Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 23:09:47 -0500
From: "Earl Dunbar" <edunbar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [OM] E-1 4/3 vs. full sensor, read it, this is an order
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.
Earl, with all due respect, our eyes are more like a digital camera
than they are anything like film. They are, in fact, R/G/B sensors
(much like a digital camera) capable of distinguishing over
12,000,000 colors. Moreover, our brain uses what is effectively a
"look-up table" to map the colors that we see; just a computer does.
For more in formation on how our brain sees color; check out Edwin
Land's Retinex Theory of Color Perception (Land, Edwin H. "Recent
Advances in Retinex Theory and Some Implications for Cortical
Computations: Color Vision and the Natural Image", Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci. USA, Vol. 80 pp. 5163-5169; August 1983 Physics). Understanding
how we see color and how to meaningfully describe color is what color
scientists do. But, yes, sensors and the resultant workflow are
different than black and white printing with an enlarger. Truth be
told, though, the majority of working pros not do this anymore when
they work with film, e.g. medium format. They make scans, either from
a Heidelberg or Imacon Flextight, and then go to Epson 2200, Epson
7600 or 9600, or Fuji Frontier or LightJet for output. This is in
fact, the workflow that many fine art and landscape or wildlife
photographers now use; including the late Galen Rowell. One of the
the reasons, workflow issues aside, is that digital prints *look
better* than chemically produced prints.
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.
Anyway, 12,000,000 colors; that's a pretty big color gamut. Nothing
comes close to reproducing that gamut, *including* color slide film.
As for conveying feeling/emotion, look at any of the Iraq war stuff
that was shot by the photojournalists there; or better yet, take a
look at the incredible work of the photojournalists covering the So.
Cal wildfires; tell me that doesn't convey impact. That stuff is
going to win a Pulitzer Prize for someone. Check out this link and
see if you can say that it doesn't after seeing these images:
http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1040. Or, pick up the latest issue
of National Geographic.
-Stephen.
--
2001 CBR600F4i - Fantastic!
|