| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/07/2003 11:31:20 AM · #26 |
Ok. Do you know if they also support Adobe space profile embedded in JPEGs? Or is it just sRGB? (can't find it in the FAQ) Anyway, i mainly need the file to look for out of gamut colors.
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by paganini:
Is there a color profile for proofing that we can download somewhere for the printers they use?
|
They'll send you one if you ask nicely. It isn't publically available, mainly to avoid support issues from people who aren't using profiled hardware or don't do colour management properly. |
Message edited by author 2003-05-07 11:31:43. |
|
|
|
05/07/2003 11:34:36 AM · #27 |
| so is there any ink used at all? I recently had 5 16X20 prints done on a 'lightjet' printer. Basically it exposes your digital files pixel by pixel onto photographic paper using laser technology. Awesome results :) |
|
|
|
05/07/2003 11:35:22 AM · #28 |
Most print places don't support embedded profiles at all. They tend to expect the file you send them to be converted to the correct profile. Usually attaching a profile just makes the file bigger and gets thrown away by the printing machines.
I'd seriously doubt any decent printer would use sRGB, that's a (cheap) monitor profile. |
|
|
|
05/07/2003 01:18:39 PM · #29 |
So we're suppose to take the color profile we got from DPCprints and convert to it? That's it? Basically I'll get an ADOBE spaced TIFF file from the conversion process, then i adjust it, blah blah blah, and compare with the GAMUT warning given in the proof setup, right? Then i convert it to the printer's color space and save the JPEG.
By default most digicams produce sRGB spaced files.... so I think most print places will support colors in sRGB, because sRGB is very limiting and is the colors you see on the prints on DPCprints.
Originally posted by Gordon:
Most print places don't support embedded profiles at all. They tend to expect the file you send them to be converted to the correct profile. Usually attaching a profile just makes the file bigger and gets thrown away by the printing machines.
I'd seriously doubt any decent printer would use sRGB, that's a (cheap) monitor profile. |
|
|
|
|
05/07/2003 02:36:42 PM · #30 |
Check out this review of the Leica M6 at photo.net and tell me that the drum-scanned images here (scroll down) aren't somewhat better than anything you've seen from a digital camera. The closeest you could get in the digital world is something like a 1Ds with the 50mm 1.4 lens, and I haven't seen anything from that camera that rivals the dynamic range of these photographs. Please, if someone out there has examples, show them. Phil Askey's 1Ds examples are good but they don't have the richness that an M6 with Velvia can produce. Maybe it's just the hands of the operator, but everything else I've seen on the net compared to these examples (flim or digital, mind) is second-rate:
Leica M6 review
The Leica rangefinders are about as opposite from the digital aesthetic as you can get, and though I too hate film snobbery, but you've gotta love that 100% manual, small rangefinder camera with the simple, super-bright range of lenses. I'd buy one if I had the $3000 to get me started...
|
|
|
|
05/07/2003 03:12:59 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by paganini:
So we're suppose to take the color profile we got from DPCprints and convert to it? That's it? Basically I'll get an ADOBE spaced TIFF file from the conversion process, then i adjust it, blah blah blah, and compare with the GAMUT warning given in the proof setup, right? Then i convert it to the printer's color space and save the JPEG.
By default most digicams produce sRGB spaced files.... so I think most print places will support colors in sRGB, because sRGB is very limiting and is the colors you see on the prints on DPCprints.
Originally posted by Gordon:
Most print places don't support embedded profiles at all. They tend to expect the file you send them to be converted to the correct profile. Usually attaching a profile just makes the file bigger and gets thrown away by the printing machines.
I'd seriously doubt any decent printer would use sRGB, that's a (cheap) monitor profile. |
|
They support sRGB, because it is a smaller subset than what most printers actually use, so it is pretty much universally supported. sRGB is a standard set to suit cheaper end monitor phosphors which can't handle much colour saturation, but that doesn't mean you want to work in it if you don't have to. |
|
|
|
05/07/2003 03:37:19 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by BigSmiles:
so is there any ink used at all? I recently had 5 16X20 prints done on a 'lightjet' printer. Basically it exposes your digital files pixel by pixel onto photographic paper using laser technology. Awesome results :) |
This should be the same process used by DPCPrints, Ofoto, Ritz/Wolf Camera DigiPrints, etc. The most common output device is the Fuju Frontier (one reason most places are using Fuji paper). Ofoto outputs to Kodak paper, but the method is the same. |
|
|
|
05/07/2003 03:41:12 PM · #33 |
I started shooting weddings and other events recently, and when people see my Epson prints from My Nikon D1x and D100, they prefer them to what they get from other photographers. Those other photographers use Hasselblad.
Of course the prints are only up to 13"x19", but they suppose to last (according to Epson) 70-140 years depending on paper.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2003 03:54:50 PM · #34 |
I was reading a thread the other day on photo.net similar to this. It was sad and funny at the same time one guy basing his claims against digital on an Olympus c3020z or something similar. To me "film elitists" are like Trekkies-- They're off in their own world and they're usually a passive group. With very eccentric rituals and behavior. And sometimes, sometimes it's fun to poke em with a stick and laugh ;p
Message edited by author 2003-05-07 15:56:07. |
|
|
|
05/07/2003 04:15:16 PM · #35 |
| i think photographers should have both film AND digital cameras... each serves a purpose |
|
|
|
05/07/2003 05:11:59 PM · #36 |
my experience with film snobbery is that it's rooted in 2 elements:
1) ignorance of how good digital is. i've shown dyed in the wool film photogs 8x10 prints made from my e-10 on an HP inkjet glossy premium paper and their eyes have bugged out. "THAT'S digital?!" "Yup." They just didnt know how good it's gotten.
2) Protectiveness. I know a number of film photographers who are annoyed that they had to go through this huge amount of schooling and training to learn to use meters, as well as all that darkroom stuff, and suddenly everyone's shooting instant gratification digital. The learning curve is smaller with digi because you can see what you did wrong right away. They feel like people who dont use film didnt pay their dues.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2003 08:43:55 PM · #37 |
This probably has less to do with film versus digital than that the other photographer is just not as good :)
Originally posted by dimitrii:
I started shooting weddings and other events recently, and when people see my Epson prints from My Nikon D1x and D100, they prefer them to what they get from other photographers. Those other photographers use Hasselblad.
Of course the prints are only up to 13"x19", but they suppose to last (according to Epson) 70-140 years depending on paper. |
|
|
|
|
05/07/2003 10:06:20 PM · #38 |
That's a really key point...
Traditional photographers just don't see the same amount of effort being put into making a digital print, but when a really good print comes out of the darkroom, its really something.... The film photographer must not only be skilled in composition and exposure, but have good darkroom skills to produce really good-looking prints.
I remember when I first put up an online gallery, I had a film photographer who I hardly knew look at my site, and they came back saying the images were fantastic and I had talent. Shortly therefter I mentioned they were digital and the response I got back was "oh...", as if the statement he just made wasn't valid anymore. And maybe to a certain extent it isn't...how much difficult would it be to produce those same effects purely through film, compared to a little fiddling on my computer?
In any case, I've decided to go backwards and learn darkroom techniques. Not to validate myself as a photographer to the film snobs, but to gain an understanding and respect for where photography has come from, and to do a hobby I enjoy in an entirely new fashion...
And of course there are things I can't do with a digital yet, like shooting with 3200 ISO film, and making very large prints (well not with my current digital model anyway)... those are the only two I can think of really...
Does anyone think being able to shoot lots of images and get instant gratification make people pay less attention to composition? With any type of film, I'm sure a lot of thought is put in before clicking on the shutter - It could be a great learning tool at the same time :)
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
my experience with film snobbery is that it's rooted in 2 elements:
1) ignorance of how good digital is. i've shown dyed in the wool film photogs 8x10 prints made from my e-10 on an HP inkjet glossy premium paper and their eyes have bugged out. "THAT'S digital?!" "Yup." They just didnt know how good it's gotten.
2) Protectiveness. I know a number of film photographers who are annoyed that they had to go through this huge amount of schooling and training to learn to use meters, as well as all that darkroom stuff, and suddenly everyone's shooting instant gratification digital. The learning curve is smaller with digi because you can see what you did wrong right away. They feel like people who dont use film didnt pay their dues. |
|
|
|
|
05/07/2003 10:11:48 PM · #39 |
I don't necessarily think it's a question of putting more or less thought into the composition. I think it's mainly money and practice.
I've often though the difference between "pro" photographers and regular folks like myself is they shoot off ten rolls at a time, whereas I'm counting the pennies on every exposure. I actually think "snapshot" shooters probably put more thought -- or at least hesitation -- into every shot, and therefore often miss a great shot while waiting for the one they're willing to waste a frame of film on.
With digital I can shoot away, and not worry about a few crooked, ill-exposed, or otherwise deficient attempts. In fact, having lots of photos might make one more discriminating in choosing photos to share or print. |
|
|
|
05/08/2003 05:06:08 AM · #40 |
What I think gets forgotten is that film and digital photography have more in common than not.
To take really good images, consistently, you still need to understand exposure, contrast, composition, light and all the regular elements of photography.
The main difference is in producing a great photo from what has been taken - digital manipulation is one skill, darkroom manipulation is another.
I must admit that I see just as many digital snobs as I do film snobs - people who have never really explored the possibilities of film and darkroom but who feel qualified to pronounce that digital is superior because of XYZ.
I also see arguments about costs and quality - what people sometimes forget is that those digital cameras that have the resolution and controls to offer a true comparison to film are still pretty damn expensive. For those prices many can buy a low-end SLR and pay for film and processing for a long long time!
As for the issue about skill - it's been mentioned several times that a professional (film) photographer will often shoot a lot of film. That's true - but it's not always because most won't come out well and therefore it's better to shoot lots to get the one perfect shot - it's often the case that many of the resulting images are excellent but that the photographer needs to either give a lot of choices to the commissioning journal-magazine-newspaper, or that the photographer wants to be able to sell different images to different clients - images only have to be slightly different to each other to be sold individually. Of course, there are also many many film pros who do just shoot lots of film to get a few good images - there are skilled and unskilled film photographers -there are and unskilled digital photographers.
I do think that some (not all) digital users have a tendency to shoot off lots and lots of images in the hope that they get some good ones without really learning about how to acheive good results for each shot. Bracketing is used a great deal. (I am not trying to be insulting to people here on DPC, I know how many here really do put in huge efforts into learning the skills, and certainly master them, without a doubt! And I know that I'm not capable of producing either a whole film or a whole CF card of good images in any way! I'm talking generally here OK). The weakness in this method of trial and error and let's take a lot and see what happens (for both film and digital photographers) is that when an opportunity comes along that won't last more than a few seconds, there isn't time to bracket and the knowledge to choose the right settings first time around isn't there.
Anyway, I am NOT trying to defend the film snob - what I'm trying to point out is that some are just as guilty, if not more so, of being digital snobs as has been written here about film snobs!
Personally I am trying to learn about both.
I've been into film photog since I was 12 and with a few friends, set up a darkroom in a disused kiln room at school, we painted, equipped and furnished it and although we got no tuition, we did get a small amount of money from the Art teachers to buy chemicals and paper. I learnt a lot from that experience and am again back in a BW darkroom as I am taking the NCFE1 photog course during an evening class at my local college. I love the physicality of film and the process of being in a darkroom and producing the print.
I'm also really attracted by digital manipulation possibilities and have therefore been getting more into digital, and also been scanning photos taken on film so that I can manipulate them too. I've learnt huge amounts about Photoshop and other tools and tricks.
What do my digital and film photography have in common? I still forget to use the fill-in flash to reduce shadows on faces when shooting in bright sunlight. I still don't use exposure lock as often as I should. I do vary DOF but forget that I can also vary shutter speed for good effect too.
More similar than they are different.
Message edited by author 2003-05-08 05:08:55.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2006 02:58:16 PM · #41 |
|
|
|
09/08/2006 03:15:04 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Travis99:
THATS JUST CRAZY. |
What is? Digging up a 3+ year old thread? |
|
|
|
09/08/2006 03:53:49 PM · #43 |
Heheh...
Three year old thread aside.
When I was taking my photography class last winter/spring semester, there were plenty of "Film Snobs" in the school's Photography Lab. They spent all their time chatting away about all the film cameras they had and were laying their hands on and a few of them were doggin' digital at the same time.
It alost seemed like they were more interested in the "street cred" of saying, "I have shot with x" than they were in producing final prints. Then again, what do I know? That was my first photography class and some of those students in there were a few years into their photography program. |
|
|
|
09/08/2006 04:06:57 PM · #44 |
Film snobs are onto a loser here. A few years ago I would have agreed that film was a better medium, but now, with the better camera's there is no difference on prints up to A3 in size.
These film snobs bang on about image quality being the be all and end all, but if this was true, if they really thought that the image quility was the most important thing, then ask them to explain wht 35mm is seen as the standard film size, when the image quality of 35mm is not good compared to the medium and large formats.
Just ask a film snob what he shoots on, if he mentions a 35mm camera, just ask him why he aint shooting on a larger format if image quality is SO VERY IMPORTANT!!!!
I used to go to a camera club, and all the older photographers used film and swore they would never use digital, but a few years on and all but one has switched to digital. They still have their film gear, but all have been swayed by the MASSIVE benifits that digital have. |
|
|
|
09/08/2006 04:24:05 PM · #45 |
I used to be a film snob. I'll admit it. However once I really got into researching digital and the benefits it brings for the type of work i do, digital was the only real choice. My first intro into digital came in 93 when I was still in the Navy. The Sony we tested for the military was horrible and I swore never. Honestly, the quility is a non issue anymore, as is expense. I still have and love my film equipmentbut with processing costs and not knowing who is doing the printing and if they even know what they are doing, its not worth it. I've heard all the arguments and can counter everyone of them. Even medium format has gone digital and surpasses film quality. Although at a very hefty price tag, but remember that a few years ago shooting with a DSLR was out of most peoples budget, so it too will come down in price. Print longevity is also a non issue with new inks being as long lasting as film prints. Lastly, the many formats which we can put digital onto may change over the years but the industry won't and can't not support the cross reading of files. ie: CD's and such. So with all of these positives, unless a client really wants film, why shoot with it. By the way has anybody looked at the price of film lately, holy cow its gotten expensive. Reason being that the silver used in film and papers is getting harder to find. Makes you stop and think.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2006 04:30:22 PM · #46 |
Whenever I talk to people about how I like to shoot digital, the first bone-crushing comment I hear is something along the lines of: "yeah I love digital, it lets me take a bunch of pictures without worrying if they're good or not, I can just delete the crappy ones. Ah, the wonders of instant feedback." There's the problem with digital. People go out and shoot literally hundreds upon hundreds of pictures, with only 2 or 3 turning out well, 4 or 5 that they photoshop to acceptability, and the rest just crap.
With film, on the other hand, you're going to realize that you're paying for every single picture you take. This will make people actually think about pictures they're taking. Therefore, you'll most likely end up with a higher hit:miss ratio.
Also, with film, many beginners start with the most simple cameras. Fully manual, the kind of camera where you actually have to turn the knob on the lens for aperture, manual focus, etc. A lot more actual learning than just setting the camera on AV, TV, or Auto Functions.
ALSO, I went to the state fair this year, and found out that there were a ton of pictures, I can't remember exactly how many there were. Not surprisingly enough, most of the pictures entered were simple snapshots that people decided to enter because they now have a sweet 5 megapixel camera, and can print 8x10s that look good.
HOWEVER, when I went to the state fair, I was taking pictures of a scrambler at the Midway. Since I didn't bring my tripod, i set it on a fence. Someone kicked the fence while I was exposing a picture. Great, screwed up shot. Fortunately, it was digital, so I could delete it.
Digital is good if you know photography already, and for snapshots. Film is good for learning photography, the zen of darkroom, etc.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2006 04:35:06 PM · #47 |
I totally agree with you on the learning. Thats how I learned, on and old Canon F1 and an even older Vivitar 220 SL that I still have. It was my dads camera.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2006 04:52:33 PM · #48 |
Every photography lesson I've seen says (aproximately) "Above all, take lots of pictures."
For most people, that's just not economically viable with film, and deprives one of post-processing control.
I think people who want to learn and get better can do so with either film or digital. |
|
|
|
09/08/2006 05:14:28 PM · #49 |
I learned on digital, then started shooting film once and awhile and learned even more. With film you have to do everything right and you have to know you did it right. I shoot almost all digital, but I have a 1939 Balda 6x9 folder I pull out every once and awhile.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2006 05:44:47 PM · #50 |
I believe alot of the film snobs are upset with the amount of changes that can be made in the digital darkroom vs the film darkroom. I try to make the best image in my camera to avoid making any changes in the "Darkroom". That goes for both the digital or film one.
I recently switched over to a complete ditial setup and I can never see myself going back to film again. I shoot action sports for both college and high school year books and all they want now is digital photographs.
|
|
