Do digicams take "more realistic" pictures?
Joe Miller
a bit disappointed. The prints looked sort of flat, lacked "snap." But
then I took the picture to the spot where it was taken and noticed that
the world looked just the same, sort of flat (not particularly
saturated). I realized that I had become so conditioned to high
saturation, high contrast prints from film that the digital pictures
looked "wrong." Of course, it is a simple matter to make the digital
prints look like film prints with a few computer operations. Which is
better? Surely a matter of taste! But I would rather have a camera
that gave as accurate a rendition of the scene I'm looking as possible,
rather than leave it to the film manufacturer to define "reality." It's
similar to TV. We are so conditioned to the high contrast and
saturation of normal TVs, most of us probably wouldn't like one that
accuately reproduced what the eye sees. It's like the cartoon I saw of
a man sitting in front of his new large screen TV saying "I'll never
look at real life again!" Any comments?
Joe
l...@aol.com
Anonymous
Company, I will try to answer your questions.
Joe Miller <mil...@ucolick.org> said:
>When I took my first pictures with my CP 950 and printed them out, I was
>a bit disappointed. The prints looked sort of flat, lacked "snap." But
>then I took the picture to the spot where it was taken and noticed that
>the world looked just the same, sort of flat (not particularly
>saturated). I realized that I had become so conditioned to high
>saturation, high contrast prints from film that the digital pictures
>But I would rather have a camera
>that gave as accurate a rendition of the scene I'm looking as possible,
>rather than leave it to the film manufacturer to define "reality."
Digital cameras have FAR more color accuracy potential than film. It is
simple to take a set of rgb values that have passed through a camera CCD
filter defined by video standards or something close to tristimulus values
(how the eye sees the world), and mathemtically convert them to actual
tristimulus value RGB, and then through color profiles
(http://www.color.org) to any desired color space. On the other hand it is
not only difficult to design a film to do this, considering capabilities
of chemicals chemical models, and chemical vartiabilities, it requires
higher order math and knowledge of the films characteristics, in order to
reverse model scene colorimetry from film dyes if you want to scan the
films back to the original scene color. This path has been established
with PhotoCd and PrintCD, but the models have far more noise than a
digital camera model ever will. Dynamic range is not as big of an issue
that film companies make it out to be, but exposure latititude is.
>Of course, it is a simple matter to make the digital
>prints look like film prints with a few computer operations.
let's use an example, the wedding/portrait markets in the United States
have grown very accustomed to how Vericolor III VPS film prints onto a
portrait paper. You could develop a color transformation that results in
cameraRGBvalues------->VericolorRGBvalues, when you acquire your camera
image into Adobe Photoshop, you can apply this transformation to the image
and your camera image then looks like a Vericolor film wedding shot.
There are three ways to accomplish this
1) trial and error use of photoshop to develop a set of balances, very
iterative, and not quanititative
using color profiles as defined at http://www.color.org
2) you can empirically model both systems, I have tried things like this
at the Westboy Colduck Company, you run into some target issues, and
issues related to the dimensionality and processing of targets through
both the digital and photographic system, but it is purely empirical, and
requires no film specific information from a film manufacturer to pursue.
Not a canned technology, but nothing is.
3) having spectral and color design information of the camera and the
film/paper combination, you can mathematically calculate this model.
Requires information from camera maufacurer and film/paper manufurer. The
Westbof Colduck Company would never make a digital camera that spits out a
Vericolor portrait/wedding look, so this appraoch is somewhat of a moot
point, unless one of the photographic universities got involved.
I know how to do all three of the above methods.
So what about mis-exposed digital pictures, or off-color digital pictures?
The reason that film prints so
easy, is that there are scene balance algorithms that correct for exposure
and off color. If these algorithms continue to be linked to metrics
specific to film, such as the density of which the film prints on a
specific paper, then truly digital images will never print without
muddling around in photoshop for hours. In order to enable digital
workflow, scene balance algorithms in a digital non-film color space are
paramount. You will not see a film company drive these algorithms.
It is clear that the strategy of film related companies with regards to
digital, is reactionary at best. You will not see a digital camera from a
film manufacturer, before someone else releases the technology, ala
Dicomed Bigshot a couple years back. Similiary, you cannot expect them to
be leaders in true digital imaging workflows, so mark your investments
appropriately, the sale of the Elmgrave equipment plant is a clear message
that
there is no committment to digital imaging at the WestBoy Colduck Company.
It is also worth noting that said film companies have had scan-only type
films, chrome-like, no need for masking couplers, get rid of DIR, DIAR
couplers and interimage, because they complicate by adding higher order
math in the algoriothms as described above. This technology has also been
around for 10 years, and has not been commercialized at the WestBoy
Colduck Company, because just like any other non-positive film, you need
color processing algorithms available as defined above to use the film
properly, and enablement of the algroithms, means enablement of digital
workflow. So if/when you see these films, be sure to ask for the
algorithms to go with them, otherwise, the lowest priced private label
film, is still all the quality you need.
If someone like a digital camera or electrophotographic or inkjet printer
company is interested in enabling digital workflows, I am available for
consultation. I am particularly committed to enablement of digital capture
and workflow in the mass portrait markets, school pictures, etc. So if you
have a digital portrait system, and want to fiddle around with how to tack
on a digital camera, drop me a note to rec.photo.film+labs, ATTN:
Imagining Science. I could also be easily convinced not to give such
advice.
joe bensen
<mil...@ucolick.org> opened this little conceptual can of worms:
> When I took my first pictures with my CP 950 and printed them out, I was
> a bit disappointed. The prints looked sort of flat, lacked "snap." But
> then I took the picture to the spot where it was taken and noticed that
> the world looked just the same, sort of flat (not particularly
> saturated). I realized that I had become so conditioned to high
> saturation, high contrast prints from film that the digital pictures
> looked "wrong." Of course, it is a simple matter to make the digital
> prints look like film prints with a few computer operations. Which is
> better? Surely a matter of taste! But I would rather have a camera
> that gave as accurate a rendition of the scene I'm looking as possible,
> rather than leave it to the film manufacturer to define "reality." It's
> similar to TV. We are so conditioned to the high contrast and
> saturation of normal TVs, most of us probably wouldn't like one that
> accuately reproduced what the eye sees. It's like the cartoon I saw of
> a man sitting in front of his new large screen TV saying "I'll never
> look at real life again!" Any comments?
>
> Joe
Hi there.
As you suggest: "Surely a matter of taste." Pictures are NOT reality. Most
viewers assume that images (either still or moving) are some sort of
direct representation of reality. They ARE a REpresentation, but a
misquotation, at best. Photographers (well, some of them) have been
obsessively trying to replicate reality for 170 years. In my opinion, this
is a very naive venture. Some of us have accepted the simple fact that
what we do is MAKE PICTURES, and have accepted the highly subjective
nature of this pursuit. If you like the specific look you get from certain
materials and equipment, then I suppose it is "right." I switched from
Kodachrome to Velvia six or seven years ago BECAUSE Velvia was said to be
"unrealistically saturated."
I don't care about "accuracy." I don't think it is relevant to the way I
make pictures, because I am more concerned with the IMAGE that I make than
the reality it came from. If it is important to you, then you will settle
on the formulae that bring you closest to replicating the original scene.
When it comes to photography, I'm just not into making copies; I'm into
making images and statements.
That said, I believe you may be correct in your observation. The film
companies have for years been trying to "snap up" their products to create
images that match our MEMORIES of a place and an experience, not the place
and experience themselves. Because we subjectively/mentally color and
romanticize our memories, a film that PHYSICALLY romanticizes the photos
we made during that experience will produce a more pleasing picture. I
think the digital camera may be more free of this strategy.
Very good observation on your part, and a good springboard into a topic
central to the medium of photography.
cheers.....joe.
PS: Oh, what the hell -- screw the conceptual stuff, just up the contrast
and bump the saturation in PhotoShop!
--
joe bensen/WORLDVIEWS
3705 N. Boyer
Sandpoint, ID 83864
(208)255-1872
on the web at http://www.jbworldviews.net
Chuck Schuler
XGA laptop display, an above average 19" CRT, and prints. I see three
different images! Strange thing is, it's actually hard to say which is best
for all photos. Depending on contrast, brightness, colors, etc. any one
of the three could be the best for a particular shot. I wonder what reality
is (there is no easy way to go back and view the same scene in the
same light).
Joe Miller
> I wonder what reality
>
> is (there is no easy way to go back and view the same scene in the
> same light).
>
That's one of the great things about digital photography. It was a cloudless
day about noon, and only 10 minutes or so elapsed from when I took the exposure
until I stood at the same spot with the print. The light surely didn't change
much in that time.
I was using "reality" in a very simplistic way; perhaps "accuracy" would be a
better term. How accurate are the hues, saturations, and contrasts reproduced?
Even that is quite subjective, as what we see will depend on the particular
physiology of our eyes and what we have been looking at recently (saturation
effects), among other things.
Joe
SPECTRUM
rec.photo hierarchy. Frankly, we don't care !
Regards,
John S. Douglas Spectrum Photographic Inc
Photographer http://www.spectrumphoto.com
Darkroom processes, formulas, facts and information.
Weddings,portraits,commercial and stock photography
Mark Gregory
night?
Mark Gregory
Anonymous <nob...@nowhere.to> wrote in message
news:199907272030...@uni.nowhere.to...
Don Stauffer
company did a survey of users. They found that by and large people wanted
more color saturation and contrast than was actually in the scene. This
makes for what some folks call a 'snappy' picture. Consequently the film
company began to sell color films that did not produce unity gamma at the
default processing settings, rather a more saturated, contrasty result that
pleased the normal buying public. Yet some good photographers did not like
this, and still look for a film that gives a more accurate color rendering.
This problem is most true in transparency (slide) film where what you see is
what you get. With print film you can have the printer make saturation and
contrast adjustments during printing. But not slide film. So there has
been a lot of criticism over the years about the 'high gamma' slide films.
Joe Miller wrote:
> When I took my first pictures with my CP 950 and printed them out, I was
> a bit disappointed. The prints looked sort of flat, lacked "snap." But
> then I took the picture to the spot where it was taken and noticed that
> the world looked just the same, sort of flat (not particularly
> saturated). I realized that I had become so conditioned to high
> saturation, high contrast prints from film that the digital pictures
> looked "wrong." Of course, it is a simple matter to make the digital
> prints look like film prints with a few computer operations. Which is
> better? Surely a matter of taste! But I would rather have a camera
> that gave as accurate a rendition of the scene I'm looking as possible,
> rather than leave it to the film manufacturer to define "reality." It's
> similar to TV. We are so conditioned to the high contrast and
> saturation of normal TVs, most of us probably wouldn't like one that
> accuately reproduced what the eye sees. It's like the cartoon I saw of
> a man sitting in front of his new large screen TV saying "I'll never
> look at real life again!" Any comments?
>
> Joe
--
Don Stauffer in Minneapolis
stau...@gte.net
http://home1.gte.net/stauffer/
Judith Nicholls
Judy
SPECTRUM wrote:
>
> Do not crosspost this bologna to every other group in the
> rec.photo hierarchy. Frankly, we don't care !
>
> Regards,
>
> John S. Douglas Spectrum Photographic Inc
> Photographer http://www.spectrumphoto.com
> Darkroom processes, formulas, facts and information.
> Weddings,portraits,commercial and stock photography
>
Theo Lumens (Holland)
`professionals` replying in this NG. I understand that you don´t want to
hear about digital taking over fast, but it´s going to happen anyway. Learn
to live with it, better today then tomorrow! And remember: If you can´t
beat them, join them.
Regards,
Theo Lumens
Amateur Digital Photographer
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Peaks/2401/comparison.html
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Peaks/2401/index.html
Ten times more pictures then I ever made with film
==========
SPECTRUM <spec...@spectrumphoto.com> schreef in artikel
<379e3339...@news.cybercomm.net>...
Eric Bazan
>
>
> Digital cameras have FAR more color accuracy potential than film. It is
> simple to take a set of rgb values that have passed through a camera CCD
> filter defined by video standards or something close to tristimulus values
> (how the eye sees the world), and mathemtically convert them to actual
> tristimulus value RGB, and then through color profiles
> (http://www.color.org) to any desired color space. On the other hand it is
> not only difficult to design a film to do this, considering capabilities
(...)
Interesting. While I agree RGB tristimulus is probably closer to
how the eye works then film, it's not the final word in color theory. I read
recently (can't remember where) that many people have *more* than
three types of color sensitive cones (in the retina), sometimes five or more,
with varying color sensitivities.
While RGB color is a good approximation in most cases, I'd present
to you that all color theory is much more empirical than you might
imagine. It's all in the eye of the beholder, and all observers are
different. So I wouldn't worry too much about color, as there really
is no 'objective' color for a scene anyway. If you don't like the color
balance on a digital image it's easy to change, in any case.
-Eric
Anthony
like it, some don't. It's rather like video, which has always given a more
"real-world" look than movies. Digital cameras are much more WYSIWYG, and
not everyone likes that. I don't mind, though; it comes in handy for me.
-- Anthony
Joe Miller <mil...@ucolick.org> wrote in message
news:379DF857...@ucolick.org...
Anthony
news:379e3339...@news.cybercomm.net...
> Do not crosspost this bologna to every other group in the
> rec.photo hierarchy. Frankly, we don't care !
Are you the rec.photo policeman, or what?
-- Anthony
Anthony
news:379F7038...@att.net...
> Interesting. While I agree RGB tristimulus is probably closer to
> how the eye works then film, it's not the final word in color theory. I
read
> recently (can't remember where) that many people have *more* than
> three types of color sensitive cones (in the retina), sometimes five or
more,
> with varying color sensitivities.
This is news to me. The physiology of human vision is pretty constant
across the species.
Human beings can actually detect four color ranges, if you count the rods.
The rods don't contribute to central or detailed vision, though, and they
have trouble dealing with bright light, so they don't make much difference
most of the time.
> While RGB color is a good approximation in most cases, I'd present
> to you that all color theory is much more empirical than you might
> imagine.
In any case, digital color systems are much closer to human vision than
film. That's one reason why they produce results that look so much more
like real life (for better or worse).
-- Anthony
Al Eastman
naw...he's just someone who didn't see the humor in his title.
cheers
al
Mark K
Problems: A very faint line running vertcally in the upright position, the
enlarger lens was not clean and lastly, contrast too high.
I'm only one fourth the way through scanning these nightmares and doing all
I can to alleviate the problems.
So, do digicams take more realistic pictures? Compared to the crap I just
mentioned they sure do.
And by the way, this is not the first time.
Mark
Dennis R. Vogel
>
>It's all in the eye of the beholder
Ugh!
Dennis Vogel
Randy G.
decrease in overall quality in film prints over the last ten years or
so. It seems that toget decent quality anymore you need to go to some
type of custom printing instead of using the generic developing that
just runs the film through a machine.
As more people use digital as the medium of choice I would predict
that this situation will not get any better.
The current crop of digital cameras definately do not mark the death
of film, but I think it's time to call the doctor.
"Mark K" <rmkra...@rcn.com> wrote:
From Randy.... AKA "-ED" at the....
Feather River Canyon News - "Fruit Of The Plume"
http://www.quiknet.com/~frcn/Camera.html
The opinions expressed Remove the ¿NOSPAM?
here aren't necessarily in the E-mail address
those of the FRCN to reply by E-Mail