Digital Camera R&D...

[Bobby Sandstrom]

Dave, I'm insulted by your demeaning comments. I have a Canon 1ds, an M6, an F5, a 501CM, and 4x5, 8x10, 14x17 view cameras. I know photoshop and proper digital workflow better than most. Don't judge me my friend. You don't know who you're talking to. My important film work is drum scanned when not printed in the darkroom. If you really knew what you were talking about you wouldn't be so quick to boast of your Imacon. I have 7600 and 4800 printers dedicated to matte and glossy type papers respectively. I provided an example that is indicative of the same disparity that using a full frame DSLR would show. I know because I've done tests myself with my own gear. I asked a simple question to begin with but somehow always seem to attract a bunch of yahoos whenever I post. I think I'll refrain from doing so in the future. Thanks for the turn off.

[Jeff Moore]

You sure do a lot of arguing for a guy who claims of not wanting to argue. Also, referring to others who disagree with you as yahoos isn't very appealing either.

"I think I'll refrain from doing so in the future."

Thanks; much appreciated.

[tim atherton]

Booby,

you can get into all the mien is bigger than yours arguments all you want, but it still seems fairly clear from what you say that you still don't seem to quite understand the difference or recognise how to adjust the different types of images correctly.

I work with this all the the time and, as I say, apart from such things as differences in grain, I can get fairly easily get the same image from say a hi-res scan from 35mm and a 12mp camera (or whatever) to look close to identical in terms of contrast, "snap" or what you call "apparent depth", tone etc - it isn't really that difficult.

One quick question - how are you converting your RGB digital camera files to greyscale?

[tim atherton]

"Booby" really was a typo... it's late :-)

[Bobby Sandstrom]

Tim, I didn't see your post before my previous one. Believe me, I see the contrast differences between the images. I know that contrast is what creates the illusion of depth. I'm saying that starting with high quality images with careful photoshop work including tweaking contrast, sharpness etc. so the images of a digital capture and a scanned piece of film match as closely as possible the digital image still looks flatter. It's subtle, but it's noticeable. I know that most scanning software will automatically sharpen an image some even when you think you have sharpening turned off. I know that RAW captures absolutely need to be worked... I've worked hundreds of them. I have enough experience to level the playing field as much as possible between the two formats to make an honest assesment, yet, to my eye, there still remains a difference. I know some very respectable photographers that feel the same way. I'll stop posting now as I don't want to beat a dead horse with this subject. Thanks to anyone in the thread that tried to answer the question in a respectful way.

[Jim collum]

don't understand why offering you an explanation for what you are seeing classifies me as a yahoo. the work really was a matter of about 3 minutes. the grain doesn't match.. that would take a little longer.. but still can be done

[Bobby Sandstrom]

Jim, I'm not calling you a Yahoo. Actually I'm referring to Dave Luttmann and his demeaning post in this thread as well as a couple of other folks from different threads in the past that I've posted questions to. My bad. I should have been more clear. It really ticks me off when you get guys that assume you're an idiot and mouth off without knowing the capabilities of whom they're slamming. You did a fine job with your touchup and I appreciate your constructive reply.

[tim atherton]

Bobby , again, I'd be itnerested to know what method you are using for converting rgb to greyscale?

[Matt Miller]

"I think most would agree that digital files look flat or 1 dimentional when compared with film."

For 90% of the digital work I see, and 100% of my own limited digital work, I agree with you Bobby. With my few hundred dollars in film gear I can easily produce photographs with depth, with my few hundred dollars in digital gear I can not. They all look flat. If I had thousands to spend and many hours to practice, maybe I could produce photos with depth in digital. I don't though, so I can't.

[Frank Petronio]

I mix my digital and film work together and I defy you to tell which is which. If you want to argue about the depth of a toned fiber B&W print versus an inkjet print I'll conceed that there is no digital medium that can match the traditional print, but for comparing scanned film versus digital captures, it's all Ones and Zeroes, and I can move those numbers around anyway I please. Ever hear of a "S" shaped curve?