Why View Camera & Sheet Film Today, in our here and now?

[Jim Noel]

Permanency is important to many.
I have printed paper negatives from the1840's on rag paper sensitized by the salted paper process, the method available at that time. . How many digital images will be recognizable in 180 years?
Also, I have color positives which i made in 1939. These and their original Kodachromes show no signs of fading. How many pixelated prints made today will be usable in 90 years?
Also I wonder what percentage of images made digitally ever get printed so they will be available for grandchildren and great grand-children to view.

[Sal Santamaura]

...Mat papers with pigmented inks are not much better than mat darkroom papers. With dye inks they're even worse. Pigmented inks on glossy papers don't just suffer from gloss differential, they're excessively shiny anywhere there's ink, irrespective of density...

Of these #1 and #2 not problems.
#3 and #4 have been already solved by some manufactures long time ago...

I'm not sure of your number references, but to me all the things I wrote about are problems that have not been solved by any manufacturers whose products are accessible to home users without the space or budget for whatever you might be referring to. I've tried well-respected pigment printers and a wide variety of papers from all the big-name medium makers. Not acceptable to me.

...The only combination that's acceptable to me is dye ink on some glossy papers...

...Out of printer these look nice but can't stand any moisture whatsoever and fade fast.

First, I neither live in the tropics nor subject inkjet prints to water. Second, the particular combination of printer, ink and paper has a substantial influence on print life expectancy. Check out Aardenburg's fade test results. Finally, you seem to have overlooked another part of what I posted:

...I don't sell any photography. I'm unlikely to last more than a decade or two. It's a tough psychological hurdle for someone who spent more than five decades in darkrooms, but I'm slowly coming to terms with those realities, and enjoying the most beautiful prints I've ever produced...

After three years, my Canon Pro-100 / Hahnemühle FineArt Baryta Satin prints stored in portfolio boxes are indistinguishable from those of the same files run off today. After two years on display under AR (but not "museum," i.e. UV filtered) glass in an environment that subjects them to ten hours per day of office fluorescent light, I cannot see any difference between my Canon Pro-100 / Hahnemühle FineArt Baryta Satin prints and those run off today from the same files. My inkjet prints are indeed fugitive, but not to a degree that has any practical significance to me.

Permanency is important to many...

Yes, and the application determines what degree of print permanence is necessary.

...I have color positives which i made in 1939. These and their original Kodachromes show no signs of fading. How many pixelated prints made today will be usable in 90 years?...

My Kodachrome slides only go back as far as the 1960s. Those, like yours, show no signs of fading. However 90 years from now I suspect that, unless someone takes over their storage and goes to extraordinary preservation lengths, those transparencies will have disintegrated as their acetate base "vinegars."

...I wonder what percentage of images made digitally ever get printed so they will be available for grandchildren and great grand-children to view.

Having served as executor for three estates, I know that almost all prints end up in landfills. A small selection might be desired by a subset of heirs, but many times not even that. Finally, just to underscore how suitable dye-based inkjet prints are for me, I have no children.

[Bernice Loui]

Example of the color problem exampled in this link posted?
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2010/1...other-stories/

"Most of you will no doubt have heard of the Bayer array or mosaic. This is a way of getting colour out of a sensor that only really records brightness per pixel. It does this by clustering four pixels together, two green, one red and one blue, and then interpolating between them to reconstruct the missing colours. The main problem with this is the lack of red and blue pixels - it means that fine detail in red or blue can have issues. Anything with a red texture (or blue, but we’ll stick with red to reduce repetition) will end up with only a quarter of the supposed megapixels of the camera. However, there is also a more insidious problem in that if you have pixel level red colour detail and those pixels fall on the green or blue pixels (highly likely) then that colour just dissapears, completely."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is very real problem with any single chip color imager using a Bayer color separation array. A technological limitation baked into this technology that cannot be fixed in software as the image created consist of infinitely variable color information acquired by the image sensor.

Going back into the world of the first color television technology with three color image tubes (Red-Green-Blue) and color channel information stored separately then combined to reproduce the color image. Technicolor films (RGB as black & white films) uses similar approach to record and reproduce color images.

The obvious solution to this problem in digital single chip cameras would be to design-produce a three chip color camera applying this same proven and well understood technology to digital color image data. Barrier would be cost, market awareness, market need and if this technology can find an audience that appreciated it enough.

Color film has a different set of issues due to color layers being stacked, yet this problem has been worked out pretty good as color film technology progressed.

Setting this basic technology problem aside, some of the problem goes back to points of color reference for digital images and how the points of reference can be altered or bent during the data transmission and data translation into image process.

For those working in color transparency film back in the days when color accuracy was mandatory, the entire image creation system was calibrated and stability of this system maintained best-possible. Calibration was made to absolute standards accepted by all involved. Example was previously posted, here it is again.

Known good/not faded Mcbeth color chart. Set it up in studio illuminated with the strobe or lighting to be used. The example used a Elinchrom 404 pack (4,000 watt/second), S head with a Bronocolor soft box. One aspect of what defined a high quality strobe unit was stability of color temperature (typically 5000K, minimal UV) and absolute stability of light output per flash once set (1/10 f-stop). Incident meter (Minolta flash IV in this case) the set up with Mcbeth color chart, set strobe power as needed, film in camera, make exposure based on the incident meter reading. Take the film in holder to The New Lab, request Gray card test for this sheet. This is what comes back:

One 8x10 sheet of Agfachrome RS100, 14" Goerz LD artar at f16 in barrel, Sinar camera with Sinar shutter.


The New Lab includes a sheet with the color density information and recommended Color Correction filtration based on density of each color channel.


This calibrates the lighting and light modifiers, film, lens, E6 processing for color balance and density (exposure and actual film sensitivity to light/ film speed processed in The New Lab). These are and become highly controlled conditions resulting in revealing the actual color personality of the film, the films actual speed or light sensitivity with the color balance of the lighting system and lens as a system. Side product is accuracy of the incident light meter and calculated bellows factor.

Color judgement by eye is difficult in many ways due to how the eye-brain compensated for light color temperature, perception of color and individual preferences for colors. It is accepted the measurements define the basic color balance. Once this is established, artful alteration of color balance can be applied if needed or desired. Know color balance must be viewed under standardized color illumination, typically 5000K for daylight and 3200K for tungsten using white-gray-black, NOT a specific color view in the image.

Question becomes, how is color calibration done in digital image systems, how can the entire system be consistent across all viewers of color image data?


Bernice

[QUOTE=pdmoylan;1605097]

Curious about the "color fidelity" comment. Please expand-explain.

What appears to be the limitation on enlargement?

Go to 200% on the same detail, 4x5 film vs digital, both color. You will see more color differentiation with film assuming similarly sized files. In that sense, the digital output has less accuracy in those details. Several tests including by Charles Cramer prove this out. It’s not that there isn’t comparable detail, but perhaps we can say that film is a bit more refined from a color output perspective.

Next, PD Online performed an accuracy test of digital color by camera, and what was noteworthy is the amount of significant deviation from accurate color in virtually all high end units. PO and Hasselblad were not included and I have no direct experience with either to draw any conclusion. I can say that my experience with the Fuji GFX50s seems to add to the mystery of why digital output is so very materially “off” from what I am accustomed to seeing with 4x5 Provia, Velvia 100F, Astia (no longer available) Kodak E100g.

In fact I cannot get Fuji digital files where I like them so I have discontinued using the GFX If fact, the colors are so “plastic” at times, greens can be neon-ridiculous, reds turn pink, yellows muted, and in low light there is an annoying warm bias which I can’t easily fix. Canon has a yellow bias overall, and Nikon has shifted also to a warm bias starting with the D810 and thereafter.

Some adjustments with digital cameras are manageable, Fuji is not IMO, and I have spent countless hours trying). I recognize Dykinga and others are using GFX, but I don’t see the images as comparable to film. Some come close perhaps. I understand from multiple sources that Leica SL2 colors are much less saturated and more accurate than most of the market but if I invest in anything it will be hasselblad.

IMO, it is the lack of color differentiation in the digital that contributes to the lack of “pop” that I am accustomed to with film - nothing scientific. This is why I default to Adobe RGB to increase that differentiation for prints (subtle but there is some slight improvement).

One can ask “is color film accurate”, and I guess it all depends on what you like/get used to. I work hard to maximize detail and color fidelity and it has always been somewhat challenging with digital.

[Ron in Arcata California]

Digital work should have started with another name. For example digiography or pixelography. As soon as it took over in main stream camera work the war started. Too bad. I do both but would prefer photography stay pure as it was originally conceived. I often label photos entered in competition as "digicrap" and they still get accepted. Sad.

[pdmoylan]

Bernice,

So if you eliminate the Bayer array, do the results at the pixel level compare favorably to B&W film in terms of tonal range?

I have seen some use a “monochrome” digital camera (sans Bayer), and shoot 3 images using different color filters, then merging the files in PS. I was less than excited about the end results.

Is there any other method of “adding” color post facto? In other words, without the Bayer array, can sensors record color and actual color be realized. My sense is no.

PD

[Sal Santamaura]

Never should have been called "photography." Digital work should have started with another name. For example digiography or pixelography...

This is elitist nonsense. It's all photography. Implying that it isn't flies in the face of both reality and this site's definition of large format photography.

...As soon as it took over in main stream camera work the war started. Too bad...

It is indeed too bad that those who deny reality and apparently feel a need to elevate their work based on the sensor they use (film) for photography started and perpetuate that war.

...I often label photos entered in competition as "digicrap"...Sad.

Extraordinarily sad.

[SergeyT]

...

So if you eliminate the Bayer array, do the results at the pixel level compare favorably to B&W film in terms of tonal range?

I have seen some use a “monochrome” digital camera (sans Bayer), and shoot 3 images using different color filters, then merging the files in PS. I was less than excited about the end results.

Is there any other method of “adding” color post facto? In other words, without the Bayer array, can sensors record color and actual color be realized. My sense is no.

PD

Apparently pixel-shift technology "reduce the reliance on interpolation by capturing color data for red, green, and blue for each resulting pixel by physically moving the camera's sensor" : https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora...y-vs-panasonic

[Bernice Loui]

Deleting the Bayer array removes the ability for a single chip image sensor to produce color images. It is the Bayer array and Demosaic math (aka algorithms) that makes color digital images possible using a single chip image sensor.

Non Bayer array imagers that are silicon based would result in a "monochrome" imager.., Yes. Differences still remain as Silicon based imagers do not have the same light spectral sensitivity as orthochromatic or panchromatic film. To simulate orthochromatic or panchromatic film, using a silicon based imager, filters are applied to bend the spectral response of the silicon based imager to some what equal film. Filters involved, infrared suppression hot mirror or IR high pass filter, visual spectral compensation filter and often some form of optical anti aliasing filter. Other adders are micro-lens arrays to aid in light gathering for the image sensor and-or back lighting to bias or aid to increase light sensitivity.

Once the imager array data is acquired, math is applied to recover this data(information) converting it into a visible image. Within this process, all sorts of software centric alterations can be applied from effective Gamma curve bending to extra images inserted and far more.

Does all this result in images from the silicon based image sensor being identical to film, not really as they are inherently and fundamentally different in how images are recorded.

There was a time when the video folks were driven with piles of monetary motivation to create the "film" look. Plenty of resources were poured into this endeavor resulting in video being sorta-like film, but not the actual film look.

IMO, the two image making technologies (digits-data & film) should live happy together accepting the fact and reality they both have something special and unique to offer in the finished print. This should Never Be a Contest over which is better or tops.. While there is an aspect of human impulses that can be driven to pursue and declare this the trail of results from this struggle is often self-destructive in often invisible ways.


Bernice

Bernice,

So if you eliminate the Bayer array, do the results at the pixel level compare favorably to B&W film in terms of tonal range?

I have seen some use a “monochrome” digital camera (sans Bayer), and shoot 3 images using different color filters, then merging the files in PS. I was less than excited about the end results.

Is there any other method of “adding” color post facto? In other words, without the Bayer array, can sensors record color and actual color be realized. My sense is no.

PD

[Bernice Loui]

"The greatest challenge facing pixel-shift image capture is motion. The process requires, at minimum, four times the exposure time of single image capture."


There is "No Free Lunch".. each and every technological endeavor has trade-offs dictated and enforced by the way Nature really is.

Bernice

Apparently pixel-shift technology "reduce the reliance on interpolation by capturing color data for red, green, and blue for each resulting pixel by physically moving the camera's sensor" : https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora...y-vs-panasonic

[Durst L184]

Why do some musicians insist on playing non-electric guitars?! Bloody Want-to-be-Purists! Get with it! Even Bob Dylan figured that out!

Or get rid of the old-fashion instraments altogether and go with purely digital sound. Ludites!

Presumably you are being facetious. But just in case you are not, let's walk through this line of thinking anyway. For I have certainly heard claims like it put quite seriously, and it even seems that the original question itself relies upon an uncritical presumption that the proliferation of digital imagery "in our here and now" somehow recommends itself simply because it is "here and now."

Here goes: Since Bob Dylan likes electric guitars (special products of the "here and now"), one should embrace ink jet prints made from digital files because they, too, are special products of the "here and now." Then, of course, one must be quick to see that if he himself likes acoustic and electric guitars, then it's just a matter of clearing-up one's thinking to realize that one should also enjoy digitally produced images (especially on a tiny computer conveniently manufactured in the size of a human hand) --after all only Luddites fail to appreciate that every new technological feat is a cultural advance.

Scales begin to fall from one's eyes. And as one gains more insight into this esoteric mode of knowledge, one might even begin to wonder if somehow hidden in one's love of fresh orange juice is just a deep psychological prejudice against concentrated orange juice, orange "drinks" and a fundamental inability to grasp the remarkable progress realized in contemporary life.

Well, perhaps I will give this line of thinking a go. Who knows? I might actually change my view that I think that those amidol-contact-printing Luddites have, historically, gotten a bad rap. And I might even come to discover that somewhere hidden in my (there, here, yesterday, now, and tomorrow) irrational, stubborn, and obsolete love of fresh orange juice is an undeveloped and probably repressed fetish for garish digital imagery.