Digital Capture vs. Film Capture...the PRINTS...

[cobalt]

"Machine-gunning", "screwing with photoshop", "digicrap" and other such nonsense, all coming from people who often have trouble embedding images or even simple hyperlinks into their posts but hold very strong opinions about digital workflow...

No insult intended?

Are you serious?

Don't quite know what you are talkin' 'bout, Willis... and apparently, neither do you, O grand poobah of the non sequitur.

[aphexafx]

Talk to me (or better yet, someone who values your opinion) when you are old enough to drink legally.

Well, I'm 30, but good for you.

[Ben Syverson]

Countdown to Hitler reference in 5...4...3...

[D. Bryant]

Countdown to Hitler reference in 5...4...3...

You mean this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnwf2RShNV0

or this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQrOapfVmIM&NR=1 -- Warning F-Bombs in dialog.

Don Bryant

[Eric James]

That's the funniest thing I've seen since the last time I saw something that funny

[neil poulsen]

I think we make the inherent assumption that a sea-change such as what we've seen with digital should necessarily result in an improved product. (i.e. improved print.)

I don't think that's the case. It wasn't the case with audio systems, when they migrated from component systems to all-in-one boxes. Without trying to state the obvious, there are other reasons that what used to be mainstream is now alternative. As Kirk pointed out, the image highways are electronic, so it makes sense to capture in digital.

My favorite thing about digital is the flexibility of image manipulation in post-processing. I admit it. I love computers! I enjoy spending three hours on a computer optimizing an image in Photoshop. It's amazing what can be done with layers and masks after taking multiple captures on a tripod at varying shutter speeds. Actually, I think this does result in a better image. But, it wouldn't have to, in order to make a convincing case for the over-whelming change that digital has initiated.

Another non-image related advantage of digital is repeatability and reproducibility. Once the post-processing is completed, it's so easy to render another print at a later time.

Plus, it's more pleasant sitting at one's desk amid the interesting household goings-on, versus sequestering oneself in a dark room with the door closed. And talk about messy!

With that said, I like the images that I get from my Kodak SLR/c. I use it with my shift lenses just as I would a view camera. It's got great color and resolution. I can take it into our local pro shop, and sales people look down their noses at my camera and make barely a faint effort to hide their smiles. But, little do they know: my camera does not have an anti-aliasing filter!!! So, it does not intentionally blur the image, thereby robbing the image of it's color fidelity. Of course, there are disadvantages, but I find them worth the trade.

I still love film. For example, I don't see how a digital monochrome image can match a silver or palladium-platinum image on rag paper. But does it really need to, in order to be successful? I don't think so.

[Anders_HK]

Anders,

I'm downloading your file now, I must say I like the attached image. If using the Leaf back with the Mamiya works for you then stay with it.

Don Bryant

Much Thanks . I shot a 6x7 on Velvia 50 from same outlook. Two different medias, I like both. .

wonderful images!

I use the Aptus 75s on an Horseman SWDII, as well as a 4x5 view camera. Although different from film, you do approach the latitude of negative film (color & b/w) when using the Mf or LF digital solutions. (although with b/w film, you can extend this latitude further with compensating developers). What I've found is that the mid-tone tonality with the MF/LF digital can be much smoother than that of smaller format digital. Color rendition is pretty much all over the map.. as with film. The best you can do is to find the film or sensor/processing combination that best suits your palette. One person's 'perfect color' can be someone else's over or undersaturation. There's really nothing 'real' about any of the output... it's how you perceive it.

jim

Jim, interesting notes! What do you use to connect the Aptus onto your 4x5? The problem with both large format digital and panoramic digital is that they are $, as apparant blamed on need so exact tolerances, but... groundglass also small to view then, is it not? Per the guy I spoke to at Shen-Hao when I picked up my 4x5 in their store in Shanghai it sounded as a possibility that they may be able to make a Mamiya to 4x5 adapter. They already make one for Hasselblad to 4x5, and it only permit horizontal stitching and has no ground glass. Thus simple to throw into camera bag also . The 4x5 groundglass is used for focus and then replaced by the adapter when take the shot. That should work, provided they get tolerance correct. Any thoughts?

I am curious how you find it to compose using your Aptus; The SW-D should come with an external viewfinder, but what about your 4x5? Also, in what situations do you prefer one over the other?

Above said about digital, but I am excited to try 4x5 film and see my Velvia trans in such size.

Anders

[D. Bryant]

[QUOTE=neil poulsen;438641]

I don't see how a digital monochrome image can match a silver or palladium-platinum image on rag paper

.

Try using digital negatives for those kind of prints.

Don Bryant

[Greg Miller]

News flash: If you can't get exceedingly good quality out of either medium, you suck, not the medium.

Thank you.

Now if only people would go about using whatever medium works for them, and stop trying to convince everyone that every other process but their own is inferior.

[neil poulsen]

[QUOTE=D. Bryant;438678]

.

Try using digital negatives for those kind of prints.

Don Bryant

Indeed. Fuzzy thinking on that point. It was late.