Stephen: Your points are well taken. I am not trying to be a curmudgeon (it
just happens!)... what I guess I am saying is that there are some psychological
issues involved. Now, that being said, it is just a matter of plungeing in
learning the technical bits that are different. In that regard my first step
will be to seek out and view the highest quality, digitally produced B&W prints
that I can. That, after all, is the end point for me. Colour too, of course,
but that is a lower priority for me. Photos displayed on a screen are of
little interest to me.
But of even more importance to me right now is just regaining my "eye", getting
into the rhythm of making photos. The technology (film or digital) is
irrelevant to me.
Thanks to all for all the input, both on and off list. This is a really cool
discussion.
Earl
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 12/5/2003 at 9:58 PM Stephen Scharf wrote:
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!
|