On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 19:25:25 +0100, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
wrote:
>In message <904bb4pdjs6d46f9hpqg208uun31djm5e2@4ax.com>, Jürgen Exner
><jurgenex@hotmail.com> writes
>>"RoushPhotoOnline.com" <jroush@roushstudios.com> wrote:
>>>Digital Images have allowed us to view first generation files,
>>
>>I repectfully disagree.
>>
>>First of all you cannot view RAW sensor data.
>
>Yes you can,. I use my RAW processor for that. I can view the RAW data
>in the RAW processor. Then after I have made changes I can process it
>into a JPG, TIFF PNG etc at various standards of resolution, size etc.
You're right, you can view the RAW sensor data. But it won't look
like a picture you're used to seeing. Probably the best way to view
it is just hex data. If you try to visualize it without converting it
into somethine else, you'll be very dissapointed. Your RAW processor
converts the RAW sensor data into something you can see that looks
like a picture. *THAT* is 2nd generation and different RAW processors
might make different looking images from the RAW sensor data.
>> They need to be processed
>>into some picture format, very often JPEG. So your JPEG file is already
>>second generation.
>
>No the resultant JPEG/TIFF/PNG is second generation. However I get to
>chose the parameters far more than you can in a dark room.
You can also choose parameters even just for viewing the RAW data
without saving it as a JPEG, TIFF, etc.
> Just curious what people think about this comparison. IMHO,
> the current crop of digital cameras blow away 35mm film, at
> least color print film. (Remember grain? I was never satisfied
> with 8x10s blown up from 35mm film.)
Can you buy film or new film cameras any more?
--
James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland
Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
"James Silverton" <not.jim.silverton@verizon.not> wrote:
>
> Can you buy film or new film cameras any more?
Yes. I don't know about cameras in the inferior subminiature 35mm format,
but most of "the usual suspscts" are still producing medium format film
cameras: Rolleiflex, Hasselblad, Mamiya, Alpa, Horseman. Fujifilm has
announced the first new folding camera in 25 years for release this fall.
David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "James Silverton" <not.jim.silverton@verizon.not> wrote:
>> Can you buy film or new film cameras any more?
>
> Yes. I don't know about cameras in the inferior subminiature 35mm format,
Don't get snotty! yes you can get 35mm film too... easier than 120 for
that matter.
"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>> "James Silverton" <not.jim.silverton@verizon.not> wrote:
>>> Can you buy film or new film cameras any more?
>>
>> Yes. I don't know about cameras in the inferior subminiature 35mm format,
>
> Don't get snotty!
Get real. 35mm is a joke and always has been. That's why it was so easy for
digital to trounce it.
> yes you can get 35mm film too... easier than 120 for that matter.
Around here, 120 is available everywhere that sells film, and more new films
are coming out in 120 than 35mm. (Well, the four new Fuji pro negative films
(120 only) are getting to be somewhat old news, 3 or 4 years, by now.)
"LGLA" <em...@nope.net> wrote:
>
> To almost everyone's replies...
>
> It is interesting how you make the difference into a hot sport of only seeking
> the best of perfection you can find in what you do, and racing_it_up that digital
> is the answer in all of it's perfection capabilities... does anyone remember "art"
> and the artististic capabilities of film photography? *
The artistic and expressionistic elements of image creation are simply
part of the process, and are in yet another area where creators seek
to make their end product "better". Technology has been used to
assist this process for many years, starting long ago with electro-
mechanical aids for measuring light for more desirable (I don't
exactly want to say "correct") exposures.
> I personally can and yet
> cannot justify the digital application of such effects as to being unnatural and
> artificial, as well as too easily done... "apply filter effect"... done. *I have seen
> printed digital photographic art in galleries and online and in magazines and I
> think it is mundane, boring and obvious no matter how fantastic it is.
>
> What is acceptable 'to me' is the developing and scanning of film, that level of
> digital and not much more.
The dilemma - - and argument used to defend digital manipulation
techniques - - is that the genesis of many of them are merely
reproductions of what has been invented first in the darkroom.
Indeed, the appropriate Photoshop tools are still known as "Dodge" and
"Burn" and so forth. With the proper craftsmanship skills, patience
and time, there are significant manipulations that can be done in the
chemical darkroom, so the question of image "purity" is a difficult
one to struggle with. Even without these, there can be human-created
manipulations of the scene before a "pure" image is taken: movement
of a branch, or placement of a perfectly colored autumn leaf on a
stone in the middle of a flowing stream, etc. Pendently, one can
claim that what the camera captured was "pure", but with the human
manipulation of the composed scene, it was not truly a fully "hand of
man" hands-off capture of undisturbed Nature.
> IMO digital slr is for business imagery including weddings, wildlife, sports, war,
> and journalism photography.
Speed, efficiency, productivity.
>*P/S cameras are just for that, capturing a memory.
Yet there's been some great 'art' captured with simple equipment.
Don't allow the mainstream common application to be an inflexible
limitation.
> But as far as real art that is true art, film is the only way to go.
And when film was new, they made the same claim, to defend oil paints.
For those who claim that film will die, then why hasn't painting done
so yet?
David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>> "James Silverton" <not.jim.silverton@verizon.not> wrote:
>>>> Can you buy film or new film cameras any more?
>>> Yes. I don't know about cameras in the inferior subminiature 35mm format,
>> Don't get snotty!
>
> Get real. 35mm is a joke and always has been. That's why it was so easy for
> digital to trounce it.
Hmm, guess 50+ years of National Geographic was a joke. I'll write them
a note.
>> yes you can get 35mm film too... easier than 120 for that matter.
>
> Around here, 120 is available everywhere that sells film, and more new films
> are coming out in 120 than 35mm. (Well, the four new Fuji pro negative films
> (120 only) are getting to be somewhat old news, 3 or 4 years, by now.)
Around here (living in the sticks) I have to order it at least a week in
advance and a minimum of a 5 pak. Or drive into the city. Yeah. Right.
>> I don't think there is a proper comparision. A print is a second
>> generation from a negative or slide.
>
> Or from a digital.
A proper point, but a poor comparison. A digital sensor is much more
perfectly flat than film. There is no dimensional grain in a digital
sensor (there is noise in dynamic, but its always within the bounds of
the pixel).
> Most people don't view "first generation" digital files. In fact, nobody
> CAN view "first generation" digital files at full resolution. A UXGA
> (1600x1200) monitor has only 1.9 megapixels; digital files have 12mp.
> The highest resolution monitor is WQUXGA (3840x2400, still far short of
> displaying a native 12mp file. Oh, and it's $20,000.00 with a 300:1
> contrast ratio that will make your "first generation" file look like
> crap.).
Ahem. You zoom into the area of detail of interest. But again, that's
not the same as viewing a print which cannot have the dynamic range of
the image in any case. Never mind the 100 dpi or so of a typical
monitor v. the 300 dpi of a typical print. (Even your drool-monitor
above is somewhat less than 300 dpi.)
> So digital must be viewed as a print as well if one wants to get full
> resolution.
Hmm. Odd you mention that now...
>
>> Now, if we are to compare a digital file to an
>> original slide (kodachrom or ektachrome) then it would be a fair
>> contest. However, there isn't a way to accurately view slides with
>> out a scan, which is a second generation again.
>
> Ever heard of projectors? Ilfochrome? You're a "photo instructor"?
> Yikes.
>
>> So, my point it this,
>> does it really matter?
>> Digital Images have allowed us to view first generation files
>
> Yeah, either reduced to 25% resolution to fit a monitor, or by scrolling
> to see 1/6th of the picture at a time at full res. Pfft.
Pfft yourself. A monitor is on the order of 100 dpi and a print on the
order of 300 dpi. So yes, in editing you have to zoom in for critical
detail.
And yes, you display it resized to see the entire image for overall
effect. And so what? This has absolutely nothing to do with film v
digital. Once you've digitized film, it is no different in this sense
than a digital original.
"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>>> "James Silverton" <not.jim.silverton@verizon.not> wrote:
>>>>> Can you buy film or new film cameras any more?
>>>> Yes. I don't know about cameras in the inferior subminiature 35mm
>>>> format,
>>> Don't get snotty!
>>
>> Get real. 35mm is a joke and always has been. That's why it was so easy
>> for digital to trounce it.
>
> Hmm, guess 50+ years of National Geographic was a joke. I'll write them a
> note.
People keep telling how wonderful NG is, but I'm rarely impressed with the
photography therein. In the last issue I bought, the photography didn't do
anything for me (lots of underexposed bogus moody shots) and there were two
articles on places I happen to know something about; both were serious BS.
In particular, they recyled standard stereotypes that don't have anything to
do with the reality of life in the countries in question.
And the last I heard, NG had gone digital.
>>> yes you can get 35mm film too... easier than 120 for that matter.
>>
>> Around here, 120 is available everywhere that sells film, and more new
>> films are coming out in 120 than 35mm. (Well, the four new Fuji pro
>> negative films (120 only) are getting to be somewhat old news, 3 or 4
>> years, by now.)
>
> Around here (living in the sticks) I have to order it at least a week in
> advance and a minimum of a 5 pak. Or drive into the city. Yeah. Right.
My condolences. If I wanted inconvenience and the need to own a car, I'd
live in the sticks too. Here, I can hop on a train and be out in the
countryside in an hour. But I walk to the supermarket for grocery shopping,
and the local pro lab is even closer than the supermarket.
David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>>>> "James Silverton" <not.jim.silverton@verizon.not> wrote:
>>>>>> Can you buy film or new film cameras any more?
>>>>> Yes. I don't know about cameras in the inferior subminiature 35mm
>>>>> format,
>>>> Don't get snotty!
>>> Get real. 35mm is a joke and always has been. That's why it was so easy
>>> for digital to trounce it.
>> Hmm, guess 50+ years of National Geographic was a joke. I'll write them a
>> note.
>
> People keep telling how wonderful NG is, but I'm rarely impressed with the
> photography therein. In the last issue I bought, the photography didn't do
> anything for me (lots of underexposed bogus moody shots) and there were two
> articles on places I happen to know something about; both were serious BS.
Hmm. I guess you're in the minority. Certainly not every shot is an
absolute beauty, but they produce fantastic photography in any case.
Even secondary magazines they produce of photography not used in the
journal is stunning (and larger format).
> In particular, they recyled standard stereotypes that don't have anything to
> do with the reality of life in the countries in question.
A gross exaggeration. I'm sure they make errors like everyone, but on
the whole...
> And the last I heard, NG had gone digital.
Certainly. But, they did not have that luxury before. Nor did its
absence harm them.
>>>> yes you can get 35mm film too... easier than 120 for that matter.
>>> Around here, 120 is available everywhere that sells film, and more new
>>> films are coming out in 120 than 35mm. (Well, the four new Fuji pro
>>> negative films (120 only) are getting to be somewhat old news, 3 or 4
>>> years, by now.)
>> Around here (living in the sticks) I have to order it at least a week in
>> advance and a minimum of a 5 pak. Or drive into the city. Yeah. Right.
>
> My condolences. If I wanted inconvenience and the need to own a car, I'd
> live in the sticks too. Here, I can hop on a train and be out in the
> countryside in an hour. But I walk to the supermarket for grocery shopping,
> and the local pro lab is even closer than the supermarket.
That's living in Japan. The province I live in is 10x larger than Japan
with less than 1/10 the population. Now certainly I don't travel all
over the province (and to do so would be horribly expensive) but the
fact remains that we are not very train oriented. A photographer I know
(a Pentax 67 kind of dude last I saw) does travel all over this
province, however, and no train has ever gone there ... and likely never
will.
I spent a few weeks in the s/w US recently, and trains would have been a
useless way to travel... same I suspect for a lot of areas in the world.
Inconvenience of owning a car? Nah. Buy Honda. They don't break.
Sits in the driveway. No waiting. Winter? My driveway is blown out by
the contractor before I'm awake or before I get home.
What works here may not work there, but the reverse is mostly true as
well (although I hear that budgets for building more highways or
improving them is serious ricebowl politics in Japan ... your taxes at
"work". My condolences.)
Re: 35mm film VS digital 
Linear Mode
