Stephen Johnson and digital photography breaking new ground ?

[Henri Gaud]

Yes the technique is extremely interesting since b/w negative has such a wide
latitude. thats why I would like to see an example that shows that. But even with
regular colour negative its hard to blow out highlights in normal shooting conditions.

Hello,
You have see my photography (excuse-me my english is a school english, not very good), my trichromy.
About HL and Shadows, the trichromy process is not a Norm-process, it is a Libery process, if you want detail in HL you can, at every time, and every subject.
You have the process, and what you want to do.
In the Rayol, I want Shadows and colors, and i have, and i don't want contrast, and i don't want the autochrome style, but if your want a over thing you can.

At Home with 12 EV

Here you can see the HL details, and the shadows, the big chalenge for Ektachrome or for Digital : 12 EV without HDR.

Thank for your attention

[Frank Petronio]

SJ's older film work was pretty boring too, like the Owens Valley Water Project was deadpan and flat, maybe even more so than the New Topographists of the day like Joe Deal, Frank Ghoeke, Robert Adams, Lewis Baltz, etc....

I used to love that stuff but now I think it all sucks. It's boring.

Where digital really shines is with low light and high ISOs. We've only begun to see a few pictures coming out of the D3 and fast lenses at ISO 25,000. Once some better photographers start using that technology to its best advantage we should see some incredible work.

I can't think of one scanning back image that is significant, other than it simply being a good commercial shot.

[Gordon Moat]

With the trichrome process, it takes three exposures to get that extended range. If we supposed modern transparency film was only five stops range, then two exposures, and combining in post processing would get a comparable extended range. However, it would not achieve the extra resolution of the trichrome process, though I wonder how much more is possible given the resolution limits of large format lenses (most near 60lp/mm). It's an elegant process, though I am not so sure I would be trying it.

There is also an aesthetic question of whether an extended range, or even using HDR, really makes for a better image. Most images I have seen done this way seem quite boring and are not compelling. There might be situations in which the end results justify these means, but I certainly have found no examples yet. I find more examples of great images that show little range, though perhaps that is because they are technically easier to achieve . . . somehow I don't think that is the situation. With painting or illustration, many images do not mimic what could be done with HDR, which makes me wonder why people would want to use it.

I am impressed by the D3, but I have to laugh a bit about the results. Nikon are running a two page spread ad in several magazines at the moment, using a high ISO shot of a racing motorcycle. While I would bet most here disagree with me on this, I have seen very similar images done on pushed film. The difference is that now we have noise, where previously we had grain . . . not that there is much difference in the printed results. Sure, any D-SLR image will look great on a computer monitor, but if you want printed results, then that is how comparisons should be made. To be fair, the D3 can go to an ultimately higher ISO than was possible with Kodak P1600, which I seem to recall was the highest possible ISO colour film made recently.

I think too much emphasis on technology or technique can distract from creating truly compelling images. Obviously many photographers enjoy gadgets, though they rarely drive us towards creating more interesting results. Just look at how much photographers of the past are still talked about due to their images, yet most of them used equipment many on this forum would likely look down upon. It's not the camera, it's the person using it.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

[David Luttmann]

I am impressed by the D3, but I have to laugh a bit about the results. Nikon are running a two page spread ad in several magazines at the moment, using a high ISO shot of a racing motorcycle. While I would bet most here disagree with me on this, I have seen very similar images done on pushed film. The difference is that now we have noise, where previously we had grain . . . not that there is much difference in the printed results. Sure, any D-SLR image will look great on a computer monitor, but if you want printed results, then that is how comparisons should be made. To be fair, the D3 can go to an ultimately higher ISO than was possible with Kodak P1600, which I seem to recall was the highest possible ISO colour film made recently.


Gordon Moat Photography

I would only partially disagree. I've never had P1600 pushed to 6400 that looked anywhere near that clean. In fact, I'd say that P1600 exposed at 1600 has more grain/noise than that Nikon image.

That said, with the exception of wedding ceremony interiors, I rarely shoot above 200 anyway.

[john borrelli]

A bit late, but I just wanted to take a moment to thank Matt for his explanation of the difference in capture times.

[srbphoto]

I have seen many of his prints in person as well as spoken to him a couple of times. His studio was near my old one and he actually moved into the same building I was in just after I left.

While he does have some nice shots (anyone who shoots a lot should), I agree he doesn't seem to shoot in the best light. I often wonder if it is because of the slow speed of the digital backs. I don't find many of his images especially exciting. He also seems to take a lot pictures that (he believes) are "marketable" as opposed to "artistic".

He definitely has a "softer" color pallette than most. The opposite of someone like Christopher Burkett (ilforchromes) or Charles Cramer. I think that is an artistic choice. In fact, I think the two biggest problems in digital are oversaturation and over sharpening.

I do think he is a "pioneer" of digital photography (especially LF). He has been doing it for a lot longer than most and has consulted with Adobe, etc.

If anyone is in the Bay Area, his studio is in Pacifica (just south of San Francisco) about 1 1/4 miles from the beach. Go check them out for yourself.

my 2 cents

Scott

[Carlos R Herrera]

I remember when The Ansel Adams Gallery hosted a Digital Symposium back in the 90s, Johnson setup some equipment in the teaching darkroom. I think he was scanning negatives or slides and his Mac took a full day to do the job. I remember being pissed because the darkroom was basically inop while this was going on. But the ideas presented by that panel were really cool and THEN I saw Johnson's images. I then I said WTF! He is 100 million times better at marketing. Images were boring as hell. I remember thinking everything was shot at high noon, like things you would see in those free "Homes for Sale" magazines.

CH