Jack Dykinga: another one bites the d

[mandoman7]

And we thought this thread was going nowhere.

[Marko]

And we thought this thread was going nowhere.

Oh, it's completely unstoppable, still going strong. South, that is...

[Ed Kelsey]

This is interesting...someday film will go the way of daguereotypes, tintypes, glass negatives, etc..

http://www.floridamemory.com/OnlineC...sses/index.cfm

[gnuyork]

I'm very puzzled by this. It is pretty pedestrian to add punch or contrast, and dial in color in Photoshop (if that is the intent). So it would seem that either the images looked the way he wanted them to, or he isn't far enough on the learning curve of working with images from a digital camera to get what he wanted.

Greg, I realize this, having worked for many years shooting and editing with photoshop digital images. But in my own experiences I cannot make my digital shots look like my Ektachrome or Kodachrome shots, and I suspect this is the same with 8x10 Velvia and Astia.

Bottom line the 8x10s looked better to my eyes. I am here in Vegas again for work as I write this. I just visited the gallery again last night.

Nothing has changed. I still see the shots with 8x10 as being better than those captured digitally.

Film captures light differently than a sensor. My observation.

[Gordon Moat]

......

The only thing that will ultimately decide the future of LF as we know it today is the number of people for whom the output quality and convenience of smaller digital cameras will be good enough to make the switch. In other words, it is the profit (or lack thereof) for the manufacturers that will decide which direction we will all go in the end. Judging by the prevailing direction - some on that other board like to call it a stampede - that direction is fairly obvious, it's just a matter of time.

........

I think you are projecting your opinion upon others. Convenience is relative, and not everyone is as lazy as your statement implies. There is far more to life than finding the most convenient ways to accomplish things. In my opinion, it is anything other than obvious.

[Marko]

I think you are projecting your opinion upon others. Convenience is relative, and not everyone is as lazy as your statement implies. There is far more to life than finding the most convenient ways to accomplish things. In my opinion, it is anything other than obvious.

I don't understand what do you mean by "projecting (my) opinion upon others"? Aren't we all just expressing our opinions here? That's why it's called a discussion board, after all.

As for the validity of our respective opinions, I guess the time will show. So far, it (the time) hasn't been too kind to film. Given overall marketing trends, I have no reason to suspect it will be any different in the near future either.

Companies discontinuing traditional products and/or even going bankrupt altogether, not to mention labs closing, makes it all pretty obvious to me. Whether it is obvious to you or not is your concern, not mine.

[Gordon Moat]

That's exactly the point Marko, you consider it obvious. That is projecting your opinion.

If you think it is so obvious, then you should be shorting Fuji and Kodak. Sounds more to me like convenience drives your opinion.

If convenience really drove every individual to the same conclusive point, then the only prevalent imaging technology would be smart phones. After all, what is more convenient than a phone that does everything? Why carry any larger device to make images, especially when you could just stitch together mobile phone captures.

[Greg Miller]

Greg, I realize this, having worked for many years shooting and editing with photoshop digital images. But in my own experiences I cannot make my digital shots look like my Ektachrome or Kodachrome shots, and I suspect this is the same with 8x10 Velvia and Astia.

Bottom line the 8x10s looked better to my eyes. I am here in Vegas again for work as I write this. I just visited the gallery again last night.

Nothing has changed. I still see the shots with 8x10 as being better than those captured digitally.

Film captures light differently than a sensor. My observation.

And I could never run a sub 3 hour marathon despite years of training. But that doesn't mean it cannot be done by others.

The reality, as far as contrast and color control goes, is that a 12 bit digital capture device has more than 68 billion discrete colors to work with. And most modern sensors match or exceed the dynamic range of the films that you mention. It is possible to map a RAW capture to any tonal response curve that one desires (and which isn't much different than scanning film and using a profile to yield accurate colors). So if someone wants a digital image to have extremely similar contrast and color characteristics as a specific film, there are not any technical reasons it cannot be done. Adobe even provides free presets now that replicate camera manufacturers' presets, which in turn generally mimic film types.

[Marko]

That's exactly the point Marko, you consider it obvious. That is projecting your opinion.

If you think it is so obvious, then you should be shorting Fuji and Kodak. Sounds more to me like convenience drives your opinion.

Err, no, that is expressing my opinion. I don't think it is obvious, it is obvious to me.

The main reason why I engage in these discussions is the assumption that we all understand the distinction and that we are all here to actually discuss different opinions and reasoning behind them in good faith.

And yes, I did short them a long time ago. It's business, not personal.

If convenience really drove every individual to the same conclusive point, then the only prevalent imaging technology would be smart phones. After all, what is more convenient than a phone that does everything? Why carry any larger device to make images, especially when you could just stitch together mobile phone captures.

Come now, we both know you can do better than this...

[gnuyork]

And I could never run a sub 3 hour marathon despite years of training. But that doesn't mean it cannot be done by others.

The reality, as far as contrast and color control goes, is that a 12 bit digital capture device has more than 68 billion discrete colors to work with. And most modern sensors match or exceed the dynamic range of the films that you mention. It is possible to map a RAW capture to any tonal response curve that one desires (and which isn't much different than scanning film and using a profile to yield accurate colors). So if someone wants a digital image to have extremely similar contrast and color characteristics as a specific film, there are not any technical reasons it cannot be done. Adobe even provides free presets now that replicate camera manufacturers' presets, which in turn generally mimic film types.

Again - my observation was the 8x10 chromes looked better than the digital captures. I don't care what was put into the final post process or how it was printed. I saw what I saw and I'm not going to change my view. Chromes look better than digital captures. Can I be entitled to that or do you feel the need like some others to change my mind on this issue?