiences.
|
|
|
|
07/06/2004 01:16:44 PM · #111 |
Gordon,
I have been trying to articulate why I agree with you since finding this thread last Friday afternoon.
For me, the "soul" of photography can be found in the work of masters such as Henri Cartier-Bresson, Sebastião Salgado, and even Helmut Newton. If you go back and look at some of this work now you will find many flaws that resulted from the use of film. But, because we understood and expected these flaws, we looked past these flaws and marveled at the moment of life or imagination that the photographer was able to capture. Today the focus seems to be on technical execution and we have many images that are technically excellent but have little meaning.
There is hope, not only in the technology but also in how photographers will apply it. There is a portrait in the June Free Study that blew me away... you can have soul with digital. There are also some tools, such as the new Leica/Panasonic camera, that focus on the character of the image rather than just racing to have the biggest features list.
My recommendation, create some technical limitations and give your creative side a boost. Shot with a prime. Shoot jpg and don't post process.
I still have not found a digital flow to match the experience of shooting with a manual 35mm, and it shows in my images, but I keep trying. Please keep pushing yourself because I enjoy looking at your photographs.
|
|
|
|
07/06/2004 02:19:39 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Gordon:
It starts feeling soul destroying.
|
Gordon, maybe you need to spend some more time shooting film to get your mojo back. My suggestion is to buy a used 2 1/4 camera, nothing fancy, something like a Yashica TLR, whatever you get, don't spend more than a couple hundred. Go shoot some film, Plus X, TriX, maybe even some Kodachrome. Meter by the seat of your pants or get a cheap incident light meter. Have fun. Be sure to share, both the images and your experiences. |
You can also get a Seagull TLR for $200 (even less on eBay) at Ritz.
I have my eye on one. I started with my dad's Yashika TLR and loved it at the time. I used to have to guess at exposure using the guidelines on the inside of the film box. I didn't have a hand held light meter, even! LOL!
I took some nice photos with that camera until the viewfinder cracked.
Message edited by author 2004-07-06 14:20:24. |
|
|
|
07/06/2004 03:37:42 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by melismatica:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Gordon:
It starts feeling soul destroying.
|
Gordon, maybe you need to spend some more time shooting film to get your mojo back. My suggestion is to buy a used 2 1/4 camera, nothing fancy, something like a Yashica TLR, whatever you get, don't spend more than a couple hundred. Go shoot some film, Plus X, TriX, maybe even some Kodachrome. Meter by the seat of your pants or get a cheap incident light meter. Have fun. Be sure to share, both the images and your experiences. |
You can also get a Seagull TLR for $200 (even less on eBay) at Ritz.
I have my eye on one. I started with my dad's Yashika TLR and loved it at the time. I used to have to guess at exposure using the guidelines on the inside of the film box. I didn't have a hand held light meter, even! LOL!
I took some nice photos with that camera until the viewfinder cracked. |
I was looking at the Seagull a couple of days ago and almost bought it. It looks like a lot of fun, but I don't have a darkroom anymore which would make printing difficult. I have had the itch for an all manual something lately.. Leica M or simple TLR... anything that only has controls for focus, aperture, and shutter speed.
|
|
|
|
07/06/2004 04:05:23 PM · #114 |
I think what Gordon is saying (and what most of you missed the target) is that the amount of work to get a usable digital image versus one from film is a lot greater.
As example, here's my typical digital workflow:
1. Convert file from RAW via CaptureOne LE -- adjust white balance, and exposure. Set contrast to the lowest point to preserve midtone values.
2. Get Photoshop CS. Adjust contrast and saturation, levels, whatever.
3. Size, and sharpen.
here's film's step:
1. Take the film to the lab, develop a contact sheet, you're done.
As far as people on this list who are saying that digitla gives you more control -- that's a bunch of bullcrap (or bullocks for you Brits). Try overexposing 1 stop on digital and see what happens, no amount of post processing can save your ass. Do that on color print film and you're still fine. Film has far more latitude with exposure than digital.
Oh by the way, when you push film and expose the dark areas, you don't get freaking random color nosie, you just get grain which is a lot more pleasant to the eyes.
The most important point of what Gordon is saying and that I agree with, is that it's really difficult to post process a digital image to be film like.
Here's a dude in Austin who shoots film (i think he now works for Texas monthly):
//www.peteryang.com/
Check out the fashion + portrait section. I haven't seen a digital camera that can produce color and depth of those images.
|
|
|
|
07/06/2004 04:10:56 PM · #115 |
| photoshop cs's new shadows/highlight filter is great in bringing back the detail to the image even in overexposed areas. perhaps it is not as great as film would capture but still you can retain detail back even from an overexposed image.. |
|
|
|
07/06/2004 05:01:08 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by paganini:
I think what Gordon is saying (and what most of you missed the target) is that the amount of work to get a usable digital image versus one from film is a lot greater.
As example, here's my typical digital workflow:
1. Convert file from RAW via CaptureOne LE -- adjust white balance, and exposure. Set contrast to the lowest point to preserve midtone values.
2. Get Photoshop CS. Adjust contrast and saturation, levels, whatever.
3. Size, and sharpen.
here's film's step:
1. Take the film to the lab, develop a contact sheet, you're done.
As far as people on this list who are saying that digitla gives you more control -- that's a bunch of bullcrap (or bullocks for you Brits). Try overexposing 1 stop on digital and see what happens, no amount of post processing can save your ass. Do that on color print film and you're still fine. Film has far more latitude with exposure than digital.
Oh by the way, when you push film and expose the dark areas, you don't get freaking random color nosie, you just get grain which is a lot more pleasant to the eyes.
The most important point of what Gordon is saying and that I agree with, is that it's really difficult to post process a digital image to be film like.
Here's a dude in Austin who shoots film (i think he now works for Texas monthly):
//www.peteryang.com/
Check out the fashion + portrait section. I haven't seen a digital camera that can produce color and depth of those images. |
Are we assuming that the final goal is a digital image?
If I remember correctly, and it's been a few years, I spent far more time developing and printing in the darkroom while using film. I really enjoyed my time in the darkroom, but it was a lot of work.
I do agree with you on the point about noise vs grain. Grain was actually desired in some situations but noise is different and is almost always ugly.
|
|
|
|
07/06/2004 05:49:42 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
In that respect I was trying to say that the pursuit of technical perfection, such that the medium of digital capture is not present in the images in any way, leads to a souless medium - not souless images. |
This reminds me a lot of the arguements when CDs came around. To my mind, it's not the digital medium, it's the "pursuit of technical perfection" that is the culprit. With digital media of any kind, it is possible, with the aid of a computer, to "perfect" it. In the western, corporate world (at least the one I live in), if it can be perfected it should be. Anything else is negligent. This is the way we want (and expect) our music, our movies, our photos... (or at least that is what the record and movie industry execs have led us to believe we want...)
With analog there is a sense of forgiveness - well, that's life! But with digital, there is no excuse: you can edit out the life.
But only if you choose to!
I suggest you listen to the directory commentaries of George Lucas on Episode I and compare/contrast with Peter Jackson's commentary on Fellowship of the Ring. I find Lucas' approach to be depressing in the manner that you've commented on, but Jackson seems to have found a way to leave the life in. |
|
|
|
07/06/2004 06:20:02 PM · #118 |
I really think it depends on what final results you want, what it is that you are trying to communicate. A technically perfect image is just as appropriate when you want nothing to interfere with the image itself. In this case the soul or importance of the image strictly comes from the image itself and the photographer's ability to create his/her vision. Grain, noise, color characteristics and lens distortions might add a lot of charater to an image but they very well might detract from the character that is already present in an image. A beautiful lanscape may require perfect execution in capturing the image and editing techniques whereas a portrait may require special characteristics from lenses, type of film or digital sensors, and editing or printing methods to produce a memorable image.
T
|
|
|
|
07/06/2004 06:39:05 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by Nusbaum:
I was looking at the Seagull a couple of days ago and almost bought it. It looks like a lot of fun, but I don't have a darkroom anymore which would make printing difficult. I have had the itch for an all manual something lately.. Leica M or simple TLR... anything that only has controls for focus, aperture, and shutter speed. |
There is probably a photo lab in your area that will make prints. I briefly owned a Fuji 6X9 and I got prints made pretty cheaply at the lab a few blocks from my house. I had the envelope handy so I can quote the price. It was $4.99 for developing and .50 cents a print so the total was $9.08 for seven small prints (it turned out to be a little cheaper to have prints made than a contact sheet. You could always just have negatives made and choose from the negatives which prints you want made. Of course, Providence is home to the Rhode Island School of Design so it makes sense for there to be a lab nearby but there must be labs in any metropolitan area. |
|
|
|
07/06/2004 06:49:37 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by joebok:
Originally posted by Gordon:
In that respect I was trying to say that the pursuit of technical perfection, such that the medium of digital capture is not present in the images in any way, leads to a souless medium - not souless images. |
This reminds me a lot of the arguements when CDs came around. To my mind, it's not the digital medium, it's the "pursuit of technical perfection" that is the culprit. With digital media of any kind, it is possible, with the aid of a computer, to "perfect" it. In the western, corporate world (at least the one I live in), if it can be perfected it should be. Anything else is negligent. This is the way we want (and expect) our music, our movies, our photos... (or at least that is what the record and movie industry execs have led us to believe we want...)
With analog there is a sense of forgiveness - well, that's life! But with digital, there is no excuse: you can edit out the life.
|
The ironic thing about this is CD is not actually perfect in terms of audio fidelity. What it is is clean. It does not record truer sound than analog, it just cleans things up a bit. Analog records with far more detail. Even then, with careless handling of CDs and DVDs, or if a CD (or DVD player) has a dirty or misaligned lens, you will get skips and distortion eventually. Super Audio CD uses improved technology but so far only audiophiles have really gotten excited about it. When selling new CD players we try to push Super Audio explaining that the unit will still play traditional CDs but the average customer doesn't want to lay out the extra cash when there aren't a lot of Super Audio CDs available yet. |
|
|
|
07/06/2004 06:55:56 PM · #121 |
Was listening/ watching an interview with Stephen Johnson yesterday (well, really early this morning)
He uses a scanning digital large format back. His main reason is the much more accurate rendition he gets from digital, particularly high-lighted was the accuracy of digital colour for glaciers (which is mostly out of gamut for a lot of film) //www.sjphoto.com/
I agree with the post that Tim had a few above this - that digital is more 'invisible' than film and that can certainly suit certain subjects more than the very apparent side effects of a lot of film capture.
Message edited by author 2004-07-07 14:29:29.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2004 02:07:56 AM · #122 |
Well aware of this filter -- however, pushing shadows will yield noise as most digital noises occur at the shadow area.
You can't reduce highlights taht you clipped to pure white :) all it does is select the high lights and reduce the level. What CS offers you can do with photoshop 7.01 with actions anyway, it's nothing special. You can never recover highlights that you don't have.
My point is that digital highlights are not sampled the same way that film sees the highlights. Digital captures MID TONES very well, but not at shadow or highlight areas. film retains MUCH MORE on those edges, as Gordon has said.
An easy way to see it: Look at a portrait with digital versus film with catch light. With digital you see the catch light as pure white then all the sudden the eye color, very displeasing. With film, you see the catch light as pure white, then you get a region of TRANSITION to the eye color, much more pleasing. You can see this with images taking on backlighting as well, digital simply doesn't do that well, the edgeswill make the photos look FAKE because it transitions abruptly with backlit subjects. With film, it transitions more smoothly because the highlights are retained. You can't recover information that youd on't already have, it's as simple as that -- no amount of digital post processing can do it other tahn to replace the catch light, edges, etc. with one of your own design. (which by the way is what some pro wedding photogs do wtih catch lights in portraits -- they replace each of them individually so that it'd look more natural).
Originally posted by theodor38:
photoshop cs's new shadows/highlight filter is great in bringing back the detail to the image even in overexposed areas. perhaps it is not as great as film would capture but still you can retain detail back even from an overexposed image.. |
|
|
|
|
07/07/2004 02:12:07 AM · #123 |
Originally posted by melismatica:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Gordon:
It starts feeling soul destroying.
|
Gordon, maybe you need to spend some more time shooting film to get your mojo back. My suggestion is to buy a used 2 1/4 camera, nothing fancy, something like a Yashica TLR, whatever you get, don't spend more than a couple hundred. Go shoot some film, Plus X, TriX, maybe even some Kodachrome. Meter by the seat of your pants or get a cheap incident light meter. Have fun. Be sure to share, both the images and your experiences. |
You can also get a Seagull TLR for $200 (even less on eBay) at Ritz.
|
I hear they are a decnt deal if you are prepared to pick up where the factory "quality" control left off. You should be prepared to go through a few copies to get a good one. That was the story I heard anyway.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2004 03:03:40 AM · #124 |
Originally posted by paganini:
An easy way to see it: Look at a portrait with digital versus film with catch light. With digital you see the catch light as pure white then all the sudden the eye color, very displeasing. With film, you see the catch light as pure white, then you get a region of TRANSITION to the eye color, much more pleasing. You can see this with images taking on backlighting as well, digital simply doesn't do that well, the edgeswill make the photos look FAKE because it transitions abruptly with backlit subjects. With film, it transitions more smoothly because the highlights are retained. You can't recover information that youd on't already have, it's as simple as that -- no amount of digital post processing can do it other tahn to replace the catch light, edges, etc. with one of your own design. (which by the way is what some pro wedding photogs do wtih catch lights in portraits -- they replace each of them individually so that it'd look more natural).
|
I just uploaded (earlier this afternoon--or I should say yesterday afternoon) some scans of older film work of mine. Mostly candids of my kids. But here is a close-up of my son that has a nice catchlight. I continue to love this shot and he is now 15 1/2.
Message edited by author 2004-07-07 03:06:59. |
|
|
|
07/07/2004 02:13:31 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by paganini:
Well aware of this filter -- however, pushing shadows will yield noise as most digital noises occur at the shadow area.
You can't reduce highlights taht you clipped to pure white :) all it does is select the high lights and reduce the level. What CS offers you can do with photoshop 7.01 with actions anyway, it's nothing special. You can never recover highlights that you don't have.
My point is that digital highlights are not sampled the same way that film sees the highlights. Digital captures MID TONES very well, but not at shadow or highlight areas. film retains MUCH MORE on those edges, as Gordon has said.
An easy way to see it: Look at a portrait with digital versus film with catch light. With digital you see the catch light as pure white then all the sudden the eye color, very displeasing. With film, you see the catch light as pure white, then you get a region of TRANSITION to the eye color, much more pleasing. You can see this with images taking on backlighting as well, digital simply doesn't do that well, the edgeswill make the photos look FAKE because it transitions abruptly with backlit subjects. With film, it transitions more smoothly because the highlights are retained. You can't recover information that youd on't already have, it's as simple as that -- no amount of digital post processing can do it other tahn to replace the catch light, edges, etc. with one of your own design. (which by the way is what some pro wedding photogs do wtih catch lights in portraits -- they replace each of them individually so that it'd look more natural).
Originally posted by theodor38:
photoshop cs's new shadows/highlight filter is great in bringing back the detail to the image even in overexposed areas. perhaps it is not as great as film would capture but still you can retain detail back even from an overexposed image.. |
|
Very interesting comments! I have images from my 10D where the subject's face seems almost disconnected from the background. It almost looks like the face was selected and the altered in PS, but this is straight from the camera!
Have you looked at output from the Leica D2 / Panasonic LC1? It looks like they tuned the output to match kodacolor and tried to make noise look more like film grain. It just makes you wonder if the digital 'look' is a marketing decision rather than a technical necessity.
Message edited by author 2004-07-07 14:17:34.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/06/2025 10:04:10 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/06/2025 10:04:10 PM EDT.
|
