scaryink Posted September 3, 2009 Share #81 Posted September 3, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Jamie good correction. I meant to say that white will have a balance that is the same value in all channels. This is not the real world and is an artifice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 3, 2009 Posted September 3, 2009 Hi scaryink, Take a look here My Film Images Are Better Looking Than Digital!. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
kivis Posted September 4, 2009 Share #82 Posted September 4, 2009 I shot 90% B&W. I never can get my digitals (most of them I have sold) to give me the look I get from Tri-X, XP-2 or even Fomapan. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted September 4, 2009 Share #83 Posted September 4, 2009 I think it's time for the Moderator to intervene asking the current discussion participants to create a new post about "White Balance". It's off tract from my original post. No, it isn't You choose a film for colour, right? You try to use the right one, correct?? I didn't see anything in your post about cross-processing or different films, so I assume you're using daylight film, which, as George implies, is balanced for 5500K. You must do the same for digital (which I suspect you did not in your original post) or your comparison is flawed. It's like saying--"gee, I sure like the look of this daylight film for landscapes shot in daylight as opposed to this crummy tungsten film--it's much more natural" Look--George was right: there's nothing natural in the slightest about film or digital in terms of color neutrality or organic representation of colour. Sorry. White balance and film temperature are both artificial (in the sense of belonging to a created technology different that renders different than our eyes do in that it renders neutrals absolutely (and measurably)). But getting a neutral place to start with color is the beginning of *all* technical color processes--including scanning or printing or chemistry--and you need to know where you are in relation to neutral even when you want a cast (otherwise, you would not know there's a cast, or how much of one?). Anyway, you opened up this discussion precisely up with your color claims in your OP. If you just want to subjectively keep on saying "you like your results better" then that's great... for you But it doesn't mean that a discussion of colour across different media should choose ignore the fundamental basics of the technology. Isn't what you want a discussion? Or do you just want people to agree with you? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted September 4, 2009 Share #84 Posted September 4, 2009 Jamie good correction. I meant to say that white will have a balance that is the same value in all channels. This is not the real world and is an artifice. Right: what "white balance" really means is that a truly neutral white (or actually very light gray) object will reflect a neutral balance given a certain temperature of light. That's exactly what films do as well. But while a perfectly neutral object may be an artifice, (and of course the whole technology is artificial) that's not the same thing as saying that within the technology the notion of white balancing is an artifice and doesn't occur. Rather the opposite: it always occurs; the question is do you want it to or not? My point is that regardless of subjective interpretation, it's always worthwhile to know how far you are off to begin with. So I have no problem using tungsten film in daylight; if I want that colour shift effect. But I certainly wouldn't compare the capability of that film to daylight film throughout a broad range of daylight conditions and then claim it's "naturally" better or worse Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
missouri Posted September 19, 2009 Share #85 Posted September 19, 2009 I agree! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lieberdavid Posted September 27, 2009 Share #86 Posted September 27, 2009 Hello Everyone, May I make a modest substitution in the post of ewelch who wrote: "I was a big fan of film for years, but now that I shoot with Canon 1Ds Mark II and the 5D Mark II, I can say I'm convinced digital wins over film in almost every way. Lack of grain, color accuracy, dynamic range, it all goes in favor of digital. ... That's not to say film doesn't have qualities that commend it. It certainly does. Especially printed with a Leica V35 on high quality paper. But if you're going to scan it with a $1,000 Nikon scanner, or equivalent, then you are going digital in the end and lose a lot of the character of analog shooting. "? In the second line of his post replace "film" with "film followed by digital scanning". To me, this small change is important. I am not surprised that a good quality digital camera can produce pictures that many feel are better than scanned film images. But this is not a comparison between digital and film. It is a comparison between digital and digital, for the scanning pricess is digital and is the processing chain's weakest link. A proper comparison between digital and film means to me that a projected digital slide is compared with a projected film slide or a digital print is compared with a print made with, as Mr. Welch himself suggests, a V35 on high quality paper. This is a comparison between digital and film. I have yet to see any reports of such comparisons, but from my own expeerience I can tell you that so far I have not seen any digital images of any type that compare favorably with the quality of a well projected film slide. I am sure that digital will overtake film one day, and probably a lot sooner than one might expect, but it hasn't yet, and until then I expect to stick with film. Cheers! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zonevt Posted September 27, 2009 Share #87 Posted September 27, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Your arguments are personal opinon. I know from experience that making a good photograph has nothing to do with how it was produced... by film, digital,.....large, medium or 35mm format. Everyone has different skill levels, some lack the creative, others do not have knowledge in proper exposure, lens selection development, digital profiling, or digital processing. These skills are a never ending learning curve. In the end when people buy prints in a gallery they do not care what camera or process produced the image they have an emotional connection to the photo and buy it. I sell as many prints from digital as I do from 4"x5" film and most people do not even ask what camera or process produced them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth Posted September 27, 2009 Share #88 Posted September 27, 2009 Your arguments are personal opinon. I know from experience that making a good photograph has nothing to do with how it was produced... by film, digital,.....large, medium or 35mm format. Everyone has different skill levels, some lack the creative, others do not have knowledge in proper exposure, lens selection development, digital profiling, or digital processing. These skills are a never ending learning curve. In the end when people buy prints in a gallery they do not care what camera or process produced the image they have an emotional connection to the photo and buy it. I sell as many prints from digital as I do from 4"x5" film and most people do not even ask what camera or process produced them. I think you will find that most photographers, myself included are interested in how the photograph was made. I agree that all photographers have differing skill levels and there is a never ending skill level involved in that process but like most things that curve is very steep to begin with and people feel to be progressing well. It is only when that curve angle reduces that some can loose sight of thier objectives or they become satisfied with the level they are at then the water becomes a little muddy, which is fine. The digital process on the other hand misses out alot of the rudimentary skills required which means you arrive at producing acceptable images very quickly. This is because the technology involved means that very little skill is required and people arrive at this acceptable level more quickly. I never use the word photography to describe the digital process. It is not photography but another form of personal expression. That is not to say that one is good and the other is bad they are different animal and should not be confused. My wife will happily tell you that she was hopeless in getting acceptable results from a film camera. She did not understand the rudimentary levels of photography furthermore she was not interested. For her 60th birthday I bought her a Nikon CoolPix digital image maker and she is as happy as Larry producing quite acceptable records of her travels but it's not photography it is just a record of events that she can share with her family and friends. I have made photographs with various makes of camera for 45 years, mainly colour reversal using Kodachrome II 25 asa. Only last year with the demise of Kodachrome have I reverted back to B&W which enables me to re establish my darkroom which is where most of the creative process happens. Until we stop calling the digital process photography and refer to it as digital image making this confusion will remain Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.