Stephen Johnson and digital photography breaking new ground ?

[QT Luong]

Stephen Johnson wrote: " I'm recording color in my photographs that escape film. Highlights are holding and shadows are opening up like never before. I am making the first archival color photographs o f my career. Grain has vanished.". Judging by his photographs of the national parks (http://www.sjphoto.com/parks-home.html), do you think that this has resulted in any good images which wouldn't have been possible before digital ? One situation where an extended dynamic range would be useful would be sunset landscapes where a grad filter is needed. Interestingly, looking at Johnson's photographs, I notice none of these.

Generally speaking, do you know examples of digital capture (I am not speaking manipulation) which has produced outstanding imagery which couldn't have been done on film before ?

[Ellis Vener]

Have you also noted the length of the exposure times?

[Richard S. Ross]

On the contrary, I only see a *lack* of photographs which would *not* be possible with digital. Can you imagine lugging a 7lb Powerbook in addition to all of your LF gear. Together with the inability of a scanning back to capture long exposures, LF digital has a long way to go. I recall seeing this website sometime last year and being very unimpressed. He does not seem to have added much since then. I wish those companies had sponsored me to bum around the NP system for 5 years!

[pat krentz]

What does this guy mean by archival color? There is no such thing for color inks. Pat

[Bill Glickman]

I agree with Richard, I doubt there is anything LF digital backs can do, that film can not...yes, you may have to use negative film to match the exposure lattitude if desired. And like Ellis mentioned, the exposure times are outrageous... when I investigated 4x5 digital backs around 6 months ago, exposure times for outdoor scenes in bright sunlight were 5 minutes, and sunrise shots, about 30 minutes. In my opinion, taking 30 minutes for an exposure will produce an image that is very unlike what the viewer actually saw at the site. To me, this is similar to shooting film, scanning it and manipulating it in Photoshop. If you notice, he does shoot a lot of stationairy objects.

But if he is actually selling those prints for between $2 - $4k like he has quoted on his web site, then maybe someone should investigate why people are paying so much for them? I have not personaly seen any of his work, I would like to the comments of someone who has.

[Larry Huppert]

As a process, digital capture, plus post capture manipulation might offer a better solution to mixed lighting situations which might come up in interior photography. Of course there are always "analog" ways of solving the problem, but in this case, digital capture may be superior. No guessing on the film's response to funny light. Probably some advantage in being able to manipulate color channels independent from each other in this case. It might be better to think of digital as a new workflow to an end result. In this way, I don't believe it's fair to divorce the backend process from the capture. The other consideration is that "captures" will get smarter, and move some level of "manipulation" into the capture. The new Fuji pro SLR (S1?) tries to guess at a bunch of stuff (e.g. white balance) based on the capture.

[QT Luong]

I saw his prints at a gallery a couple of years ago. They looked somewhat different because of their low contrast and saturation (maybe that's the more accurate colors ?), and the fact they were printed on watercolor paper with the Iris gicle process.

By the way, my question is about the benefits of digital, not its current limitations, which are well known and might change in the future.

[Joshua L. Slocum]

Yes, he's breaking new ground. The color "that escapes film" is so wondrous and new, it's like a color photograph has never been taken before. And, since we all know that sheet film enlargements are so grainy as to be barely readable by the human eye, we must praise digital for bringing us recognizable images. Get my drift? Egads, there's a place for digital, of course, it has many uses. But this? Come on guys. . . what sort of insanity is taking place that the minute gains in color accuracy (which, by the way, I'm not convinced about-what about all the variables in capture chips--->the monitor used to process image----->inks used to output) and shadow detail are thought to outweigh the advantages of sheet film's short exposure times and, AHEM, yep, LONG RECOGNIZED SERIOUS PROFESSIONAL IMAGE QUALITY???? Honestly, this is turning a molehill of digital "progress" into a dubious mountain of results. I guess I'm now supposed to look at my big 20x24 on the wall, from color neg 4x5, and suddenly convince myself that it's A) Not sharp. B) Grainy. C) Has no shadow or highlight detail. D) Pales in the face of the wondrous leaps and bounds that digital scanning backs have accomplished. Hmm. . .it's not working. . .

[Rafe B]

Stumbled into this discussion, but I do have some thoughts on Steve Johnson's work. I first saw his images in a magazine a couple of years back, and I thought they were stunning. The images on his website perhaps a bit less so, but it's quite impossible to present a 300 Mbyte image file as a tiny 30 Kb JPG.

It's not a matter of whether his prints are better than than those made by "analog" capture. It's the mere fact that he's working with a purely digital process, starting with a very high resolution digital capture, and doing so in the great outdoors.

I for one am impressed and excited by this pioneering work. Film still reigns, for now, for professional work, but it would be foolish for any serious photographer to believe that this will remain the case forever.

I've actually considered a low-cost version of this same scenario, using a Leaf Lumina. The main thing that kept me from pursuing that was the need to lug around a laptop and power source for the Leaf. (The Lumina is a scanning back for 35 mm format that gives a 27 Mb file and uses Nikon F-mount optics.)

Andrew Rodney claims that certain high-end area CCDs have better dynamic range than Ektachrome. I'm not quite so convinced of that. Even so, I envy Steve Johnson those digital captures... imagine not having to deal with the vagaries of film processing, wet chemistry, spots, scratches, dust, and film that won't lie flat in an enlarger or scanner. I'm looking forward to it, myself. But not exactly holding my breath.

[Struan Gray]

Apart from wide-area survey problems like chest X-rays and star catalogues, digital has completely taken over scientific photography. This is partly because of digital's convenience, but mostly because digital is linear, is easy to calibrate, and when the chip is cooled has enormous dynamic range. In technical and scientific photography it is trivial to find photos which could never have been taken before the advent of digital imagers.

In photography, sensitometric accuracy is not a major issue, but the ability of 16-bit digital to handle and portray high-contast scenes, and the ease and precision with which you can control highlight and shadow detail during printing, gives you a lot more options than dabbling with the toes and shoulders of silver-based materials.

Digital also frees you from the spectral response of sensitising dyes - although the science of those is also changing fast just now. Bye-bye colour crossover, hello bluebells which actually look like bluebells. Photography with non-visible light is much easier with digital: you can actually see to focus.

Traditional photographers tend to grump (or is it whine? :-) about the shortcomings of digital, and forget that they have simply got used to the shortcomings of film. It is also easy to forget that you are comparing a very mature technology with a very young one, even if you don't make the mistake of thinking the products in the photographic marketplace represent the digital cutting edge. If you want a crystal ball, take a look at the imagers on the Keck telescope, browse the photonics magazines at your local college library, and, if you're feeling brave, buy shares in polymer-based electronics.

[John H. Henderson]

This discussion raises a number of questions and comments.

The dynamic range is limited in a print. Film already captures more dynamic range than can be printed by any method, so what is the point of using digital to capture even MORE range, if it indeed is capable of that? We use processing controls (a part of the zone system) to compress the dynamic range into that printable on paper.

I believe that the even the highest resolution scanning backs don't begin to approach the resolution achievable with large format film and lenses. Don't even begin to argue that a digital process is going to give more detail.

Grain might be reduced because there is no grain. If the pixel is much much larger than the grain structure, as it is, then all of the grain variations are integrated out (averaged) over the pixel, and the pixel is printed smooth. Although at lower resolution.

I can think of no technical reasons why digital would be better as in most of these claims. The color response might be different, though. Though perhaps not necessarily better.

I think it is a long long time until film is replaced by imaging arrays. It is just too dense a recording medium. I do, however, think the wet darkroom for printmaking is quickly going away. I'm hanging onto mine, and still upgrading, for now and for some time, as a wet darkroom can be built much more inexpensively that that fancy computer, scanner and printer are going to cost.

[steve_782]

I've looked at his web site and am singularly unimpressed with the images. I see little that is about the qualites of light much less dynamic range. Most of the color photos appear to be done between 8:00 am and 4:00 pm in fairly flat lighting. Everyone needs a gimmick, and if being a "digital pioneer" is his gimmick, more power to him. Haven't seen an image on his web site that would make me part with $$ to own it. The hook of being made totally in digital format really doesn't convince me to part with $$. I care about interesting images - not how they've been made. OK - the lone bush in Death Valley is nice, the rest? Yawnnnn....

[Larry Huppert]

re: "What does this guy mean by archival color? There is no such thing for color inks."

Anyone have experience with the new Epson pigment printers like the 2000P? Epson claims their inks are archival.

From the Epson website they say: "Lightfastness rated 200 or more years before noticable fading occurs, in normal indoor flourescent lighting, under a glass frame, when using Geniune EPSON Archival Inks and compatible EPSON matte type papers. Under the same conditions, lightfastness rated at 140 yrs when using EPSON Premium Semigloss Photo Paper and EPSON Premium Luster Photo Paper. Results will vary depending on lighting conditions, humidity, color intensity, color range and print media."

If this is true, it has better archival properties than traditional color photographic processes. Didn't someone say in a post that the wet darkroom is quickly going away. Can't wait to see samples of prints done with this technology.

[M.]

I certainly hope the photographs are not archival -- they're pretty boring.

[john borrelli]

I think in terms of archival stability one has to be aware that the archival stability of traditional color prints also has to take into consideration the "archival stability" of the original color slide material. I vaguely remember an issue of View Camera where they had acquired an original color slide of Ansel Adams; the slide had turned a magenta color and was not recognizable. Digital would seem to have an advantage there.
As far as judging Mr. Johnson's work I will have to reserve judgment until I see some of his prints in person. I was not aware of the long capture times needed for digital backs; I don't understand why these larger backs need so much more time than the highest mb Canon cameras.

[George Kara]

Seems to me the photographer is simply marketing himself. This is the typical "better and different" story that is often used in the business world.

I wouldn't spend to much time debating a persons marketing campaign. That equipment costs alot of money and the person is simply trying to make a buck.

George

[Gordon Moat]

Joshua Greene is still restoring the archive of images from his father Milton Green, including many images of Marilyn Monroe. Sure, the original film in many instances is not in as good a shape as originally shot, but that is the nature of conservatory practices. So an archival nature is dubious at best; a method of conservation can always be developed to revive or restore images of the past; some things will be lost, and must be accepted.

There are a few interesting aspects of reviving a thread from 2000. Those claims for Epson printers then have not proven true, yet the newer printers claim to either finally offer better permanence, or claim to avoid the problems with printers, compared to those available eight years ago. That time was sort of the infancy of mass acceptance of digital imaging, and many wild claims were made in that time. Honestly, if you showed up somewhere with a Nikon D1 today, few would find the images to be of good technical quality . . . yet in 2000, this camera was the sh*t.

Definitely agree with George Kara on this. Wanking what gear you use is marketing.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[QT Luong]

This has been along time, but since I started it, let me say that in the while I read his book (SJ on digital photography), and to his credit, I thought that he did offer a certain vision and esthetic of landscape photography, for which digital seems ideally suited.

[Matt Blaze]

I was not aware of the long capture times needed for digital backs; I don't understand why these larger backs need so much more time than the highest mb Canon cameras.

The high-resolution large format digital backs that take several minutes to capture an image are scanning backs. Ordinary DSLRs and MF digital backs (up to about 22MP these days) have an array of millions of pixel sensors over the entire image area, with a sensitivity that lets you expose the sensor basically as you would film. But sensor yields make it difficulty to economically produce sensors much larger than that. Scanning backs, on the other hand, have a narrow sensor that mechanically moves across the image plane to create a very high resolution image, much as a flatbed scanner does. Each row of the image takes the normal about of time to expose, but a complete image consists of thousands of sequential exposures stitched together. For example, I have a recent BetterLight large format scanning back. It produces 6000x8000 pixel images, in an area only slightly smaller than 4x5 film (and fits on a regular 4x5 view camera). But it only has a 3x6000 sensor (one row each for red, green and blue); a full capture consists of 8000 exposures for each sensor row. At a 1/80 second exposure a full capture takes over 100 seconds.

Scanning backs have the obvious disadvantage that they can't be used for portraits (except, perhaps, of corpses) or other moving subjects. And in spite of being cheaper than an array sensor in a given size (even if one could be produced), they're still shockingly expensive. But they have the advantage of very high quality captures compared with regular sensor arrays even at the same resolution (the R G and B pixel channels are usually sampled from the exact same locations, for example), and a large image area. The main applications are art reproduction, still life / product photography and architecture, although a few people work with them for general outdoor and nature photography.

[Terence McDonagh]

I am hardly a "good" photographer by the standards of this site, but his photos look worse than my 35mm and digital snapshots. Whatever advantage his technology gives him, it certainly hasn't helped him see interesting, much less exciting, light.

The Grand Canyon NP shots are so obviously from the south rim overlooks. The skies are blown out. I concur, it looks like guy never gets up before 8 am, or stays out past 3 pm.

[David_Senesac]

Rather old thead brought back to life QT. So readers note the first section of posts are from that old period.

I think that quote about being archival blah blah is somewhat dated and not likely what he might toss out today several years later. At the time his information seemed to say he was excited about the huge 11 stops or so of exposure latitude he was seeing on the cameras of the day. So yeah he could make some prints out in mid day light that film simply did not have the dynamic range to hold. I first saw one of Stephen's scanning back prints at a Seybold exhibition in San Francisco in the late 90s. A time when I was newly involved with early digital processes like CS Lightjet prints and 3.01 Photoshop and about to move to 6x7 and 4x5. Was hoping to learn something about color management systems and did buy a book at the show. He had a couple prominent large prints displayed and I brought back his freebee poster of Mt St Helens. Another large print of a bush against sandstone somewhere in the SW was very impressively sharp.

He seems to still embrace a "tiny jpgs on the web" mindset that due to downsizing kills vast amounts of interesting features in his web-sized pics. For instance those snow pics that look like blocked up white or shadow areas that are simply black would not look like that on a print haha. To make a comment about that shows a lack of experience with what digital downsizing tends to do. I will agree that his selection of many subjects are rather weak. Pretty much like the vast numbers of photographers that have not figured out how to find and locate exceptional subjects and or don't have the awareness, time, or patience to sit on the truly exceptional. One problem some photographers, even some with solid reputaions have is a tendency to show too much weak material with their few really strong pieces. Of course for many that are building up a body of work, that may be all they have. He isn't alone as I could name some real icons of our artform that have made some pretty mediocre coffee table picture books. I think that hurts Stephen's better material which is certainly there, though the small pics make that hard to visualize. Stephen is so firmly connected with the industry with credibility that he doesn't need to worry about our critical comments. He certainly has had a long time to develop his digital work and do so along side the equipment manufacturing reps and application wizards that create such so some of his technical skill are to be envied.

One comment I would make about digital sensors is that color hues across luminance variations are often not that accurate until adequately calibrated against color targets with look-up tables. All tri-color sensors have some level of non-linearities across 360 degrees of hues that need to be minimized by software look-up translations. That show up most obviously with compact digital cameras that are simply mass produced around an average expected variation in sensors and then bumped up my marketing to what they think customers tend to prefer. Today that is overly red and saturated. With DSLR's there is a more serious attempt for real color but unless a photographer buys the X-rite colorimeter, and big multipatch Gretag MacBeth color targets, software, and knows how to use it, the results are rather suspect. Commercial photographers like those doing product photography that are well connected with the reps can go to pricy classes to figure that all out but the best others can do is get the important white balances set. I wish I had 10k to toss around as I personally would like to have better color calibration tools even though I am working from film At least EPN-100, Provia, and Astia render pretty well that allows we film users that are looking for reasonably accurate output to not have to bother with the shortcomings of digital. In any case color-wise, the really weak link is still at the printing end though that has improved immensely the last decade. ...David

[Doug Dolde]

To put it in few words, his photos suck.

[Emmanuel BIGLER]

Generally speaking, do you know examples of digital capture (I am not speaking manipulation) which has produced outstanding imagery which couldn't have been done on film before ?

I'm intruding quite late in this discussion but I'd like to put here a pointer to the experimental work of a French LF aficionado group (leaded by Henri Gaud) with the revisited tricololor process 3-film/3-scans/digital merge/colour /print.

Some examples here, for a future exhibition, a garden in Provence
http://trichromie.free.fr/trichromie/index.php?2008/02/19/622-le-rayol-prparation-d-une-exposition

Based on the classical RVB separation on 3 B&W films, the use of a film like tri-X brings an exceptional dynamic range unknown to E6-type of coulour slides. I do not know the comparison with modern colour negs, but some top-class prints (1.5 metre x 2 metres) made with the revisited tri-color process are probably hard to beat with any digital capture.

BUT
Still or quasi-still life is mandatory (for landscape, even slow-moving clouds are impossible to register properly in the subsequent merge of the 3 RVB layers)
The amount of film surface you need in order to get a grain-free/noise-free image is much, much bigger than the equivalent surface of silicon providing the same signal/noise ratio. No surprise : the equivalent quantum efficiencey of Tri-X film is about 0.5% whereas a silicon sensor with bayer pattern reaches 20%. Modern silicon image sensors used in astrophysics reach a quantum efficiencey of 80%.

In other words, E-6 slides have a limited dynamic range but using a tricolor process and a generous amount of film surface, you can, if you wish, overcome the limited quantum efficiency of film and get all details you would dream of in the shadows, due to the exceptionally wide dynamic range of the good old tri-X film.
In terms of optical resolution, there is no problem, modern LF lenses can achieve what you need in terms of sharpness. Small-sized silicon sensors demand top class lenses with wider max f-numbers in order to limit diffraction effects, a challenge for lens designers. But you can cheat and post-process for lens defaults inside the digital back ;-) So the optics might not be the real issue. The real issue is dynamic range and signal/noise ratio.
And the amount of post-processing you need to get a perfectly calibrated print from the tricolor process is of course dissuasive in terms of productiity !
The 1.5x2 m poster I've seen was recorded on 8x10" film (a triple Tri-X ;) ). The image is here
http://www.galerie-photo.com/images/nature-morte-RVB-X4-Print.jpg
but of course low-web-resolution is not meaningful of the actual print.
More images & comparisons with provia film in the article (sorry... in French)
http://www.galerie-photo.com/test-trichromie.html

[Joe Lipka]

If you are going to go big, go film. This might not be true in a few more years, but right now film rules for really big prints.

No one has mentioned reciprocity. Digital sensors do not demonstrate the reciprocity effect that film does. If a digital exposure says 15 seconds, it's 15 seconds. If you have a 15 second exposure on film, you have to guess (educated guess of course) at the correct exposure and then filter accordingly. Maybe you have to adjust developing time, too. (I have not done color photography in years. I know that black and white does require an adjustment of developing time.)

[harrykauf]

Based on the classical RVB separation on 3 B&W films, the use of a film like tri-X brings an exceptional dynamic range unknown to E6-type of coulour slides. I do not know the comparison with modern colour negs, but some top-class prints (1.5 metre x 2 metres) made with the revisited tri-color process are probably hard to beat with any digital capture.


If by digital capture you mean mobile phone cameras then yes, some phones might struggle. Every single image on that page has extremely blown highlights and muddy
colour with bad seperation. Dont say its because of web sized images because a
blue sky doesnt turn white when you scale an image.
I dont understand french so I am not sure what they are trying to prove but maybe
they should have a look at colour negative film. Or maybe they like those RGB artifacts.
Or atleast try to get a result as good as 100 years ago:
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/

[George Kara]

Harrykauf, perhaps you don't mean to sound as aggressive as your post. I often try to write as politely as possible so the message is understood and considered.

I think your message relates to blown out highlights in the sky. I also looked at the article but did not see what you were speaking of. The Provia clipped on the white building perhaps.

I think its great when people take the time to experiment with the old and new and develop personal ways of self expression and then share their efforts. I have not had a chance to look at your link but will certainly do so.

I feel that camaraderie, encouragement and critical discussion are what makes this site so interesting.

George

[Emmanuel BIGLER]

An additional word about the time required to record a scanned image like those recorded by by Stephen Johnson. This will generate artifacts not similar to the tricolor process but closer to the famous phenomenon of oval wheels in Lartigue's famous picture.
And about Prokudin Gorskii : if I remember well, he used a tricolor camera with 3 images on the same sliding plate, only one lens. So there were as few artefacts as possible when the substitution of one image to the next was made quickly. It is amazing however that Prokudin Gorskii 's white clouds exhibit little colored artefacts.

If a scan back is based on a tri-linear sensor with a single row of pixels it is not too difficult to estimate the minimum scanning time at a given ISO sensitivity ; improvements in speed seem difficult at a first glance.
However last year, the Swiss company Seitz AG announced a fast scanning digital camera. The improvement in speed with respect to conventional scanning backs were impressive, but I am wondering whether the camera was actually introduced on the market ?
And also : Nikon with one of his last DSLR annouces possible iso speeds of 12,000 (faster than the polaroid instant film for recording oscilloscope shots !)
May be we are not a the end of the story for LF scanning backs ?

[harrykauf]

I think your message relates to blown out highlights in the sky. I also looked at the article but did not see what you were speaking of. The Provia clipped on the white building perhaps.


I was talking about the first link:
http://trichromie.free.fr/trichromie/index.php?2008/02/19/622-le-rayol-prparation-d-une-exposition
there is such a huge difference between the description of extreme dynamic range
and the actual images.

[George Kara]

Oh I didnt see these. You are right about the blown highlights. It looks like the photographers error rather than the technique.

George

[harrykauf]

Oh I didnt see these. You are right about the blown highlights. It looks like the photographers error rather than the technique.

George

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.

[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 (http://trichromie.free.fr/trichromie/index.php?2006/12/29/31-par-la-fenetre-2006)

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 (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[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 (http://www.gordonmoat.com)


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:p

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