This would require a whole different way of seeing light, which would then
guide one's ability to paint in the mind, thus somewhat affecting composition
as well as previsualizing.
This is the whole thing about digital. Things are DIFFERENT; our eyes and
instinctive reactions to scenes are sensitized to emulsions (allusion
intentional; kinda cool, eh?) and sensors and the resultant workflow are
different than film. What I want from a digital image is not necessarily
"better" resolution, dynamic range, etc. (although those are important), but
the ability to convey the feeling/emotion that I know how to do so well with
the methods I worked so hard to master. And the re-inve$tment is a
consideration. And if the damn camera doesn't feel like an OM (or better) in
my hand, it's another hurdle.
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 12/5/2003 at 8:12 PM Alienspecimen wrote:
>Sorry Skip,
>I was waaay off on this one. Dugged out the mag and here is what I found:
>The photographer's name is Stephen Johnson (www.sjphoto.com)
>The article is called New Eye on National Parks and here is what it says:
>As a pioneer in digital imaging, Johnson has been using various methods of
>digital capture for several years. The outfit he employs now consists of
>a specially developed digital back fitted to a Sinar Bron view camera,
>with possible resolution of 48 MP, generating nearly 150 MB files. That
>setup gives him a dynamic range that dramatically outstrips film's usual
>five stops. as well as extremely accurate color rendition. His digital
>camera represents the latest tool in Johnson's long term struggle to be
>freed from the confines of film and the stylistic choices film forces upon
>us. No longer limited to shooting at the edges of the day in warm light,
>Johnson can make beautiful images at times and in conditions that would
>send many film photographers looking for a place to wait for the lad-day
>light.
>
>From the previous page:
>
>The digital camera has a hight dynamic rang-nine to 11 stops versus film's
>five to seven and accurate color rendition, which allows him to continue
>down a path he had been on since the late 70"s with film, "of tring to be
>perfectly straight with the color and finding the romance and beauty in
>what was there, rather than in Warm light". In addition, it captures an
>amazing 6000X8000 pixels, equivalent to a 48MP camera capable of seeing
>outstandig detail in very large prints.
>
>I am yet to visit his website...been busy talking about SUV's and
>politics...I kid, I kid...I spend most of my time looking for a job
>Boris
>
>
>
>This hath not offended the king.
>
>Sir Thomas More (at his execution)
>
>
>
>as always, here is the original:
>Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 12:41:51 -0500
>From: Skip Williams <om2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [OM] E-1 4/3 vs. full sensor
>
>Such a deal for only $12,000 for the budget, Kodak DCS Pro-Back 14mgpx.
>$29,000 for the 22mgpx Leaf Valeo.
>
>I guess if you're making significant, incremental money from them, they
>make sense.
>
>Skip
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
>The most personalized portal on the Web!
>
>< 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 >
< 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 >
|