Stephen Johnson and digital photography breaking new ground ?

[John H. Henderson]

This discussion raises a number of questions and comments.

The dynamic range is limited in a print. Film already captures more dynamic range than can be printed by any method, so what is the point of using digital to capture even MORE range, if it indeed is capable of that? We use processing controls (a part of the zone system) to compress the dynamic range into that printable on paper.

I believe that the even the highest resolution scanning backs don't begin to approach the resolution achievable with large format film and lenses. Don't even begin to argue that a digital process is going to give more detail.

Grain might be reduced because there is no grain. If the pixel is much much larger than the grain structure, as it is, then all of the grain variations are integrated out (averaged) over the pixel, and the pixel is printed smooth. Although at lower resolution.

I can think of no technical reasons why digital would be better as in most of these claims. The color response might be different, though. Though perhaps not necessarily better.

I think it is a long long time until film is replaced by imaging arrays. It is just too dense a recording medium. I do, however, think the wet darkroom for printmaking is quickly going away. I'm hanging onto mine, and still upgrading, for now and for some time, as a wet darkroom can be built much more inexpensively that that fancy computer, scanner and printer are going to cost.

[steve_782]

I've looked at his web site and am singularly unimpressed with the images. I see little that is about the qualites of light much less dynamic range. Most of the color photos appear to be done between 8:00 am and 4:00 pm in fairly flat lighting. Everyone needs a gimmick, and if being a "digital pioneer" is his gimmick, more power to him. Haven't seen an image on his web site that would make me part with $$ to own it. The hook of being made totally in digital format really doesn't convince me to part with $$. I care about interesting images - not how they've been made. OK - the lone bush in Death Valley is nice, the rest? Yawnnnn....

[Larry Huppert]

re: "What does this guy mean by archival color? There is no such thing for color inks."

Anyone have experience with the new Epson pigment printers like the 2000P? Epson claims their inks are archival.

From the Epson website they say: "Lightfastness rated 200 or more years before noticable fading occurs, in normal indoor flourescent lighting, under a glass frame, when using Geniune EPSON Archival Inks and compatible EPSON matte type papers. Under the same conditions, lightfastness rated at 140 yrs when using EPSON Premium Semigloss Photo Paper and EPSON Premium Luster Photo Paper. Results will vary depending on lighting conditions, humidity, color intensity, color range and print media."

If this is true, it has better archival properties than traditional color photographic processes. Didn't someone say in a post that the wet darkroom is quickly going away. Can't wait to see samples of prints done with this technology.

[M.]

I certainly hope the photographs are not archival -- they're pretty boring.

[john borrelli]

I think in terms of archival stability one has to be aware that the archival stability of traditional color prints also has to take into consideration the "archival stability" of the original color slide material. I vaguely remember an issue of View Camera where they had acquired an original color slide of Ansel Adams; the slide had turned a magenta color and was not recognizable. Digital would seem to have an advantage there.
As far as judging Mr. Johnson's work I will have to reserve judgment until I see some of his prints in person. I was not aware of the long capture times needed for digital backs; I don't understand why these larger backs need so much more time than the highest mb Canon cameras.

[George Kara]

Seems to me the photographer is simply marketing himself. This is the typical "better and different" story that is often used in the business world.

I wouldn't spend to much time debating a persons marketing campaign. That equipment costs alot of money and the person is simply trying to make a buck.

George

[Gordon Moat]

Joshua Greene is still restoring the archive of images from his father Milton Green, including many images of Marilyn Monroe. Sure, the original film in many instances is not in as good a shape as originally shot, but that is the nature of conservatory practices. So an archival nature is dubious at best; a method of conservation can always be developed to revive or restore images of the past; some things will be lost, and must be accepted.

There are a few interesting aspects of reviving a thread from 2000. Those claims for Epson printers then have not proven true, yet the newer printers claim to either finally offer better permanence, or claim to avoid the problems with printers, compared to those available eight years ago. That time was sort of the infancy of mass acceptance of digital imaging, and many wild claims were made in that time. Honestly, if you showed up somewhere with a Nikon D1 today, few would find the images to be of good technical quality . . . yet in 2000, this camera was the sh*t.

Definitely agree with George Kara on this. Wanking what gear you use is marketing.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

[QT Luong]

This has been along time, but since I started it, let me say that in the while I read his book (SJ on digital photography), and to his credit, I thought that he did offer a certain vision and esthetic of landscape photography, for which digital seems ideally suited.

[Matt Blaze]

I was not aware of the long capture times needed for digital backs; I don't understand why these larger backs need so much more time than the highest mb Canon cameras.

The high-resolution large format digital backs that take several minutes to capture an image are scanning backs. Ordinary DSLRs and MF digital backs (up to about 22MP these days) have an array of millions of pixel sensors over the entire image area, with a sensitivity that lets you expose the sensor basically as you would film. But sensor yields make it difficulty to economically produce sensors much larger than that. Scanning backs, on the other hand, have a narrow sensor that mechanically moves across the image plane to create a very high resolution image, much as a flatbed scanner does. Each row of the image takes the normal about of time to expose, but a complete image consists of thousands of sequential exposures stitched together. For example, I have a recent BetterLight large format scanning back. It produces 6000x8000 pixel images, in an area only slightly smaller than 4x5 film (and fits on a regular 4x5 view camera). But it only has a 3x6000 sensor (one row each for red, green and blue); a full capture consists of 8000 exposures for each sensor row. At a 1/80 second exposure a full capture takes over 100 seconds.

Scanning backs have the obvious disadvantage that they can't be used for portraits (except, perhaps, of corpses) or other moving subjects. And in spite of being cheaper than an array sensor in a given size (even if one could be produced), they're still shockingly expensive. But they have the advantage of very high quality captures compared with regular sensor arrays even at the same resolution (the R G and B pixel channels are usually sampled from the exact same locations, for example), and a large image area. The main applications are art reproduction, still life / product photography and architecture, although a few people work with them for general outdoor and nature photography.

[Terence McDonagh]

I am hardly a "good" photographer by the standards of this site, but his photos look worse than my 35mm and digital snapshots. Whatever advantage his technology gives him, it certainly hasn't helped him see interesting, much less exciting, light.

The Grand Canyon NP shots are so obviously from the south rim overlooks. The skies are blown out. I concur, it looks like guy never gets up before 8 am, or stays out past 3 pm.