Jack Dykinga: another one bites the d

[vinny]

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.[/QUOTE]

Now if they would just make a film that looked like digital capture, that'd be great.

[Robert Hughes]

If convenience really drove every individual to the same conclusive point, then the only prevalent imaging technology would be smart phones....Why carry any larger device to make images, especially when you could just stitch together mobile phone captures.

Hey, that's funny. I was photographing with my cell phone this afternoon! Guess I can just toss all that klunky film stuff now ...

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

Er, I mean... I hate digital cameras? I keep a 4x5 strapped to my belt where ever I go! Next to my .45 ACP. Just in case ... I don't care what you say, I say what you say and I'm not going to change my view!

[Chris Strobel]

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?

I'm sure there has got to be something better about those chromes.I did a little research on Mr. Lough, and this guy is doing some serious back country trekking with his 8x10 Arca-Swiss on his back.I don't see why he would go back to lugging it those kind of miles on foot if the digital was going to be its equal.

P.S. Do you have his book?Is it worth the 65.00?I have Burkett's books printed by Gardner, and never tire of them for inspiration.I'm thinking of buying Lough's book, but am wondering who printed it.

[Brian Ellis]

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?

I don't know that anyone has tried to change your mind about the prints you saw in that exhibit. I know I didn't. As you say, you saw what you saw and you formed an opinion that the prints from chromes looked better than the digital prints in that exhibit. I think what some people (including me) have suggested is that you perhaps shouldn't generalize from that one experience to conclude that "chromes look better than digital capture."

[gnuyork]

I don't know that anyone has tried to change your mind about the prints you saw in that exhibit. I know I didn't. As you say, you saw what you saw and you formed an opinion that the prints from chromes looked better than the digital prints in that exhibit. I think what some people (including me) have suggested is that you perhaps shouldn't generalize from that one experience to conclude that "chromes look better than digital capture."

Who said I was generalizing from one experience. And who are you to conclude that and tell me I should or should not do something.

[Chris Strobel]

I don't know that anyone has tried to change your mind about the prints you saw in that exhibit. I know I didn't. As you say, you saw what you saw and you formed an opinion that the prints from chromes looked better than the digital prints in that exhibit. I think what some people (including me) have suggested is that you perhaps shouldn't generalize from that one experience to conclude that "chromes look better than digital capture."

Could it be the resolution and micro contrast he's seeing?Seems Mr. Lough used an Alpha Max camera with a Phase One P65+ back.How does that compare to drum scanned 8x10?I've only ever read comparisons of the P45+ to 4x5 film, and comments the P65+ is better than 4x5, but no direct comparison to Tango scanned 8x10.

[gnuyork]

I'm sure there has got to be something better about those chromes.I did a little research on Mr. Lough, and this guy is doing some serious back country trekking with his 8x10 Arca-Swiss on his back.I don't see why he would go back to lugging it those kind of miles on foot if the digital was going to be its equal.

P.S. Do you have his book?Is it worth the 65.00?I have Burkett's books printed by Gardner, and never tire of them for inspiration.I'm thinking of buying Lough's book, but am wondering who printed it.

Yes, Chris I browsed the book that was in the gallery last night. I came close to buying it but decided to hold off for now. I just bought a book used on Ebay called "Landscape" from the Library World of Photography. I have not browsed it, but it apparently has a sort of historical approach to landscape photography going back to the 1800s. Should be an interesting source.

[Paul Kierstead]

Who said I was generalizing from one experience.

...

Chromes look better than digital captures.

Ok, I hadn't said it, but I will say it, or close to it; you are generalizing from one experience. The caveat I'll give you is that it could be more then one experience.

It is pretty simple; if you don't mean it as a generalization, then just say his chromes were better then his digital capture.

[gnuyork]

...



Ok, I hadn't said it, but I will say it, or close to it; you are generalizing from one experience. The caveat I'll give you is that it could be more then one experience.

It is pretty simple; if you don't mean it as a generalization, then just say his chromes were better then his digital capture.

Really, you'll give me a caveat? Thanks so much.

As far as Rodney's chromes - thought that was pretty clear that I saw his chromes as being better. And I will also say from my own experience as a PHOTOGRAPHER who has shot both film and digital.

And also when I once assisted a wedding who shot most of the wedding with film, and some with digital capture. When I saw the proofs, there it was again. The film shots looked better to me.

This is my opinion, just like everybody has their own opinion. Maybe certain individuals assume that since I am a new forum member with very few posts, most of them which are from this thread, that I am also new to photography - film or digital. Not true. Just a new member interested in discussing large format photography, in which I think of mostly with film terms, but that doesn't mean I am against digital photography at all. As I have stated I have used digital cameras since about 2003 or so.

Perhaps I have come to the wrong place.

[Brian Ellis]

Who said I was generalizing from one experience. And who are you to conclude that and tell me I should or should not do something.

The only experience you had talked about throughout this thread as the basis for your opinion was attending the exhibit in question. You've now posted a message in which you tell us that you also saw some proofs of film and digital images made by another photographer and indeed you yourself are both a film and digital photographer. But until you told us those experiences nobody had any way of knowing about them.

I didn't "tell" you what you should or should not do. What I said was "I THINK what some people (including me) have SUGGESTED is that you PERHAPS shouldn't generalize from that one experience to conclude that "chromes look better than digital capture." I expressed an opinion ("I think . . . "), which is what we often do here. I also made a suggestion. Something else often done here. You're free to ignore my suggestion. I didn't tell you to do anything.