question
jean strinckx
R.M.Pruitt
Those that lack any artistic abilities and do not wish to go to the
trouble and time to learn the basics, and master the high learning
curve that is required to put out consistent high quality photography
will gravitate toward digital images. Unfortunately, this will soon
become the majority. The move to digital imaging is a big loss for the
art of photography, but a great gain for those that do not have the
time, patience or inclination toward anything more serious.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Michael A. Covington (Portable computer)
"jean strinckx" <jean.s...@pandora.be> wrote in message news:kkPz9.12197$So4.209...@hestia.telenet-ops.be...
Michael A. Covington (Portable computer)
"R.M.Pruitt" <swee...@marsweb.com> wrote in message
news:c9hvsu4e2sf8pemnq...@4ax.com...
> Those that lack any artistic abilities and do not wish to go to the
> trouble and time to learn the basics, and master the high learning
> curve that is required to put out consistent high quality photography
> will gravitate toward digital images.
And those that don't want to master the technical challenges of digital
photography will cling to film forever. There are, right now, people who
think total ignorance of digital technology is the sign of the true artist.
Seriously -- It would be easy to answer the question by insulting one or
both sides, but that's not a serious answer. The real answer is that
neither technology has consistent advantages over the other one in *all*
situations; each will continue to have its uses. When digital imaging
routinely gets above 6 megapixels, and when digital camera bodies that take
existing interchangeable lenses become affordable, I do expect film
photography to scale down quite a bit. But as long as there is anything
that it can do better than digital, it won't die out.
Michael A. Covington (Portable computer)
> photography will cling to film forever. There are, right now, people who
> think total ignorance of digital technology is the sign of the true
artist.
I should add that, on another front, I'm presently dealing with people who
think near-total ignorance of Microsoft Windows is the sign of the true
computer scientist (for whom it is always 1985 and UNIX).
And my wife, as an art student in the 1970s, dealt with people who felt that
total ignorance of how to draw and paint was the mark of the true modern
artist.
Bruce Wilson
discontinued the R-3000 process (the consumer chemistry for making prints
from slides) but not the R-3 process (the professional lab version).
This weekend I tried to order more paper for this process (Fujichrome
Type-35) and found that both Adorama and B&H did not have the 20x24 in stock
in either the glossy or the super glossy. Both said two weeks, but it does,
I must confess, disturb me that for the first time I couldn't get them in
stock the day I ordered.
As for your questions, wet processes will never die, but they will be
trimmed back on the edges. Unfortunately my favorite color process is the
first to get the knife.
--
Bruce Wilson
http://chem.dynu.com/photo
"jean strinckx" <jean.s...@pandora.be> wrote in message
news:kkPz9.12197$So4.2094604337@hestia.telenet-ops.be...
some dude
But in a way I agree. But not 100%.
I think this will create another digital vs. film debate so I digress.
-sd
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002 08:08:50 -0700, R.M.Pruitt <swee...@marsweb.com>
wrote:
some dude
:)
-sd
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002 10:20:10 -0500, "Michael A. Covington \(Portable
computer\)" <lo...@www.covingtoninnovations.com.for.address> wrote:
>Well, oil painting hasn't died out yet!
>
>
> "jean strinckx" <jean.s...@pandora.be> wrote in message news:kkPz9.12197$So4.2094604337@hestia.telenet-ops.be...
Michael A. Covington (Portable computer)
brands of oil paint (one from Winsor & Newton, the other from another
company whose name I forget) that are miscible with water. No, I don't mean
acrylic; I mean real oil paint. My daughter, who is a painter, had me buy
some for her recently, and they work. Apparently a strong emulsifier has
been added to the paint so that brushes can be washed with water. That
eliminates the biggest disadvantage of oil painting, namely the smelly
clean-up process with solvents.
So if oil painting can survive, and still be innovating (at the technical
and not just artistic level), 100 years after the advent of photography,
then I think film will survive too.
"some dude" <so...@dude.net> wrote in message
news:jbkvsu0agu0k64svh...@4ax.com...
Mark
photography is used for documentary purposes - portraits,
photojournalism, commercial product photography etc - I believe that
this type of photography will be replaced by digital imaging within
the not-too distant future. Photography is an artform in and of
itself - that will remain, and conventional photography will remain as
another imaging medium, used mainly in the art world.
150 years ago, most imaging was done through etchings and paintings -
if you wanted a picture of your wife or child to commemorate an event,
you would typically hire a portraitist, who would render the image in
oils. No doubt with the advent of photography, this form of image
capture was dramatically reduced, and one of the impacts was that
painting was that it took off in radically different directions to
separate itself from the new imaging techniques. I do not believe
that it is coincidence that impressionistic painting came about at
about the same time as photography - artists have continued to expand
the bounds of painting, with more development taking place in the past
150 years than in the preceeding 500. I hope that there will be a
similar renaissance in conventional photography, as it attempts to
separate itself from digital imaging.
Photography has had to fight for respect as an art form, I believe
that just as today there is an assumption that when someone is doing
an etching or an oil painting, it is art. Soon, the assumption will
be made that anybody doing conventional photography will be doing
'art'. - As the financial support that has come from having so much
commercial work done on film moves to digital, we will find ourselves
more like the early days of photography - with fewer films available,
and many photographers compounding their own chemicals. Enlargers are
still being made, and they last a long time - the one that I am using
is 30 years old, and is as good as new. With decent maintenence there
is no reason for it not to be going strong long past the day when I am
compost.
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002 08:08:50 -0700, R.M.Pruitt <swee...@marsweb.com>
wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Nov 2002 14:41:20 GMT, "jean strinckx"
Gregory W Blank
when they don't
discount either in favor of the other. To directly answer your question;
it depends.
In article <kkPz9.12197$So4.209...@hestia.telenet-ops.be>, "jean
strinckx" <jean.s...@pandora.be> wrote:
> As a student in photography I wonder if conventional photography with =
> films, papers, chemical products, enlarger will survive knowing that =
> digital photography is coming up so quickly. Every answer would be =
> welcome.=20
> Jean Strinckx
--
Photographic website @
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank
some dude
so there!
;)
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002 10:52:57 -0500, "Michael A. Covington \(Portable
Dave Cosgrove
Tom Thackrey
Predicting the future is work for fools... so here goes:
Film photography will be replaced by digital in the same way that painting
was replaced by photography, printing was replaced by desktop publishing,
paper was eliminated by the paperless office, and thinking was replaced by
computers.
--
Tom Thackrey
www.creative-light.com
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Leonard Evens
>>And those that don't want to master the technical challenges of digital
>>photography will cling to film forever. There are, right now, people who
>>think total ignorance of digital technology is the sign of the true
>
> artist.
>
> I should add that, on another front, I'm presently dealing with people who
> think near-total ignorance of Microsoft Windows is the sign of the true
> computer scientist (for whom it is always 1985 and UNIX).
Unix in the form of Linux is still right up there with the latest
innovations. Microsoft is a monopolist pushing an inferior operating
system and interface that everyone seems to think they have to use
because everyone else does. The new Mac OS is based on Unix.
>
> And my wife, as an art student in the 1970s, dealt with people who felt that
> total ignorance of how to draw and paint was the mark of the true modern
> artist.
>
>
>
--
Leonard Evens l...@math.northwestern.edu 847-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
Gregory W Blank
In article <pCTz9.13298$rG2.19934@sccrnsc03>, Leonard Evens
<l...@math.northwestern.edu> wrote:
The new Mac OS is based on Unix.
--
Tony Spadaro
Michaelangelo a well known sculptor was hired by a local Pope to paint a
ceiling. Instead of saying "Sod off! I'm a sculptor not a mere dabbler in
sticky goo" he took on the job. Why? Because an artist is an artist, and the
medium is Not the message.
There are millions of complete putzes putting out spotty prints that
will start to turn brown next week, who think that they very act of making a
print turns them into artists. Stupidity or idiocy? Hard to tell. Perhaps
too much hypo gets into their Ripple.
--
http://chapelhillnoir.com
and partial home of
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Links are at
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/links.html
Tony Spadaro
"those phoneys who are destroying photography with their wet plates. The
author was of course the "true artist" since his little metal plates were
each unique and not reproducable like common newspapers. I suspect the
Mercury had gotten to his brain.
--
http://chapelhillnoir.com
and partial home of
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Links are at
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/links.html
"Michael A. Covington (Portable computer)"
<lo...@www.covingtoninnovations.com.for.address> wrote in message
news:3dcfc...@nopics.sjc...
Tom Phillips
"Michael A. Covington (Portable computer)" wrote:
> "R.M.Pruitt" <swee...@marsweb.com> wrote in message
> news:c9hvsu4e2sf8pemnq...@4ax.com...
>
> > Those that lack any artistic abilities and do not wish to go to the
> > trouble and time to learn the basics, and master the high learning
> > curve that is required to put out consistent high quality photography
> > will gravitate toward digital images.
>
> And those that don't want to master the technical challenges of digital
> photography will cling to film forever. There are, right now, people who
> think total ignorance of digital technology is the sign of the true artist.
I think I've pretty much mastered both :)
> Seriously -- It would be easy to answer the question by insulting one or
> both sides, but that's not a serious answer.
No, it's not. But I'll insult digital developers for trying to pass off
digital imaging as a photographic process.
The real answer is these are two completely separate imaging mediums and each
is based on a completely different set of physics. But due to marketing
tactics (which is naturally tied to the stock options of digital developers)
digital imaging has adopted photographic terminology in order to compete
(confuse itself?) with film in the marketplace. While certain attributes for
image capture are held in common (e.g., lighting, composition, lenses and
camera bodies), most similarities and comparisons end there. The term
photography (phos-graphos) literally means writing with photons on
light-sensitive materials much like one would write on paper with pencil,
except light writing precipitates photolysis -- the formation of silver
through chemical decomposition which physically records those photons in a
real, tangible way. It's a physical process with a physical result. Digital is
literally a process of conversion, converting light energy into abstract
electronic signals rather than actually writing anything real on
light-sensitive materials (silicon is light sensitive, but you can't write on
it.)
Digital processes and photochemical processes are fundamentally
non-equivalent; "grain" is not equivalent to "pixels," "image noise" is not
"granularity," digital sensors are not "film," and digital "film" does not and
cannot record actual images (digital images are regenerated pixels, not
actual, images.) Equivalency comparisons, while an honest attempt to bridge
the comparitive differences between digital and film through the use of
familiar terms, are for the most part non sequitur. The International
Organization for Standardization (ISO) has noted all these differences while
at the same time attempting to provide a glossary of familiar terminology
between the two mediums so as not to "confuse" the comsumer. What it actually
does is allow digital manufacturers to misrepresent digital imaging as a true
photographic process. Digital capture and processing tools mimick
photochemical controls, but they are still software imaging methods with the
goals and purposes of that medium in mind (reproduction.) Even the ISO
standard on imaging terms states that digital photographs are inherently
representational, i.e., image signals which have been electronically
regenerated as binary code.
You don't have to insult digital, just take a good look at what it really is.
No photograph there, just a bunch of 1's and 0's.
> The real answer is that
> neither technology has consistent advantages over the other one in *all*
> situations; each will continue to have its uses.
Actually, photochemical photography is not technology-based even though we've
made it appear that way. It's human nature to complicate things. In essense
photochemical photography is a naturally occuring phenomenon; you don't need
technology to make a real photograph, just some basic materials and chemicals
all of which existed prior to the industrial revolution. And the advantage to
real photographic imaging is it doesn't require batteries or a CRT. But
digital is not a natural phenomenon, it's a genuinely technology-dependent
process. Digital imaging systems are a collection of highly sophisticated and
fragile components that convert and then regenerate signals electronically
transferred from the sensors. The resulting pixels are a purely technological
phenomenon. Pixels are further regenerated to produce digital output.
> When digital imaging
> routinely gets above 6 megapixels, and when digital camera bodies that take
> existing interchangeable lenses become affordable,
The differences between optical imaging on film and imaging onto a silicon
sensor requires different optical considerations. That's why there are
different lenses for film and digital. While you can use optics designed for
film to do digital, the results are compromised. Also, that 6 megapixel
threshold everyone talks about is only enough resolution for typical consumer
snapshot comparisons (4x6 prints.) You may not be able to tell much difference
at that size between a prosumer 6 megapixel camera and 35mm film, but that
35mm film with it 25 million equivalent, continuous "pixels" can be enlarged
many more times to reveal greater detail and exhibits far greater exposure
latitude under a variety of lighting situations. Again, this is because these
are different mediums with different physics involved.
> I do expect film
> photography to scale down quite a bit. But as long as there is anything
> that it can do better than digital, it won't die out.
Perhaps when those folks that chose digital based on the marketing hype have a
power outage or lose all their historic family snapshots because their hard
drive failed or their CD's came unglued (which they will....) they'll rescale
back up to real photography :)
Tom Phillips
"Michael A. Covington (Portable computer)" wrote:
> Well, oil painting hasn't died out yet!
Which raises an interesting historical footnote: When photography was
first "officially" introduced by Louis Daguerre, the popular French
painter Paul Hippolyte Delaroche made a much publicized declaration that
the photography signaled the end of painting. What he and the pundits
of his day failed to take note of was photography and painting were two
different imaging mediums. The result was painters hated photography
(even though they used it), and photography struggled in the shadow of
painting (so much so photographers -- pictorialists -- outdid themelves
trying to imitate painting and compare themselves with it.) It took
about 70 years (until Steiglitz and the Photo-Seccession, to undo this
"comparison" nonsense.
Maybe there's a lesson here for the digital crowd? (meaning their medium
will never achieve legitimacy until they stop trying to imitate and
compare themselves with the film crowd?)
> "jean strinckx" <jean.s...@pandora.be> wrote in message
> news:kkPz9.12197$So4.2094604337@hestia.telenet-ops.be...As a
> student in photography I wonder if conventional photography
> with films, papers, chemical products, enlarger will survive
> knowing that digital photography is coming up so quickly.
> Every answer would be welcome.Jean Strinckx
>
And what term paper are you writing? Normally I'd send you packing to a
library; getting opinions in a newsgroup to copy doesn't suffice for
actual research. Just make sure you quote us accurately and give proper
citations and credit. No plagiarism.
Stefan Patric
I think the transition to 100% digital photography will come in
stages, starting first with your average photo consumer: just as
video replaced Super8; so will digital replace film. The 6 megapixel
chips are more than good enough for snapshots, but the price of the
cameras will have to come down a LOT for it to compete with
inexpensive film cameras.
Next will come high end commercial photography, where the final
result will mostly be b&w, duotone and 4-color offset printing, etc.
It has already started, acutally, but the digital backs are in the
$10,000 to $20,000 range and for your average professional
photographer, that kind of money can't be justified.
When a "35mm," full frame 12 megapixel camera can be produce for
about what the equivalent high end 35mm film camera costs ($1000 to
$1500 or so), then you'll see more pros switching over for a lot of
their 35mm work. However, for medium and large format, it will be a
long time before digital can match it for quality, cost and
convenience, but it too will eventually go the way of the dodo.
Will film ever truly be extinct? I don't think so. Film is a
medium, just as digital is, just as paint is. And as long as there
are artists using it, film will survive; however, the artist may be
forced to roll his own just as photographers in days past coated
their own wet plates.
--
Stefan Patric
too...@yahoo.com
Tom Phillips
Tony sputtered:
> Michaelangelo a well known sculptor was hired by a local Pope to paint a
> ceiling. Instead of saying "Sod off! I'm a sculptor not a mere dabbler in
> sticky goo" he took on the job. Why? Because an artist is an artist, and the
> medium is Not the message.
Like he had a choice of saying "No" to a Pope. Popes weren't "local," they
ruled Europe and could have your head cut off.
> There are millions of complete putzes putting out spotty prints that
> will start to turn brown next week, who think that they very act of making a
> print turns them into artists. Stupidity or idiocy? Hard to tell. Perhaps
> too much hypo gets into their Ripple.
And what's your excuse?
Tom Phillips
Stefan Patric wrote:
> On Monday 11 November 2002 09:41, jean strinckx wrote:
>
> > As a student in photography I wonder if conventional photography
> > with films, papers, chemical products, enlarger will survive knowing
> > that digital photography is coming up so quickly. Every answer would
> > be welcome. Jean Strinckx
>
> I think the transition to 100% digital photography will come in
> stages, starting first with your average photo consumer: just as
> video replaced Super8; so will digital replace film. The 6 megapixel
> chips are more than good enough for snapshots,
If you say so...consider though that creative people truly concerned with
quality and archivability of important works make films with real film.
Snapshots and home movies aren't the issue.
> but the price of the
> cameras will have to come down a LOT for it to compete with
> inexpensive film cameras.
>
> Next will come high end commercial photography, where the final
> result will mostly be b&w, duotone and 4-color offset printing, etc.
> It has already started, acutally, but the digital backs are in the
> $10,000 to $20,000 range and for your average professional
> photographer, that kind of money can't be justified.
For professional photographers doing mainly catalog and other high volume
studio work, the cost is already justified. But that isn't the issue. You
can't just lump commercial applications that benefit economically from
digital imaging production (which is what it actually is...) in with all
other forms of photography (uh ummm..."100%") It'll never happen.
> When a "35mm," full frame 12 megapixel camera can be produce for
> about what the equivalent high end 35mm film camera costs ($1000 to
> $1500 or so), then you'll see more pros switching over for a lot of
> their 35mm work. However, for medium and large format, it will be a
> long time before digital can match it for quality, cost and
> convenience, but it too will eventually go the way of the dodo.
Poppycock. Not only will digital will never be able to match the
resolution and enlargement capabilities available to large format
photographers using a continuous medium like film (without having to
produce astronomically large file sizes -- hundreds of gigabytes, in
fact), digital as a medium simply *can't* do what film does. They are
different mediums. When are people going to learn this is a bogus
competition espoused by knowledgeless people duped by digital marketing
hype? When we invented word processors, did pencils become extinct (some
"dodos" actuall predicted that.) When we built cars, did we give up the
use of our legs?
BTW, the dodo wasn't replaced, it was unceremoniously exterminated. You
can't replace something unique and original, and film is a unique imaging
medium digital cannot replace. Any such predictions and pronounces are
pure hubris intended to enhance company stock options.
> Will film ever truly be extinct? I don't think so. Film is a
> medium, just as digital is, just as paint is. And as long as there
> are artists using it, film will survive; however, the artist may be
> forced to roll his own just as photographers in days past coated
> their own wet plates.
uh...photographers today still use plates.
Tom Phillips
"Michael A. Covington (Portable computer)" wrote:
> > And those that don't want to master the technical challenges of digital
> > photography will cling to film forever. There are, right now, people who
> > think total ignorance of digital technology is the sign of the true
> artist.
>
> I should add that, on another front, I'm presently dealing with people who
> think near-total ignorance of Microsoft Windows is the sign of the true
> computer scientist (for whom it is always 1985 and UNIX).
No. Windows just sucks. And I believe even DOS is beholden to UNIX.
> And my wife, as an art student in the 1970s, dealt with people who felt that
> total ignorance of how to draw and paint was the mark of the true modern
> artist.
Well, they should study the evolution of Picasso.
John
computer\)" <lo...@www.covingtoninnovations.com.for.address> wrote:
> But as long as there is anything
>that it can do better than digital, it won't die out.
Unfortunately I'm not so certain. There was recently a thread in
rec.photo.digital where one photographer captured (I hesitate to use the term
"created") 10,000 digital images (Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: 10,000 Pictures and Counting... Message-ID:
<dmcmruks1ub888gin...@4ax.com>). Digital is less expensive per
image for the amateur so unfortunately they will be flocking to it soon. I just
saw an ad in a CompUSA flier where 3.3 MP cameras are going for $300. These are
good enough for the average 4X6 print.
Regards,
John S. Douglas - Photographer, Webmaster & Computer Tech
Website --- http://www.darkroompro.com
Clint O'Connor
I use both. The convenience of digital is undeniable - even where you might
prefer to use film, you may reach for the digital for the convenience.
Film won't die, but it's going to get more expensive for those of us who
stick with film and darkrooms as the volume drops. Film may be seen as even
more of an art form than it is now.
It will take a few more years though - digital cameras still aren't point
and shoot when you consider that you also need to have a computer, know how
to use it, install the software, connect the hardware, learn the interface,
and get it to work with a printer. There's a lot of technology involved
there.
Clint
"Stefan Patric" <too...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:34Yz9.871$Ay3.1...@news1.west.cox.net...
br
"Tom Phillips" <nosp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3DD061A9...@aol.com...
>
>
The study of history teaches us the past so that we will have direction for
the future.
We still have:
blacksmiths
farriers
grocery delivery
horse drawn carriages
silver based photography
oil painters and basic arts
and so on
All these disciplines are on a lesser scale but none the less still with us,
so shall the silver image photographer.
Bill
David J. Van den Branden
of Chicago. When the letters went out to the 7th and 8th graders to sign
up, the response was immediate and overwhelming. The waiting list to get in
the class was longer than the class list. Now the parents and teachers are
asking for an adult class.
While procuring a couple of used darkroom easels for the new darkroom, I got
to chatting with the mechant (in Des Plaines, IL) and he said, surprisingly,
his used camera and darkroom equipment business is booming. He actually
credits this somewhat to the fact that he started carrying digital cameras.
People would come in to buy a digital and many came back to further
investigate the "old ways" and would end up setting up small home darkrooms.
Interesting.
Digital does have it's conveniences but I believe people still consider
silver prints to be a fine art medium and it will stay with us indefinately.
Keep it alive! Get involved with a local school and start a photo club or
teach a class!
DV
Gregory W Blank
I was just last night printing in my darkroom a color print from a 4x5
negative I made last weekend
(fall foliage & a stream) and was thinking back to the inkjet print I made
from the corresponding slide, 3 days
ago. Although I worked rather hard to get the digital file just right the
print from the file just does not compare,
I think the two biggest things I find the conventional prints excel in are
general color saturation, and resolution
even with 2880 Dpi or 1440 I don't see the sharpness of detail that the
darkroom print has.
I guess I wonder why anyone (that did not have to) would exchange the
enlarger for the computer when the
difference is so apparent.
In article <B9F661CF.1C324%da...@brickgarage.com>, "David J. Van den
Branden" <da...@brickgarage.com> wrote:
> I recently set up a B&W darkroom at a small private grade school in the city
> of Chicago. When the letters went out to the 7th and 8th graders to sign
> up, the response was immediate and overwhelming. The waiting list to get in
> the class was longer than the class list. Now the parents and teachers are
> asking for an adult class.
>
> While procuring a couple of used darkroom easels for the new darkroom, I got
> to chatting with the mechant (in Des Plaines, IL) and he said, surprisingly,
> his used camera and darkroom equipment business is booming. He actually
> credits this somewhat to the fact that he started carrying digital cameras.
> People would come in to buy a digital and many came back to further
> investigate the "old ways" and would end up setting up small home darkrooms.
> Interesting.
>
> Digital does have it's conveniences but I believe people still consider
> silver prints to be a fine art medium and it will stay with us indefinately.
>
> Keep it alive! Get involved with a local school and start a photo club or
> teach a class!
>
> DV
--
David J. Van den Branden
"Gregory W Blank" <g*bl...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:20021112150358.BGAC34...@pool-151-196-171-163.balt.ea
st.verizon.net...
> (A copy of this message has also been posted to the following newsgroups:
> rec.photo.darkroom)
>
> That's encouraging!!
>
> I was just last night printing in my darkroom a color print from a 4x5
> negative I made last weekend
> (fall foliage & a stream) and was thinking back to the inkjet print I made
> from the corresponding slide, 3 days
> ago. Although I worked rather hard to get the digital file just right the
> print from the file just does not compare,
> I think the two biggest things I find the conventional prints excel in are
> general color saturation, and resolution
> even with 2880 Dpi or 1440 I don't see the sharpness of detail that the
> darkroom print has.
>
> I guess I wonder why anyone (that did not have to) would exchange the
> enlarger for the computer when the
> difference is so apparent.
The difference is apparent and they each have merit. Since computer
equipment that is capable of manipulating digital imagery is becoming so
affordable, no one should have to trade in their film photo or darkroom
equipment.
Another real downfall of digital photography for me so far (and this is with
your typical mid to high end CONSUMER digital camera) is when shooting or
trying to photograph action. It seems like the digitals just don't don't
respond quickly enough to capture the exact moment of that soccer goal,
touchdown reception, fish jumping or flock of birds taking flight. How high
end do you have to go to be able to capture these scenes digitally? Or can
you?
DV
>
>
> In article <B9F661CF.1C324%da...@brickgarage.com>, "David J. Van den
> Branden" <da...@brickgarage.com> wrote:
>
Gregory W Blank
> The difference is apparent and they each have merit. Since computer
> equipment that is capable of manipulating digital imagery is becoming so
> affordable, no one should have to trade in their film photo or darkroom
> equipment.
I agree.
> Another real downfall of digital photography for me so far (and this is with
> your typical mid to high end CONSUMER digital camera) is when shooting or
> trying to photograph action. It seems like the digitals just don't don't
> respond quickly enough to capture the exact moment of that soccer goal,
> touchdown reception, fish jumping or flock of birds taking flight. How high
> end do you have to go to be able to capture these scenes digitally? Or can
> you?
I think $ 3,000 plus. (If then ) A filmless camera may never be able to
compensate
for certain "conditions" other than producing noise or unreconcilable "flare".
The sports action and motion is do-able, I've seen what a local "AP"
photographer
does with current pro end cameras. Even if digital cameras become vastly
superior
to what they are now, one ( or at least someone) will still be required to
actually look at ones
imagery and make decisions on color balance contrast etc - (maybe for the
casual snap shot shooter "no").
Automatic is never completely automatic, IMOP..... and try as they might,
digital affectionados'
won't be any better "photographers" just because of the use of digital
equipment.
But there are still as you say merits to both.
In article <aqr9jk$jc2$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>, "David J. Van den
Branden" <da...@brickgarage.com> wrote:
> The difference is apparent and they each have merit. Since computer
> equipment that is capable of manipulating digital imagery is becoming so
> affordable, no one should have to trade in their film photo or darkroom
> equipment.
>
> Another real downfall of digital photography for me so far (and this is with
> your typical mid to high end CONSUMER digital camera) is when shooting or
> trying to photograph action. It seems like the digitals just don't don't
> respond quickly enough to capture the exact moment of that soccer goal,
> touchdown reception, fish jumping or flock of birds taking flight. How high
> end do you have to go to be able to capture these scenes digitally? Or can
> you?
>
> DV
--
David J. Van den Branden
(SNIP)
> Automatic is never completely automatic, IMOP..... and try as they might,
> digital affectionados'
> won't be any better "photographers" just because of the use of digital
> equipment.
One interesting observation that I've made is that a consumer level digital
camera has indeed improved the compositional aspects of the photographs of
several people I know including my children. A common problem of users of
snap shot cameras is that they look through the camera rather than into it.
This causes them to only focus on one small aspect of the image and to
ignore the overall composition within the frame of the photograph that is
about to be taken. The digital cameras with LCD displays on the back are
more akin to that of a view camera or the twin lens reflex cameras that I
use to teach my class. I've had people comment to me that they like digital
cameras because they can "see the picture" before they take it. they don't
perceive looking throught the rangefinder or viewfinder of a film camera to
be equal to "seeing the picture".
Food for thought.
DV
Tom Phillips
Gregory W Blank wrote:
> That's encouraging!!
>
> I was just last night printing in my darkroom a color print from a 4x5 negative
> I made last weekend
> (fall foliage & a stream) and was thinking back to the inkjet print I made from
> the corresponding slide, 3 days
> ago. Although I worked rather hard to get the digital file just right the print
> from the file just does not compare,
> I think the two biggest things I find the conventional prints excel in are
> general color saturation, and resolution
> even with 2880 Dpi or 1440 I don't see the sharpness of detail that the
> darkroom print has.
A major reason for photochemical color superiority is that silicon sensors are
inherently monochrome, unlike film which has additive color producing dye layers.
To get digital color, one has to employ filters over the chip and rather than
producing actual additive colors, digital color is interpolated.
Also, there is simply far more detail and information available in a common
silver or silver-dye print than you will ever get in a inkjet regardless of the
resolution or even high end printer technology (giclee.) Being sprayed ink with
limited density and detail an inkjet can only give the appearance actual detail
and density. It's technical limitations cannot compete with the amazing amount of
actual color density produced by continuous tone dyes in a color photograph.
Gregory W Blank
going to replace traditional Darkroom I guess they will just have to do a better
job,,,,least in my mind. ( That is what I've heard is thier goal in
producing their inkjet printers)
I've also been hearing for sometime now that, silver paper & film stuff is
better than ink, I guess
I'll have to try it some day!!
> Also, there is simply far more detail and information available in a common
> silver or silver-dye print than you will ever get in a inkjet regardless
of the
> resolution or even high end printer technology (giclee.) Being sprayed
ink with
> limited density and detail an inkjet can only give the appearance actual
detail
> and density. It's technical limitations cannot compete with the amazing
amount of
> actual color density produced by continuous tone dyes in a color photograph.
In article <3DD19DC4...@aol.com>, Tom Phillips <nosp...@aol.com> wrote:
> A major reason for photochemical color superiority is that silicon sensors are
> inherently monochrome, unlike film which has additive color producing
dye layers.
> To get digital color, one has to employ filters over the chip and rather than
> producing actual additive colors, digital color is interpolated.
>
> Also, there is simply far more detail and information available in a common
> silver or silver-dye print than you will ever get in a inkjet regardless
of the
> resolution or even high end printer technology (giclee.) Being sprayed
ink with
> limited density and detail an inkjet can only give the appearance actual
detail
> and density. It's technical limitations cannot compete with the amazing
amount of
> actual color density produced by continuous tone dyes in a color photograph.
--
Tom Phillips
Gregory W Blank wrote:
> Well I expected more from Epson than this,....if they are ever going to replace
> traditional Darkroom I guess they will just have to do a better job,,,,least in
> my
> mind. ( That is what I've heard is thier goal in producing their inkjet printers)
>
> I've also been hearing for sometime now that, silver paper & film stuff is
> better than ink, I guess I'll have to try it some day!!
I think there is one other minor difference between ink and real photographs I've
noticed: a color dye emulsion won't smear or rub off on your fingers if you happen
to touch it :)
Frank Pittel
:> photography will cling to film forever. There are, right now, people who
:> think total ignorance of digital technology is the sign of the true
: artist.
: I should add that, on another front, I'm presently dealing with people who
: think near-total ignorance of Microsoft Windows is the sign of the true
: computer scientist (for whom it is always 1985 and UNIX).
As a Unix admin that hasn't used windows since 3.1?. I'm going to have to agree
with those that you're dealing with. I don't think that it's 1985 though.
: And my wife, as an art student in the 1970s, dealt with people who felt that
: total ignorance of how to draw and paint was the mark of the true modern
: artist.
Cool, I have some modern artist in me!! :-)
As far as the film vs. digital I think that you'll find that B&W film will
be around for a long time. B&W photography and printing is an art and will
survive for that reason. I don't believe that color won't fair as well and
will be replaced rather quickly. Even now there is a time and place for digital
cameras. A couple of weeks ago I went out on a LF outing and brought B&W
film for my camera and had a digital camera hanging around my neck. The digital
was used to take pictures that are going to end up online. It's a lot easier
to use a digital when the photos are going to end up online then using film
and scanning the negatives.
--
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
f...@deepthought.com
Frank Pittel
: Michael A. Covington (Portable computer) wrote:
:>>And those that don't want to master the technical challenges of digital
:>>photography will cling to film forever. There are, right now, people who
:>>think total ignorance of digital technology is the sign of the true
:>
:> artist.
:>
:> I should add that, on another front, I'm presently dealing with people who
:> think near-total ignorance of Microsoft Windows is the sign of the true
:> computer scientist (for whom it is always 1985 and UNIX).
: Unix in the form of Linux is still right up there with the latest
: innovations. Microsoft is a monopolist pushing an inferior operating
: system and interface that everyone seems to think they have to use
: because everyone else does. The new Mac OS is based on Unix.
I use linux at home and solaris at work. They both have their place. The Mac OS
is based on BSD. Me I find that my Sony camera works well with linux and gimp
does more then I know what to do with.
:>
:> And my wife, as an art student in the 1970s, dealt with people who felt that
:> total ignorance of how to draw and paint was the mark of the true modern
:> artist.
:>
:>
:>
--
Frank Pittel
: "Michael A. Covington (Portable computer)" wrote:
:> > And those that don't want to master the technical challenges of digital
:> > photography will cling to film forever. There are, right now, people who
:> > think total ignorance of digital technology is the sign of the true
:> artist.
:>
:> I should add that, on another front, I'm presently dealing with people who
:> think near-total ignorance of Microsoft Windows is the sign of the true
:> computer scientist (for whom it is always 1985 and UNIX).
: No. Windows just sucks. And I believe even DOS is beholden to UNIX.
I'm loving seeing so many people that like and use Unix. :-)
Michael A. Covington (Portable computer)
"Frank Pittel" <f...@wizard.deepthought.com> wrote in message
news:JbOcnYYl4Pp...@giganews.com...
> As far as the film vs. digital I think that you'll find that B&W film will
> be around for a long time. B&W photography and printing is an art and will
> survive for that reason. I don't believe that color won't fair as well and
> will be replaced rather quickly. Even now there is a time and place for
digital
> cameras. A couple of weeks ago I went out on a LF outing and brought B&W
> film for my camera and had a digital camera hanging around my neck. The
digital
> was used to take pictures that are going to end up online. It's a lot
easier
> to use a digital when the photos are going to end up online then using
film
> and scanning the negatives.
Yes -- The biggest consumer of color film right now is the amateur
documentary photographer (i.e., vacation snapshot taker, etc.) whose work is
more easily done with digital technology.
Also, the making of a color print, with 3 layers that have to be
coordinated, is a process that just _cries out_ for digitization.
Black-and-white, on the other hand, is a well-behaved photochemical process
that ought to last practically forever as an art form, just as numerous
"alternative processes" have done.
BTW, why haven't you used Windows since 3.1? You've missed the *real*
Windows (NT, 2000, XP), a descendant of OS/2 and VAX/VMS, only superficially
related to DOS and Windows 3.1/95/98.
Tom Phillips
"Michael A. Covington (Portable computer)" wrote:
> Also, the making of a color print, with 3 layers that have to be
> coordinated,
Coordinated? You mean properly added or subtracted according to basic color
physics? Having to select a color filter pack appropriate to the batch of paper
being used isn't a big deal; even a 10 year-old can learn how to do it. The
science of photochemical coolor is not only highly advanced, it's constantly
improving both materials and results. Making a color print in my experience is
far easier and less complex and abstract than calibrating and "coordinating"
color across multiple electronic devices and interfaces (i.e., profiles and
color managment systems linking scanners, CRT displays, and printers, most of
which are notorious for *inaccurate* color. )
> is a process that just _cries out_ for digitization.
The mindless consumer may "cry out" for a mindless imaging process, but digital
claims of tonal and/or color superiority are simply hogwash. What evidence is
there that interpolated color produced through a silicon CFA is superior to
real color produced through an additive dye layer system? Comparitively
speaking color dye layers are a superior method for both color *and* exposure.
The fact is silicon sensors typically exhibit limited latitude (less than 3.0
log E) while color films like Kodak's Advantix 400 exhibit a much greater
imaging latitude (exceeding4.0 log E) and produce full, unlimited colors
completely independent of electronic component limitations (i.e., bit depth and
low noise signal processing not required. See Szajewski, Richard P., Eastman
Kodak Company. Silver Halide and Silicon as Consumer Imagers. 2000
International Symposium on Silver Halide Technology. )
> Black-and-white, on the other hand, is a well-behaved photochemical process
> that ought to last practically forever as an art form, just as numerous
> "alternative processes" have done.
B&W is as much based on color (at least at the film stage) as actual color
photography is, if not more so. You have to know and understand color physics
very well to shoot B&W effectively; shooting color film doesn't require nearly
so much knowledge And control. Making color prints is also a far less skilled
endeavor than working with monochrome tonalities.
Tom Phillips
friend wrote:
> Tom, you may not be perfect regarding vinegar, but you are 100% right
> with your statements below.
Vinegar is a sour topic for people with sour tastes:) (is it 95% water or 5%
acetic acid? Don't forget the sulfites...)
O.k., I'll admit, I do know just a little bit more about digital. No comment on
sRGB.
> Michael,
> How can be digital better, if it is crippled start on with sRGB? By
> default, digital can reproduce ~50% colors that anyone can obtain from
> a color film. Add limitation of ink jets, and you get 30% of color
> film. If you are not fussy about color and need your pics quickly, go
> digital.
Tom Phillips
friend wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 06:26:09 -0700, Tom Phillips <nosp...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >O.k., I'll admit, I do know just a little bit more about digital. No comment on
> >sRGB.
> >
> why?
Because I don't use it. It's an arbitrary "standard" Microsoft has tried to
implement on the basis of the Windows platform. Having always worked with either
UNIX or Mac (for graphics) I ignore anything from Bill Gates.
> In my view, sRGB is the biggest single reason for digital to be
> inferior to silver based imaging.
Oh, there are many more important reasons than that for digital inferiority.
> Just compare gamuts of sRGB and of
> photographic materials. Most, if not all, digital cameras (excl.
> professional) are iomited to sRGB. There is no provision for other
> color spaces. Maybe files in raw format can be reused in different
> programs, that allow for a wider color space?
I agree sRGB sucks.