Mike Rawcs Posted January 10, 2010 Share #141 Posted January 10, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) I was listening to a podcast on Foto8 last night by Christopher Anderson in which he talks about his new book, Capitolio. It's unscripted so a little long but well worth a listen to. Chris Anderson, Host podcast Chris shot the work over a 4 - 5 year period. He mentions that, because of the danger of taking photographs in Caracas, he often used a point and shoot camera. He also mentions that half of the work is film; half digital - and he challenges anyone to tell the difference. You can see a Magnum in Motion essay on the Magnum website. It's superb and gives truth to the fact that, to a great extent, it doesn't matter what camera you use just as long as you have something to say. Mike. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 10, 2010 Posted January 10, 2010 Hi Mike Rawcs, Take a look here M9 vs. Scanned film (various ISOs). I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
georg Posted January 10, 2010 Share #142 Posted January 10, 2010 Many faulty comparisons were done, especially scanning quality is a major issue. Many are done with consumer-scanners, others aren't even sharp enough to show any grain. I've posted some nightshots on Velvia that are done at 6300ppi with an Imacon - I've spend about 1/2h on sharpening and noise ninja and printed them 32x48cm with more detail than my M8 is capable of - you can search for them. I think I've also posted a 1:1 comparison of Imagelink HQ @8000ppi (Imacon 848) vs, M8 - the Velvia samples weren't scanned properly, sadly. Of course these are also amateurish comparisons done by a single person with many uncontrolled aspects. There wasn't major research done on scanning in the past and most manufacturers/photographers focus on digital capturing. I've mentioned cinematography, many professional companies, studios and clients work on really getting great results from film. Mostly advanced negative film emulsions and the ARRISCAN. That's a film scanner which was carefully designed to achieve high IQ by a custom sensor, a custom Zeiss-lens, micro-scanning, HDR and proprietary LED-lighting. They decided for about 6000ppi native resolution to create oversampled 4000ppi-results. Similar results for still photography should also be possible with high-quality scanners. They published the best scientific document I'm aware of which discusses film resolution, MTF, oversampling, alaising... based on the R&D from the ARRISCAN, this team are not amateurs, they just received an Acadamy Award for this scanner. It's worth reading: http://www.arri.de/fileadmin/media/arri.com/downloads/Camera/Tutorials/SystemsTechnologyBrochure.pdf The basics are also true for still photography. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrc Posted January 10, 2010 Share #143 Posted January 10, 2010 Some people are arguing that with a lot of time and expense, film can provide resolution as good, or nearly as good, or even a bit better, compared to digital. But digital can do it without the time and expense. It seems to me only common sense that if ALL you want is resolution (perhaps it would be better to call it "accuracy"), digital would be the more efficient way to go. But there are all kinds of aesthetic issues involved here, and some people simply prefer the look of film, and the processes attached to film. I can't see any possible objection to that -- it's like somebody who prefers pen-and-ink to watercolor. It's an aesthetic choice, and nothing that should get anybody's knickers in a twist. The same applies to digital. I personally like the clean look of digital, but so what? That's my choice. I'm not wrong, any more than I'm wrong if I say I like blondes. But arguing that with ISO25 film and a $10,000 scanner and the best technique and lots of time, you can produce print that shows resolution as accurate as an M9...that seems pointless. On those grounds, on that single point of "accuracy," not aesthetics, digital is at least as good as film now, and is rapidly getting better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted January 10, 2010 Author Share #144 Posted January 10, 2010 i am certain some around here appreciate your farts ... but in regards to your "evidence" ... pixel-level (and/or pseudo-scientific) analysis is not how i assess photographic imagery. i am, however, running low on bathroom tissue. and as soon as i can figure out how to print that "evidence" on soft paper, i'll be sure to use it. Wonderful! - made my case for me better than I could myself. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nugat Posted January 10, 2010 Share #145 Posted January 10, 2010 Cyberean, There is an English saying: "Never argue with .....(insert your own description). They will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nugat Posted January 10, 2010 Share #146 Posted January 10, 2010 It's worth reading: http://www.arri.de/fileadmin/media/arri.com/downloads/Camera/Tutorials/SystemsTechnologyBrochure.pdf The basics are also true for still photography. Thanks Georg for the link. Possibly the best compendium on the topic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted January 11, 2010 Share #147 Posted January 11, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) But it's all pointless now, it's not a photograph, it is a debate about what to use to make a photograph. I shot another magazine assignment today, what in the heck did all of you do? I'm sorry, but until an actual image made from anyone on here ( me included ) improves upon the impact of quality of great photography made on film by say, Alex Webb in his new book on Cuba called Violet Isle, this argument is totally worthless... Got blistering talent? Then we will talk.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted January 11, 2010 Share #148 Posted January 11, 2010 But it's all pointless now, it's not a photograph, it is a debate about what to use to make a photograph. I shot another magazine assignment today, what in the heck did all of you do? Shooting an assignment for a newspaper isn't really high on my priority list and I doubt it's high on many people's list. Boring stuff. Many people were out shooting. I too, shot an important assignment today, and I also signed a few Excellent deals for future assignments. But that is so unimportant to this conversation. Believe me, I would have prefered to stay in my Pajamas and drink beer all day long rather then be out shooting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted January 11, 2010 Share #149 Posted January 11, 2010 I'm sorry, but until an actual image made from anyone on here ( me included ) improves upon the impact of quality of great photography made on film by say, Alex Webb in his new book on Cuba called Violet Isle, this argument is totally worthless... Just as a side note and personal rant, i can't stand Cuba images anymore. I have a whole new collection that I never showed to anyone before... What I believe is great photography but alas, it's from Cuba, therefore it's been rotting in my hard drive and print file sleeves for more then a year now. The Cuba subject is so over rated, generally. Just the same stuff on and on and on. Cuba, as a subject, is the photojournalism course 101 par excellence. It's simply the easiest challenge in the world and I mean it. It's so easy that you can literally go into the Poor Cuban people's houses without asking, literally dropping in like a bomb and shoot anything you like. You could probably open their drawers to look what's in there and they wouldn't stop you. The Cubans will let you do anything. Anything. Quite amazing, but where's the challenge? And it's so photogenic, even my grandma could shoot a prize winning photo out of 500 shots of anything Cuba. I'm really not defying Alex Webb, I haven't see the book. It's just the overdone Cuba subject I can't stand anymore altough I find it extremely photogenic. Let's do Haiti for a change. Now that would be real photography. But the problem is, the photographer wouldn't last 5 minutes in Haiti. But there's a challenge. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted January 11, 2010 Share #150 Posted January 11, 2010 Shooting an assignment for a newspaper isn't really high on my priority list and I doubt it's high on many people's list. Boring stuff. Many people were out shooting. I too, shot an important assignment today, and I also signed a few Excellent deals for future assignments. But that is so unimportant to this conversation. Believe me, I would have prefered to stay in my Pajamas and drink beer all day long rather then be out shooting. Read Ned, MAGAZINE, not newspaper and sure as hell not boring. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted January 11, 2010 Share #151 Posted January 11, 2010 OK, gotcha, whatever... I have no desire to go to Cuba either, but I am planning on going to Haiti next year for the non-profit my girlfriend works for here. Look man, the point is people just do this same stupid argument and over and over every time a new piece of gear comes out, is that not more than a little counterproductive to becoming a better photographer? And by the way, I am positive that somewhere out there is a great shooter who could put a new twist on Cuba for you, scanned, uploaded, iPhoned or whatever... Oh wait, I forgot, that was done by Rebecca Norris Webb, who co-illustrated the book in her own unique style. Just as a side note and personal rant, i can't stand Cuba images anymore. I have a whole new collection that I never showed to anyone before... What I believe is great photography but alas, it's from Cuba, therefore it's been rotting in my hard drive and print file sleeves for more then a year now. The Cuba subject is so over rated, generally. Just the same stuff on and on and on. Cuba, as a subject, is the photojournalism course 101 par excellence. It's simply the easiest challenge in the world and I mean it. It's so easy that you can literally go into the Poor Cuban people's houses without asking, literally dropping in like a bomb and shoot anything you like. You could probably open their drawers to look what's in there and they wouldn't stop you. The Cubans will let you do anything. Anything. Quite amazing, but where's the challenge? And it's so photogenic, even my grandma could shoot a prize winning photo out of 500 shots of anything Cuba. I'm really not defying Alex Webb, I haven't see the book. It's just the overdone Cuba subject I can't stand anymore altough I find it extremely photogenic. Let's do Haiti for a change. Now that would be real photography. But the problem is, the photographer wouldn't last 5 minutes in Haiti. But there's a challenge. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted January 11, 2010 Share #152 Posted January 11, 2010 i guess i'm not as lucky as you ... i was only editing images from a prior shoot I know I don't have to read this topic, but I can't believe at in 2010 after nearly two decades of digital, this is still being beaten to death, it's kind of gross, like alcoholism, you know? Seriously, the fact that people debate this and do test after test is GROSS! And I DO apologize if this offends anyone but it seriously makes me want to hurt someone or put my fist through a wall, and I am really not like that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted January 11, 2010 Share #153 Posted January 11, 2010 Read Ned, MAGAZINE, not newspaper and sure as hell not boring. I misread, sorry. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carbonadam Posted January 11, 2010 Share #154 Posted January 11, 2010 I love both. Film has this beautiful analog chemical feel to it. Digital is clearly more detailed but film still has its charms especially when shooting something organic and detail is not the goal of the shot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nugat Posted January 11, 2010 Share #155 Posted January 11, 2010 With the winter outside I spent the weekend warming up next to the Mac displaying memories of Cuba. Indeed I can't get moving since coming back late November and even put the files in order. Everything is bright and colorful and easy, the lightness of being unbearable. Time for Afghanistan. VIEW FROM MY WINDOW AND HEMINGWAY'S LOO (in his house in San Francisco, Havana suburb -what kind of man keeps a lizard in a jar in his john??) Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/108756-m9-vs-scanned-film-various-isos/?do=findComment&comment=1183039'>More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted January 11, 2010 Share #156 Posted January 11, 2010 Tisk, tisk ... another decade gone by with the same debate and tests to prove something unprovable continuing on and on. The prediction that the world would end at midnight ten years ago went unfulfilled ... as did the predictions of the death of film. Now we are 10 years further ahead in digital progress, and the net result is what? Further proof that digital is different from film? We knew that 10 years ago. That digital is superior to film when shown on a computer screen at beyond nose pressing distances? Knew that 10 years ago also. 10 years later and the turn of a new decade, and film still exerts its specific charms on those interested in feeling, craft and the art of photography done in a different way. While I am not a fan of Ansel Adams' work, I have seen his work first hand ... as a digital maven myself, I must admit I've yet to see a digital print quite its equal for the tonal spread ... and I am very unaware of grain when viewing these images. About my home I have some master prints done by my early heros of photography, mostly with ancient 35mm Leicas ... I've yet to see them matched, and been unable to match them myself with digital capture for the aesthetic film attributes that truly please the eye at normal viewing distances. I have this same reaction every time I visit the Leica Gallery in NYC to see a show. Not all wonders of film need be done as analog prints ... as can be attested to by Joel Meyerowitz using a Hasselblad Flextight X5 scanner and HP Z3100 printer to Scan & Print his work for an exhibitation at Jeu de paume in Paris. A testimonial from a true craftsman. Joel Meyerowitz So, will this undebatable debate continue on to the year 2020? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted January 11, 2010 Share #157 Posted January 11, 2010 So, will this undebatable debate continue on to the year 2020? Yup. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 11, 2010 Share #158 Posted January 11, 2010 So, will this undebatable debate continue on to the year 2020? Is that the year of final demise for film?:eek: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted January 11, 2010 Share #159 Posted January 11, 2010 Is that the year of final demise for film?:eek: No, it will be December 2012 ... when the demise of the entire world is supposed to take place ... but there will still be Hasselbald 500 cameras laying around for when life re-generates itself and evolution reaches the level of nonsense exhibited in this thread ... "Look what I found Daddy, what is it? I have no idea son, but my 120 film seems to fit in it ... LOL! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted January 11, 2010 Author Share #160 Posted January 11, 2010 Apologies, KM-25. I didn't mean to make you queasy.... I was going to suggest (since no one else has stepped up to the plate) that I could get my own drum scan or analog A1 print made from one of my film samples, and proceed from there. But if people would generally prefer not to know, I won't go to the expense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.