>From: Stephen Troy <sctroy@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>>I'm afraid your brother doesn't know what he's doing.
>
>Oh, my. What a statement to make, especially since you aren't familiar
>with his work or his methods...
>
>These particluar shots were for a calendar company (Browntrout - the
>largest in the world) that discourages the submission of images in digital
>format...
Don't you think you're being a bit unfair? You cite all the problems your
brother has with digital -- YOU make him seem like an imbecile to those of us
who find digital, for the most part, more efficient than film -- THEN you drop
the bomb that film was a REQUIREMENT on this particular job!
I certainly agree that if a customer wants film, give them film! As I said, I
know people who still want buggy whips, but I don't use that as an argument for
claiming buggies are superior to automobiles... :-)
>My original point, which seems to have been lost, was to
>open up a discussion about digital having a different "look" than film. It
>may or may not be the look that you need. Digital cameras capture an image
>in RAW mode and everything else is done through software, whether in the
>camera or in your computer.
I think we will just have to agree to disagree here.
There is no inherent "look" in RAW format, which is NOT what is captured by a
digital camera anyway. By the time it gets to RAW format, it has already had a
whole bunch of software processing, so I really cannot comprehend your aversion
to software for modifying the "look" of a digital image.
For most digicams (with Bayer filter sensors), an image starts out with twice
as much green information as red or blue, and each pixel senses only primary
transmissive colors. Then what you perceive as the "look" of the sensor is
generated by software, as it synthesizes this asymmetric matrix into full-color
pixels. This is where most color balance algorithms operate, thus the "look" is
truly variable, even with RAW mode.
>Film still allows more flexibility in how the
>original image is recorded...
Again, we must agree to disagree.
Any given film has ONE way it reacts to light. A digicam has an infinite number
of ways it reacts to light. You haven't convinced me otherwise. Using the
default settings of your digicam, or refusing to consider post-processing, are
not valid arguments to me, but again, you seem to disagree, which I can accept.
>My brother was telling me the other night about the latest Philadelphia
>ASMP meeting, where the topic of discussion was how many feel the current
>digital era will become the "missing generation" of great photojournalism.
That's an interesting point that has some merit, but as far as a "missing
generation," I think it is more like a few missing years. A $4,000 digicam
currently rivals or exceeds 35mm film. In 18 months or less, that capability
will be $2,000 or less.
>If you go to a
>retrospective show of great shots from the past - the Marines raising the
>flag on Iwo Jima, for instance - the impact of these historical prints
>exhibited as 16x20 or larger is impressive, and the power of the film-based
>images is readily apparent.
But surely, the image you cite was done on a Graflex on 4"x5" film! One can
also make the argument that the age of 35mm is the "missing generation!" I
don't think very many journalistic images since the days of Wegee will stand up
to 16x20 enlargements.
Digital under $10,000 currently rivals 35mm film. In two or three years, it
will reach price-performance parity with 35mm film. In another 3 years, it will
reach price-performance parity with medium format. In another 3-5 years, it
will reach price-performance parity with large format. THAT will be the end of
whatever "missing generation" is decried, as "Iwo Jima" quality images of the
past become routine in digital.
This is not rocket science. It is not my opinion. It is "Moore's Law," which
has held true for 50 years of semiconductor technology advancement.
>But many of today's photojournalism digital
>files are simply too small and too low of a resolution... to allow for the
>same type of display.
As are 35mm frames from the past 40 years of photojournalism! This is not a
"digital" problem!
>I'll now drop the discussion as it appears to be going nowhere
>other than people telling me how to use Photoshop.
I hope you haven't taken my reply as a personal attack.
If someone claims it takes 15 minutes of Photoshop work to change the "look" of
an image from one film to another, I can only assume they don't know much about
Photoshop, or were being purposely disingenuous in order to make their point.
Or perhaps I misunderstood the whole point, in which case, it hasn't been made
any clearer, and I still don't understand.
--
: Jan Steinman -- nature Transography(TM): <http://www.Bytesmiths.com>
: Bytesmiths -- artists' services: <http://www.Bytesmiths.com/Services>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|