Jack Dykinga: another one bites the d

[David_Senesac]

I assume you're aware of what a huge art-historical can of worms this is. Every generation has had different ideas about what constitutes a "true" moment in time, and how to capture it. And it seems that every other generation (going back to the 1850s) has been fascinated by approaches that have little to do with fidelity to nature.

Yes Paul there is vast dialogue on these subjects and discussions are often lost in abstractions and the inability of words to effectively communicate. Neither of us will have an interest in hijacking this thread into one of those futile discussions, however I will make the below statement to show a bit more where I would discuss from and leave it at that.

With photography the graphic elements of frames irrespective of accuracy of luminance and color have what has historically been at the essence of some photography both for photographers and the public as true. I state "some" because there are a great many ways to record light on 2-dimensional medium and many of those ways have nothing to do with recording moments in time or relative accuracy. So the conversation needs to have limitations when referring to "photography" else there are many exceptions that only serve as fuel for those that wish to garble discussions. Now some wish to twist the conversation to reflect what the human eye sees and base its irrelevance on the fact it is different than what our eyes see. Such arguments are misplaced because the nature of photography uses rectangular frames (although such might be any bounded shape behind a lens) and captures light on 2-dimensional mediums. So that alone in its limited sense ought be considered to have truth or not. One might also state frames are bounded windows through which we view such.

Thus it is more valid to state that some photography captures graphic moments in time through frames instead of trying to state its purpose is to capture all that we see or something that reflects our seven senses. That it is just an element of the whole in no way diminishes its validity of truth if defined so.

[dng88]

Diversity is very important.

If nothing else, at least from a "marketing" point of view. Have the unusual site of large format film cf the very large amount of digital site out there, I think there is a niche for this site to exist as it is.

Further, unlike some site like dpreview, you really have to get past certain barrier to join. It takes me 5 years to do my E6 4x5 and lately 18 months to obtain my 8x10 black and white development self-taught experience to just understand some of the things you guy are saying (and some I still not understand).

BTW, I think if you are in business and get away with digital, it is much more commercial to use digital to hand in your project. I have bought Dykinga's book and I think I would not go after him for being in 4x5 or in digital SLR/back. I do not care as a reader and hence he can get away with it. By doing digital, I think he can profit more.

However, that is from a commerical producing point of view. I sort of recall that Ctein has pointed in TOP indirectly about the time issue in using digital vs analogue process. It takes him a lot of time to do digital print but it takes much less time to produce a print. I think from a lowly amateur hobby which do occasion printing and have the luxury to be "in love" with the process, it is better to use film. In fact, I print out some 8x10 and Hassey 6x6 enlarged pictures last week but my scanned one is still somehow not out -- I have some issues with the setup of the Epson R1800 and it prints color ok but somehow not my black-and-white.

I think CD/download music is ok but for some, vinyl is still a better option and it is lucky that for those who like that process, they can have it.

To each according to their need. I just hope and wish (whatever the better word) that diversity prevail and this site preserves its uniqueness and that film / large format survive.

IMHO.

[Robert Hughes]

...there is vast dialogue on these subjects and discussions are often lost in abstractions and the inability of words to effectively communicate.

What did Elvis Costello say about music criticism? "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture."
Or was that Steve Martin? Or Miles Davis, Theolonius Monk, Plato? Waddevuh...

[Mike Anderson]

What did Elvis Costello say about music criticism? "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture."
Or was that Steve Martin? Or Miles Davis, Theolonius Monk, Plato? Waddevuh...

And yet people get paid to do it. Reminds of a story:

My brother is a jazz drummer, hence he's poor. I suggested he get a job at a record store. He said "Have you heard that saying 'music critics are failed musicians'? I said "yes". He said (jokingly) "well people that work in record stores are failed critics."

He's really not that arrogant but I think he's heard "why don't you get a job in a record store" too many times.

...Mike

[Robert Hughes]

OTOH, Quentin Tarantino started his career as a video store clerk. He's done alright for himself...

[timparkin]

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.

When you've learned about the lowered density of colour filters on digital sensors (to increase dynamic range at the expense of colour accuracy), loose IR/UV cutoffs, colour response curves and crossovers you'll start to realise that these 'transforms' are destructive and cannot be reverse engineered into 'accurate' colour (if there is such a thing).

Digital cameras are not 100% accurate recording devices - not only do they have their own frequency response but each colour channel bleeds into it's neighbours in different ways depending on many factors.

Hence, it is impossible to convert a digital file to look like a film look e.g. Velvia 50 separates green response somehow - expanding the hue range so that blue greens seem to look more blue and yellow greens more yellow. They also compress the orange/red range - which is why sunsets seem to block up on velvia and why they always seem richer in colour using Provia..

All recording devices are distortions - some distortions actually sound/look better than the real thing :-) (and I'm not just talking Velvia - new Portra for instance)

Tim

[pdmoylan]

In keeping with the original subject post, Dykinga continues to use 4x5 for fine art as seen on the cover of the current issue of Outdoor Photographer (US). Some European friends believe, as I do, that too many American LG color photographers present images which are purposely oversaturated (30% or more). Case in point is Dykinga's image and Tom Till's HDR images in OP, the latter which were brutal to my eye. This is a matter of personal taste and publisher's need to catch the eye of the reader/glancer.

I cannot easily work with the 2nd generation Velvia 50 due to it's contrast and restricted pallete, but in a recent comparision of 12mp digital and 4x5 Velvia 100f in open bright overcast light, the images were remarkably similar in color. Prints were comparable, with DR and contrast the more remarkable differences. I for one would not be interested in producing digital images which mimace Velvia 50. On the other hand, digital imaging would not have been embrased if it was not producing realistic color pallette.

The challenge is in lower light and very strong light where I see more dramatic differences between film and digital. Much of this is related to contrast and reciprocity with film (color shift which can be adjusted to some extent with filters). Other films such as Provia do not render greens well in my opinion. Kodak e100g has by far the most realistic and pleasant color pallette.

On the other hand, shaded images on a bright sunny day with digital are so overly blue it is very difficult to "fix". Even with careful fiddling with Kelvin settings, I could not match digital color output with Velvia 100f imaging a shaded forest stream on a bright sunny day.

Knowing how a medium renders color and whether you can adjust for it is key.There is no panacea, but I am convinced that the advantages of the MSLR HD40-60 seem to outweigh any debate on color subtleties. Until I can afford it I will continue to use both mediums.

[George Stewart]

I happened to have lunch with Jack just a few weeks ago, where indicated that he hadn't shot LF in quite a while. He further indicated that his D3x stitched images look no different than a 4x5 scan printed to 40x50.

I am partially responsible for his renaissance. He was impressed with not only my D3x stitched images taken on one of his Grand Canyon raft trips, but the fact that it survived a complete five-second submersion in water and continued to function on that trip. Sorry guys and gals, but it is a very capable system.

[Brian Ellis]

When you've learned about the lowered density of colour filters on digital sensors (to increase dynamic range at the expense of colour accuracy), loose IR/UV cutoffs, colour response curves and crossovers you'll start to realise that these 'transforms' are destructive and cannot be reverse engineered into 'accurate' colour (if there is such a thing).

Digital cameras are not 100% accurate recording devices - not only do they have their own frequency response but each colour channel bleeds into it's neighbours in different ways depending on many factors.

Hence, it is impossible to convert a digital file to look like a film look e.g. Velvia 50 separates green response somehow - expanding the hue range so that blue greens seem to look more blue and yellow greens more yellow. They also compress the orange/red range - which is why sunsets seem to block up on velvia and why they always seem richer in colour using Provia..

All recording devices are distortions - some distortions actually sound/look better than the real thing :-) (and I'm not just talking Velvia - new Portra for instance)

Tim

Better late than never. : - )

Why would someone want to convert a digital file to duplicate film? If one aspired to nothing more than that wouldn't they just use film in the first place and be done with it? Learning how to photograph and print digitally and do it well takes a lot of time and effort. I can't imagine why anyone would spend the necessary time and effort just to produce results that were no better than could have been done with film.

[tgtaylor]

A print from color negative film leaves color slides in the dust. Here's a scan workprint of a recent image shot on Kodak Porta 160NC:



The final print was printed with a filter pack that resulted in a "more pleasing" blue sky and toned down the pink in the stone.

Oh, and it doesn't have measles either.