Jump to content

ADOX


Guest

Recommended Posts

Adox have created some fantastic emulsions and deserve all the support they can get. I agree with most of the comments apart from this, which I disagree with:

 

".......If you use a digital intermediate step you are cropped down of course...."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Adox have created some fantastic emulsions and deserve all the support they can get. I agree with most of the comments apart from this, which I disagree with:

 

".......If you use a digital intermediate step you are cropped down of course...."

 

In my opinion, it is deviant when film is scanned in order to display an image on a monitor, or to make a digital print. Once into the digital realm, the virtue of film is lost.

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the greater part of the 20th Century the virtue of film was in allowing photographers to communicate by the reproduction of images, mostly done through the imperfect medium of the printed page.

 

Serious photographers recognised the lower quality of the printed newspaper or book was a price worth paying for the sake of communication be they artistic landscape photographs or hard war journalism. It was always the realm of the amateur to only show silver based prints, often to just their wife, mother, or camera club, essentially because it was all about the craft of photography and not expression or revelation.

 

So getting ideas 'out there' has always involved some sort of compromise for photographers, and the certainty is that those who don't accept some level of compromise are the very same people who end up talking a good photograph rather than showing a good photograph. 'Talker' or 'doer', which do you want to be?

 

Steve

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

The article mentioned the view that "Ektar can record about 20% more information on a 35mm film than the highest resolution 35mm Digital*Camera (Nikon D800) can capture."

 

Anyone agree / disagree with that? My own view is that resolution is not the main difference to choose one format over the other. Digital within its megapixel comfort spot (ie, not majorly resized upwards) can often look sharper due to its high edge sharpness / acuity ..... but equally, film can be stretched to almost any massive print size you can imagine and it will still produce a "natural" and "organic" photograph albeit with more and more grain as the image gets bigger.

Edited by Jon Warwick
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

When I was a city daily news photographer in the Seventies, I knew my images would be butchered in reproduction. Today I can print the same images in my darkroom to better outcomes. (As an aside - for national press photo competitions back then we were required to make 16"x20" prints of our photos.)

 

The web offers better rendition than we had in newspapers, but the web still sucks.

 

Imagine the day when we have super-high resolution displays and photographers regret their decision to settle for "what works".

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...