Re: PP: Digital Grain
On 24/1/05, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed: invite you to try to find a 70's era Playboy magazine and have a look at the technical merits of the centerfold. The gamut is, admitedly, limited to the gamut of the inkset, just like today. That hasn't changed. As for the rest, as anyone who has seen one will attest, the quality was pretty spectacular. Especially November '74 - she was my first. Ahh. LOL Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: PP: Digital Grain
On 24/1/05, Graywolf, discombobulated, unleashed: Playboy's centerfold used to be printed from direct separations made from 8x10 Ektachromes. I have no idea what they do these days. Can I go find out ? :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: PP: Digital Grain
On 24/1/05, Peter J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed: I've been staying out of this, since I tend to be argumentative anyway, No you're not Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: PP: Digital Grain
Yes I am, Am, AM! Cotty wrote: On 24/1/05, Peter J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed: I've been staying out of this, since I tend to be argumentative anyway, No you're not Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: PP: Digital Grain
Probably not, the Guards may have a shoot on sight order, at least in your case... Cotty wrote: On 24/1/05, Graywolf, discombobulated, unleashed: Playboy's centerfold used to be printed from direct separations made from 8x10 Ektachromes. I have no idea what they do these days. Can I go find out ? :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: PP: Digital Grain
Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 24/1/05, Graywolf, discombobulated, unleashed: Playboy's centerfold used to be printed from direct separations made from 8x10 Ektachromes. I have no idea what they do these days. Can I go find out ? :-) NO! It's too perilous! -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: PP: Digital Grain
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 13:56:39 -0500, Peter J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes I am, Am, AM! Cotty wrote: On 24/1/05, Peter J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed: I've been staying out of this, since I tend to be argumentative anyway, No you're not Cheers, Cotty Guys, guys, guys. You're not arguing, you're just contradicting each other. Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says. Anyway, that's it, your five minutes is up... g cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: PP: Digital Grain
GD Didn't they use Gowlandflexes, in addition to 4x5s, Hasselblads, GD Rolleiflexes, and other medium to large format cameras? 35mm was GD far from the established film standard in fashion and beauty GD work at that time. I almost forgot these beasts! Never seen them in flesh, unfortunately, just read about in old books. I would like to own one someday... Good light! fra
Re: PP: Digital Grain
Shame on you, Peter On Jan 24, 2005, at 11:06 PM, Peter J. Alling wrote: I've been staying out of this, since I tend to be argumentative anyway, but are you sure it's another? mike wilson wrote: H. It appears we have another Antonio. 'Bye Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: --- mike.wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry, Godfey, but that paragraph is the biggest load of bollocks. _Nothing_ records a photograph without defects. However correctly it is used. Digital captures are more likely to have gross defects (hot pixel, anyone?) than film. Thank you for your opinion. I disagree: evidence indicates otherwise. Godfrey __ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: PP: Digital Grain
On Jan 25, 2005, at 12:01 AM, Rob Studdert wrote: It seems I need to send you a *ist D based print or two :-) People will still see what they want to see. However, I'm going to conduct a little experiment. My current portfolio consists of about 48 prints. Four are 11 x 14 silver prints, the rest are color prints of approximately 11 x 17. Thirty of so are digital. Fourteen are from medium format scans. They were all printed on the Epson 2200. I'm going to pull aside three or four professional art directors in the ad agency where I'm currently working, along with an art buyer or two. These are people who evaluate professional photography every day and are considered experts. Let's see how many can pick out the film based prints from the digital without using a loupe. I'm willing to bet that the hit ratio will be very low indeed. Paul
Re: PP: Digital Grain
- Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain People will still see what they want to see. However, I'm going to conduct a little experiment. My current portfolio consists of about 48 prints. Four are 11 x 14 silver prints, the rest are color prints of approximately 11 x 17. Thirty of so are digital. Fourteen are from medium format scans. They were all printed on the Epson 2200. I'm going to pull aside three or four professional art directors in the ad agency where I'm currently working, along with an art buyer or two. These are people who evaluate professional photography every day and are considered experts. Let's see how many can pick out the film based prints from the digital without using a loupe. I'm willing to bet that the hit ratio will be very low indeed. Essentially, you are going to show a bunch of digital prints and ask which one is not a digital print? Hardly a fair question. Or are you merely going to see if they can pick out the four 11x14 silver prints from the rest. William Robb
Re: PP: Digital Grain
I'm going to show color prints from film and color prints from digital. I see thousands of prints a month. I can't control the experiment if all the prints are not outputted from the same source. The discussion here centered around a visual difference that was derived from the source: film vs. an optical sensor. To compare those two elements, you have to use the same output device. If there's more than one variable, it's not a controlled experiment. Paul On Jan 25, 2005, at 7:28 AM, William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain People will still see what they want to see. However, I'm going to conduct a little experiment. My current portfolio consists of about 48 prints. Four are 11 x 14 silver prints, the rest are color prints of approximately 11 x 17. Thirty of so are digital. Fourteen are from medium format scans. They were all printed on the Epson 2200. I'm going to pull aside three or four professional art directors in the ad agency where I'm currently working, along with an art buyer or two. These are people who evaluate professional photography every day and are considered experts. Let's see how many can pick out the film based prints from the digital without using a loupe. I'm willing to bet that the hit ratio will be very low indeed. Essentially, you are going to show a bunch of digital prints and ask which one is not a digital print? Hardly a fair question. Or are you merely going to see if they can pick out the four 11x14 silver prints from the rest. William Robb
Re: PP: Digital Grain
Hmm, I created some jibberish here. I started out to say, I see thousands of prints a month. I haven't seen an optical color print in years. But I meant to delete that, because it's beside the point. A second experiment comparing a color optical print and a color inkjet print would add more information. But for the purpose of comparing digitally recorded images and images recorded on film, everything else has to be as equal as possible. Of course this still isn't a valid scientific experiment. But I know it will demonstrate that, at least in terms of the way I work, there is so little difference between film and digital, that even experts are unable to determine which is which. For the way others work, that might not be true. I'm going to show color prints from film and color prints from digital. I see thousands of prints a month. I can't control the experiment if all the prints are not outputted from the same source. The discussion here centered around a visual difference that was derived from the source: film vs. an optical sensor. To compare those two elements, you have to use the same output device. If there's more than one variable, it's not a controlled experiment. Paul On Jan 25, 2005, at 7:28 AM, William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain People will still see what they want to see. However, I'm going to conduct a little experiment. My current portfolio consists of about 48 prints. Four are 11 x 14 silver prints, the rest are color prints of approximately 11 x 17. Thirty of so are digital. Fourteen are from medium format scans. They were all printed on the Epson 2200. I'm going to pull aside three or four professional art directors in the ad agency where I'm currently working, along with an art buyer or two. These are people who evaluate professional photography every day and are considered experts. Let's see how many can pick out the film based prints from the digital without using a loupe. I'm willing to bet that the hit ratio will be very low indeed. Essentially, you are going to show a bunch of digital prints and ask which one is not a digital print? Hardly a fair question. Or are you merely going to see if they can pick out the four 11x14 silver prints from the rest. William Robb
Re: PP: Digital Grain
WR Or are you merely going to see if they can pick out the four 11x14 WR silver prints from the rest. [of colour prints, note by Fra] Now, William, most advertisement agency people aren't _THAT_ stupid so they couldn't pick out BW prints from colour prints. Or are they ;-) grin, duck run Good light! fra
Re: PP: Digital Grain
Frantisek asked, Now, William, most advertisement agency people aren't _THAT_ stupid so they couldn't pick out BW prints from colour prints. Or are they ;-) In my experience, they very well could be g. But I'm going to ask some photographer's reps and, hopefully, some photographers as well. Paul WR Or are you merely going to see if they can pick out the four 11x14 WR silver prints from the rest. [of colour prints, note by Fra] Now, William, most advertisement agency people aren't _THAT_ stupid so they couldn't pick out BW prints from colour prints. Or are they ;-) grin, duck run Good light! fra
Re: PP: Digital Grain
I'm not trying to determine whether film or digital is better. I'm trying to determine if experts can distinguish between MY prints from digital and MY prints from film. Obviously, if half of the film prints are optical and the digital prints are inkjet, anyone could tell at a glance. Paul But for the purpose of comparing digitally recorded images and images recorded on film, everything else has to be as equal as possible. I don't think that's true. If you really want to compare digitally recorded images with film recorded images, you'll have to use the method which will minimize the information loss (it could be different in the 2 cases). Alex Sarbu On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 08:28:23 -0500, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmm, I created some jibberish here. I started out to say, I see thousands of prints a month. I haven't seen an optical color print in years. But I meant to delete that, because it's beside the point. A second experiment comparing a color optical print and a color inkjet print would add more information. But for the purpose of comparing digitally recorded images and images recorded on film, everything else has to be as equal as possible. Of course this still isn't a valid scientific experiment. But I know it will demonstrate that, at least in terms of the way I work, there is so little difference between film and digital, that even experts are unable to determine which is which. For the way others work, that might not be true.
Re: PP: Digital Grain
But for the purpose of comparing digitally recorded images and images recorded on film, everything else has to be as equal as possible. I don't think that's true. If you really want to compare digitally recorded images with film recorded images, you'll have to use the method which will minimize the information loss (it could be different in the 2 cases). Alex Sarbu On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 08:28:23 -0500, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmm, I created some jibberish here. I started out to say, I see thousands of prints a month. I haven't seen an optical color print in years. But I meant to delete that, because it's beside the point. A second experiment comparing a color optical print and a color inkjet print would add more information. But for the purpose of comparing digitally recorded images and images recorded on film, everything else has to be as equal as possible. Of course this still isn't a valid scientific experiment. But I know it will demonstrate that, at least in terms of the way I work, there is so little difference between film and digital, that even experts are unable to determine which is which. For the way others work, that might not be true.
Re: PP: Digital Grain
Well, from that point of view you're right. But then you're not comparing digital with film, but the results of 2 different workflows. Hmmm... look who's talking... I have absolutely no ideea what a really good print looks like. Alex Sarbu On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:48:24 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not trying to determine whether film or digital is better. I'm trying to determine if experts can distinguish between MY prints from digital and MY prints from film. Obviously, if half of the film prints are optical and the digital prints are inkjet, anyone could tell at a glance. Paul But for the purpose of comparing digitally recorded images and images recorded on film, everything else has to be as equal as possible. I don't think that's true. If you really want to compare digitally recorded images with film recorded images, you'll have to use the method which will minimize the information loss (it could be different in the 2 cases). Alex Sarbu On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 08:28:23 -0500, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmm, I created some jibberish here. I started out to say, I see thousands of prints a month. I haven't seen an optical color print in years. But I meant to delete that, because it's beside the point. A second experiment comparing a color optical print and a color inkjet print would add more information. But for the purpose of comparing digitally recorded images and images recorded on film, everything else has to be as equal as possible. Of course this still isn't a valid scientific experiment. But I know it will demonstrate that, at least in terms of the way I work, there is so little difference between film and digital, that even experts are unable to determine which is which. For the way others work, that might not be true.
Re: PP: Digital Grain
Normally when I hang a show, I group photos based upon aesthetics and theme, not necessarily anything to do with how they were produced. So in some cases, my matted and framed all-digital inkjet photos get hung right next to scanned film-inkjet and wet-lab produced prints. People often ask how a particular photograph was made. The most telling comment, from what seemed a fairly knowledgeable individual, that came back was, Hmm. From film, you say? That's mighty good for a film image. ;-) Godfrey __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
Re: PP: Digital Grain
When I saw some digital (D100) and 35mm film (some Fuji slides I think, couldn't get more details) prints exposed in a gallery in several cases I liked the digital result better (they were cleaner, which imho would have worked well for some portraits). In other prints however the film grain wasn't intrusive, but the reflection from the uncoated glass was. I don't know if that's the best both mediums could do (I doubt it), but I was amazed at the quality one can get from both 6MP DSLR and 35mm slides - and can't wait to see a real, large format print :) Alex Sarbu On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 08:51:28 -0800 (PST), Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Normally when I hang a show, I group photos based upon aesthetics and theme, not necessarily anything to do with how they were produced. So in some cases, my matted and framed all-digital inkjet photos get hung right next to scanned film-inkjet and wet-lab produced prints. People often ask how a particular photograph was made. The most telling comment, from what seemed a fairly knowledgeable individual, that came back was, Hmm. From film, you say? That's mighty good for a film image. ;-) Godfrey __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
Re: PP: Digital Grain
- Original Message - From: Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain ... I have absolutely no ideea what a really good print looks like. Don't feel badly. Most people don't. William Robb
Re: PP: Digital Grain
- Original Message - From: Godfrey DiGiorgi Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain People often ask how a particular photograph was made. The most telling comment, from what seemed a fairly knowledgeable individual, that came back was, Hmm. From film, you say? That's mighty good for a film image. ;-) Isn't sardonic wit a wonderful thing? HAR!! William Robb
Re: PP: Digital Grain
- Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain I'm going to show color prints from film and color prints from digital. I see thousands of prints a month. I can't control the experiment if all the prints are not outputted from the same source. The discussion here centered around a visual difference that was derived from the source: film vs. an optical sensor. To compare those two elements, you have to use the same output device. If there's more than one variable, it's not a controlled experiment. Cool. I guess I do that on a daily basis. I look at several thousand prints a week from all sorts of digital and film sources, all coming off the same machine. It isn't too difficult to tell one from the other, although I haven't really quantized all the visual clues. I find the scanning is quite the great equalizer. It really brings the print quality down in my end of the business. William Robb
Re: PP: Digital Grain
I can't provide much help. I don't know how they shoot Playboy centerfolds these days, but I can try to find out. I suspect they use large format digital. I know they did shoot huge chromes in the past. I don't think they contact printed them. I believe they made their color separations from the transparencies just as other publications did. A print would be useless for offset printing. Although they probably made some for display and portfolios. Paul On Jan 24, 2005, at 1:23 AM, William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Rob Studdert Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain I'd love to be proven wrong but I suspect the prints you speak of though resolute would look pretty bad up against prints produced using studio MF digital work-flows these days. Paul? Can you help us out here? I do wonder how much of the errors you speak of would actually be measurable by any means short of a microdensitometer. For all that, there is a lushness to large film contact prints that I find hard to describe in words, but once you see it, you no longer need the explanation. William Robb
Re: PP: Digital Grain
- Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain I can't provide much help. I don't know how they shoot Playboy centerfolds these days, but I can try to find out. I suspect they use large format digital. I know they did shoot huge chromes in the past. I don't think they contact printed them. I believe they made their color separations from the transparencies just as other publications did. A print would be useless for offset printing. Although they probably made some for display and portfolios. I'm not totally conversant with how a film image gets made into seperations for publication, but the centerfolds in the old days were produced from unenlarged Ektachromes, as opposed to enlarging the images, which is what you would do if the image had been shot on a smaller format film. William Robb
Re: PP: Digital Grain
On 24 Jan 2005 at 6:36, William Robb wrote: I'm not totally conversant with how a film image gets made into seperations for publication, but the centerfolds in the old days were produced from unenlarged Ektachromes, as opposed to enlarging the images, which is what you would do if the image had been shot on a smaller format film. They would have looked like 70's off-set print, not great and gamut limited. Before the advent of computer generated films for plate production plates were made on a repro camera using mechanical screens and filters and most often from original reflective artwork at 100%. So they would likely have been made from prints. Around the early 80's some of the larger print houses went digital in my neck of the woods so until then it wouldn't have been likely that any prints were made from direct scans of transparencies. Not until the mid 90's did stochastic screening became a reality and off-set prints really started to look fine grained. Until that point even though most printing plates were produced from laser printed films they still used regular screens and were resolution limited through the absolute resolution of the imagesetters and the limitations of the film to plate process. On top of that few off-set presses had the inherent accuracy to ensure sufficient registration to make a high resolution system such as Diamond Screen work. Some reading: http://www.heidelberg.com/wwwbinaries/bin/files/dotcom/en/products/prinect/scree ning_technology_eng.pdf Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: PP: Digital Grain
Hi Marnie, On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 02:44:40 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Still I'd like the option to print a photo on a bumpy sort of paper. Trouble is, on my inkjet it probably wouldn't work. The ink probably would absorb unevenly and the photograph come out look like hell. I've printed on canvas and linen papers with my Epson Stylus Photo 820. They actually felt like coated pieces of cloth more than paper. The results were just fine, though not quite like a drawing or painting on canvas or linen. :-) TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: Re: PP: Digital Grain
Hi, From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] That's correct, Rob has it just about right. A quality digital camera used correctly does a clean job of recording a photograph without creating defects in the rendering. How the photograph is textured/rendered is up to the judgement of the photographer. Sorry, Godfey, but that paragraph is the biggest load of bollocks. _Nothing_ records a photograph without defects. However correctly it is used. Digital captures are more likely to have gross defects (hot pixel, anyone?) than film. mike CITY OF SUNDERLAND COLLEGE DISCLAIMER Confidentiality: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If they come to you in error you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone; please reply to this email and highlight the error. Please note that the views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the college. Security Warning: Please note that this email has been created in the knowledge that Internet email is not a 100% secure communications medium. We advise that you understand and observe this lack of security when emailing us. Viruses: Although we have taken steps to ensure that this email and attachments are free from any virus, we advise that in keeping with good computing practice the recipient should ensure thay are actually virus free.
Re: PP: Digital Grain
Epson Velvet Fine Art paper has a texture like watercolor stock. It prints beautifully on my Epson 2200. Some Hannemuhle stocks have an even more toothy feel. They print very nicely as well, although the roughest textured papers can chip if you're not careful. Paul Hi Marnie, On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 02:44:40 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Still I'd like the option to print a photo on a bumpy sort of paper. Trouble is, on my inkjet it probably wouldn't work. The ink probably would absorb unevenly and the photograph come out look like hell. I've printed on canvas and linen papers with my Epson Stylus Photo 820. They actually felt like coated pieces of cloth more than paper. The results were just fine, though not quite like a drawing or painting on canvas or linen. :-) TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: PP: Digital Grain
Quoting Doug Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi Marnie, On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 02:44:40 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Still I'd like the option to print a photo on a bumpy sort of paper. Trouble is, on my inkjet it probably wouldn't work. The ink probably would absorb unevenly and the photograph come out look like hell. I've printed on canvas and linen papers with my Epson Stylus Photo 820. They actually felt like coated pieces of cloth more than paper. The results were just fine, though not quite like a drawing or painting on canvas or linen. :-) TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ A neat advantage to the canvas stuff (haven't tried the linen) is that you end up with a print that's much more forgiving of being handled -- you can bend it and flex it and such and unlike regular paper it won't crease. :-) ERNR
Re: Re: PP: Digital Grain
--- mike.wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry, Godfey, but that paragraph is the biggest load of bollocks. _Nothing_ records a photograph without defects. However correctly it is used. Digital captures are more likely to have gross defects (hot pixel, anyone?) than film. Thank you for your opinion. I disagree: evidence indicates otherwise. Godfrey __ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
Re: PP: Digital Grain
But digital images do have a digital look to them. It has been called the cartoon effect. It smooths out detail, and colors by normalizing adjacent areas. Even very high res digital images have that that look though not to the extent of lower res images. You can do something similar with film by using a Softar filter but it is not exactly the same. As long as digital uses separate pixels for different colors it is not possible to completely eliminate that effect as it is inherent in the process. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Rob Studdert wrote: On 23 Jan 2005 at 19:41, Shel Belinkoff wrote: That's just about the most absurd comment I've read here recently ... there is a definite look to digital images when they come out of the camera. Then, after you muck around with them in Photoshop and whatever, they may take on a different look. Show me a digital camera that will produce Tri-X tonality and grain structure right out of the box. Perhaps you meant to say that a digital image can BE MADE to look like anything ... Direct digital captured images don't look like anything, they are as close to neutral as we can currently achieve if processed by someone with an understanding of limitations of the media. Without getting into a pissing match or speaking for Godfrey I expect the point that was being made is that digital imaging should not impose its own noise/transfer fingerprint on the image unlike film. (And I'm not referring to in camera image processing either, just like you aren't referring to an instant film process.) Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.2 - Release Date: 1/21/2005
Re: PP: Digital Grain
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: .. To get back to my original statement, there is no digital look. A photograph recorded with a digital camera looks as it ought to, as a capture of light without defects intrduced by the capture medium. Godfrey There are however, some defects introduced by the digital capture system. First there is the pixelization of the light by the discrete photosites of the CCD or Cmos chip. Second, there is noise by the quantization of the recorded signal by a noisy analog/digital system interface. Third, there is the information lost by the Bayer interpolation algorithm applied to convert the discrete RGB photosites into color values per pixel. And lastly, there is information lost due to the fact that the photosites do not cover the entire chip, there is routing/wiring that takes up 30% or so of the chip where light is not captured but lost. In conclusion, the final digital image contains defects also, they are just different types of defects from film. rg
Re: PP: Digital Grain
--- Graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But digital images do have a digital look to them. It has been called the cartoon effect. It smooths out detail, and colors by normalizing adjacent areas. Even very high res digital images have that that look though not to the extent of lower res images. You can do something similar with film by using a Softar filter but it is not exactly the same. As long as digital uses separate pixels for different colors it is not possible to completely eliminate that effect as it is inherent in the process. It's amazing how you can ascribe a name to something that no one has ever heard of and just state, People say... What is this, Fox News? Each pixel records a certain specific intensity, in the color of its R, G, or B lens. It is this intensity map which defines the detail in the image. Color, and only color, is interpolated by looking at the adjacent pixel pattern and evaluating a final mix of RGB for the target pixel's value. There's no normalization or smoothing. Sharpening, contrast adjustment, saturation, etc are all add-on transformations in the image rendering. Any camera which supports RAW file output allows the photographer to control the precise degree of application of these transforms. Luminance smoothing or chrominance noise reduction are additional operations which are available to the image processor. Good cameras allow photographers to control them with built-in JPEG creation, or only apply them as part of the RAW post processing in companion software. The net result is that there is no digital look; the term is just as meaningless as cartoon effect. Show me two identical, unprocessed pictures taken with a film and a digital camera of comparable quality, and tell me what constitutes to you a digital look in the comparison. Godfrey __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: PP: Digital Grain
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: --- mike.wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry, Godfey, but that paragraph is the biggest load of bollocks. _Nothing_ records a photograph without defects. However correctly it is used. Digital captures are more likely to have gross defects (hot pixel, anyone?) than film. Thank you for your opinion. I disagree: evidence indicates otherwise. Godfrey I just read through all this thread and am of the school that one can see the differences between images recorded on film and those on digital more often than not look different - at least to those of us who have been shooting film for (in my case) 40 years. There are things about digital I like, but there are certainly obstacles to overcome using a digital camera. The very worst of it is shutter lag and moiré. There is often something very sterile about a really grainless super sharp image that brings an unreal quality to a digitally shot photo. Though not always, and the technology keeps getting better. But I was ,with one exception, able to tell the digital shots from the film shots that Cotty presented to those of us who went to GFM (The photo meet in North Carolina) last year. As BIll Robb said (I paraphrase) there is something about them. I only got myself a digital camera to save money and time - I like it more than I thought I would, and I don't even have a high end job. But I find it difficult to work with because there are too many options and I haven't been able to get them in my memory bank. I think the strongest images are those that speak to you so clearly you don't for a minute think about the technique that was used to create it. If the first thing that pops in to your head when you look at a photo is whether it is film or digital, then the photo probably isn't worth thinking too long about :) annsan the discombobulated and opinionated p.s. The comment of Shel about JCO was a comic aside to the list members who have been around awhile... he wasn't disparaging you with it __ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
Re: PP: Digital Grain
H. It appears we have another Antonio. 'Bye Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: --- mike.wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry, Godfey, but that paragraph is the biggest load of bollocks. _Nothing_ records a photograph without defects. However correctly it is used. Digital captures are more likely to have gross defects (hot pixel, anyone?) than film. Thank you for your opinion. I disagree: evidence indicates otherwise. Godfrey __ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
Re: PP: Digital Grain
You are wasting your time. It's a troll. m Gonz wrote: Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: .. To get back to my original statement, there is no digital look. A photograph recorded with a digital camera looks as it ought to, as a capture of light without defects intrduced by the capture medium. Godfrey There are however, some defects introduced by the digital capture system. First there is the pixelization of the light by the discrete photosites of the CCD or Cmos chip. Second, there is noise by the quantization of the recorded signal by a noisy analog/digital system interface. Third, there is the information lost by the Bayer interpolation algorithm applied to convert the discrete RGB photosites into color values per pixel. And lastly, there is information lost due to the fact that the photosites do not cover the entire chip, there is routing/wiring that takes up 30% or so of the chip where light is not captured but lost. In conclusion, the final digital image contains defects also, they are just different types of defects from film. rg
Re: PP: Digital Grain
The term Cartoon Effect was coined by one of the list members (I forget exactly who, and my archives have been lost) here about 3 years ago. It so succinctly describes the look of digital that I have used it ever since. Every media has its own look. Digital is no different than any other. Your opinion sir is your opinion, just as my opinion is my opinion. Your facts are suspect. What you have had is obviously a religious experience and as such I will not reply in the future. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: The net result is that there is no digital look; the term is just as meaningless as cartoon effect. Show me two identical, unprocessed pictures taken with a film and a digital camera of comparable quality, and tell me what constitutes to you a digital look in the comparison. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.2 - Release Date: 1/21/2005
Re: PP: Digital Grain
I don't see it that way -- Best regards, Bruce Monday, January 24, 2005, 11:14:51 AM, you wrote: mw You are wasting your time. It's a troll. mw m mw Gonz wrote: Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: .. To get back to my original statement, there is no digital look. A photograph recorded with a digital camera looks as it ought to, as a capture of light without defects intrduced by the capture medium. Godfrey There are however, some defects introduced by the digital capture system. First there is the pixelization of the light by the discrete photosites of the CCD or Cmos chip. Second, there is noise by the quantization of the recorded signal by a noisy analog/digital system interface. Third, there is the information lost by the Bayer interpolation algorithm applied to convert the discrete RGB photosites into color values per pixel. And lastly, there is information lost due to the fact that the photosites do not cover the entire chip, there is routing/wiring that takes up 30% or so of the chip where light is not captured but lost. In conclusion, the final digital image contains defects also, they are just different types of defects from film. rg
Re: PP: Digital Grain
Godfrrey has in no way demonstrated that he is another Antonio. His positions are politely and intelligently argued. I don't think the discussion should take this kind of personal turn. Paul H. It appears we have another Antonio. 'Bye Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: --- mike.wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry, Godfey, but that paragraph is the biggest load of bollocks. _Nothing_ records a photograph without defects. However correctly it is used. Digital captures are more likely to have gross defects (hot pixel, anyone?) than film. Thank you for your opinion. I disagree: evidence indicates otherwise. Godfrey __ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
Re: PP: Digital Grain
Nor do I. Godfrey obviously disagrees with some list members, but he has stated his positions politely and lucidly. There is no reason this should become a flame war. I've enjoyed the discourse. Some of the disagreement is based on different interpretations of highly technical evidence. But gentlemen and ladies should be capable of debate without resorting to name calling. Paul I don't see it that way -- Best regards, Bruce Monday, January 24, 2005, 11:14:51 AM, you wrote: mw You are wasting your time. It's a troll. mw m mw Gonz wrote: Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: .. To get back to my original statement, there is no digital look. A photograph recorded with a digital camera looks as it ought to, as a capture of light without defects intrduced by the capture medium. Godfrey There are however, some defects introduced by the digital capture system. First there is the pixelization of the light by the discrete photosites of the CCD or Cmos chip. Second, there is noise by the quantization of the recorded signal by a noisy analog/digital system interface. Third, there is the information lost by the Bayer interpolation algorithm applied to convert the discrete RGB photosites into color values per pixel. And lastly, there is information lost due to the fact that the photosites do not cover the entire chip, there is routing/wiring that takes up 30% or so of the chip where light is not captured but lost. In conclusion, the final digital image contains defects also, they are just different types of defects from film. rg
Re: PP: Digital Grain
In a message dated 1/24/2005 6:57:01 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Epson Velvet Fine Art paper has a texture like watercolor stock. It prints beautifully on my Epson 2200. Some Hannemuhle stocks have an even more toothy feel. They print very nicely as well, although the roughest textured papers can chip if you're not careful. Paul == Thanks! I'll look into it. Boy, I really started something, huh? Marnie ;-)
Re: PP: Digital Grain
In a message dated 1/24/2005 8:13:41 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I've printed on canvas and linen papers with my Epson Stylus Photo 820. They actually felt like coated pieces of cloth more than paper. The results were just fine, though not quite like a drawing or painting on canvas or linen. :-) TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ A neat advantage to the canvas stuff (haven't tried the linen) is that you end up with a print that's much more forgiving of being handled -- you can bend it and flex it and such and unlike regular paper it won't crease. :-) ERNR == Kewl. I am now eager to try it -- play around. Marnie :-)
Re: PP: Digital Grain
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain Nor do I. Godfrey obviously disagrees with some list members, but he has stated his positions politely and lucidly. There is no reason this should become a flame war. I've enjoyed the discourse. Some of the disagreement is based on different interpretations of highly technical evidence. But gentlemen and ladies should be capable of debate without resorting to name calling. And perhaps we will see his evidence to the contrary. Until then
Re: PP: Digital Grain
GD To get back to my original statement, there is no digital GD look. A photograph recorded with a digital camera looks as it GD ought to, as a capture of light without defects intrduced by the GD capture medium. ^^ If you really do believe what you wrote, may I interest you in a piece of genuine Sain Mary grilled cheese ;-) PDML alusions aside, what you wrote should really make it into PDML Quotes 2005, it's the funniest thing I read in a long while... Good light! fra
Re: PP: Digital Grain
I've reread his posts. He presented detailed explanations of his opinions. Whether one disagrees with them or not is beside the point. He's not a troll, and he's not Antonio. Paul - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain Nor do I. Godfrey obviously disagrees with some list members, but he has stated his positions politely and lucidly. There is no reason this should become a flame war. I've enjoyed the discourse. Some of the disagreement is based on different interpretations of highly technical evidence. But gentlemen and ladies should be capable of debate without resorting to name calling. And perhaps we will see his evidence to the contrary. Until then
Re: PP: Digital Grain
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain I've reread his posts. He presented detailed explanations of his opinions. Whether one disagrees with them or not is beside the point. He's not a troll, and he's not Antonio. I can give some pretty detailed explanations of opinions I have as well. It doesn't alter the reality that an opinion is just that, until backed up with some factual evidence. At the moment, all we have is: there is no digital look. A photograph recorded with a digital camera looks as it ought to, as a capture of light without defects intrduced by the capture medium. This is clearly a wrong statement, as it implies a perfect recording medium is in place, which is a technologocal impossibility. This has been pointed out to him, with detailed explanations as to why his assertion is impossible, and he has, in rather Mafud like style, ignored the evidence presented, and repeated his incorrect assertion, expecting that it will be accepted as evidence. Meanwhile, he seems to be treating 35mm film as the ultimate in film imaging possibilities, and assuming that the grain inherent in small format film images is the quality benchmark of the technology. I myself have pointed out that the quality benchmark for film is larger than 35mm, and I will add to that, the quality benchmark for film imaging does not involve the use digital capture devices. If anyone cares to trot out the tired argument that since it is hard to get good optical printing, optical printing is no longer a quality benchmark, I can tell you with absolute assuredness that Ferraris are the worlds worst cars, based on how long they would last on the street during a Regina winter. William Robb
Re: PP: Digital Grain
They would last even a shorter period of time on the street during a Miami summer. William Robb wrote: I can tell you with absolute assuredness that Ferraris are the worlds worst cars, based on how long they would last on the street during a Regina winter.
Re: PP: Digital Grain
- Original Message - From: Daniel J. Matyola Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain They would last even a shorter period of time on the street during a Miami summer. Point made. Thanks Dan. William Robb
Re: PP: Digital Grain
Bill said: I can give some pretty detailed explanations of opinions I have as well. It doesn't alter the reality that an opinion is just that, until backed up with some factual evidence. At the moment, all we have is: there is no digital look. A photograph recorded with a digital camera looks as it ought to, as a capture of light without defects intrduced by the capture medium. This is clearly a wrong statement, snip Your fixating on one thing he said that was perhaps a bit over the top. Much of his argument was valid and well supported. As I said, it matters not whether one agrees with him. To label him as a troll is grossly unfair. I can tell you with absolute assuredness that Ferraris are the worlds worst cars, based on how long they would last on the street during a Regina winter. There would be some merit to your argument. Paul
Re: PP: Digital Grain
On 24 Jan 2005 at 21:08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your fixating on one thing he said that was perhaps a bit over the top. Much of his argument was valid and well supported. As I said, it matters not whether one agrees with him. To label him as a troll is grossly unfair. I must be a troll, I can understand exactly what Godfrey is arguing and I'm right with him, Antonio he's not. I just can't understand why others here can't get their heads around the concepts, it's not difficult, film's had a good run, it's been surpassed, simple. I have the same problem with vinyl audiophiles, with my digital gear I can faithfully record and reproduce audible differences between turn-tables and pre- amps, most audiophiles can't understand the significance of that feat either. If anyone has only ever seen cartoon like rendering from a digital camera then they've never seen a well post processed digital image. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: PP: Digital Grain
On 24 Jan 2005 at 6:36, William Robb wrote: Sorry if anyone has seen this post already but I didn't see it back, I'm sure I'm missing about 50% of the posts at the moment, so if I haven't replied to a post I'm not ignoring you :-) I'm not totally conversant with how a film image gets made into seperations for publication, but the centerfolds in the old days were produced from unenlarged Ektachromes, as opposed to enlarging the images, which is what you would do if the image had been shot on a smaller format film. They would have looked like 70's off-set print, not great and gamut limited. Before the advent of computer generated films for plate production plates were made on a repro camera using mechanical screens and filters and most often from original reflective artwork at 100%. So they would likely have been made from prints. Around the early 80's some of the larger print houses went digital in my neck of the woods so until then it wouldn't have been likely that any prints were made from direct scans of transparencies. Not until the mid 90's did stochastic screening became a reality and off-set prints really started to look fine grained. Until that point even though most printing plates were produced from laser printed films they still used regular screens and were resolution limited through the absolute resolution of the imagesetters and the limitations of the film to plate process. On top of that few off-set presses had the inherent accuracy to ensure sufficient registration to make a high resolution system such as Diamond Screen work. Some reading: http://www.heidelberg.com/wwwbinaries/bin/files/dotcom/en/products/prinect/scree ning_technology_eng.pdf Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: PP: Digital Grain
Since I was around and reading Playboy in the mid-late 1960s, I'll tell you that I never liked the centerfolds. They looked heavily processed and artificial, not like real women. And regards to retouching ... if they were not retouched, they sure blurred a lot of pubic and facial hair. ;-) Didn't they use Gowlandflexes, in addition to 4x5s, Hasselblads, Rolleiflexes, and other medium to large format cameras? 35mm was far from the established film standard in fashion and beauty work at that time. Godfrey __ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com
Re: Re: PP: Digital Grain
- Original Message - From: Godfrey DiGiorgi Subject: Re: Re: PP: Digital Grain Thank you for your opinion. I disagree: evidence indicates otherwise. Links to your evidence please. Since you are so insistent on making these rather absurd claims, you had better back it up with some relevant factoids. Try to find writers who don't have an axe to grind, please. William Robb
Re: PP: Digital Grain
- Original Message - From: Godfrey DiGiorgi Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain The net result is that there is no digital look; the term is just as meaningless as cartoon effect. Show me two identical, unprocessed pictures taken with a film and a digital camera of comparable quality, and tell me what constitutes to you a digital look in the comparison. Ummm, sure. Whatever. William Robb
Re: PP: Digital Grain
On 24 Jan 2005 at 13:54, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Since I was around and reading Playboy in the mid-late 1960s, I'll tell you that I never liked the centerfolds. They looked heavily processed and artificial, not like real women. I'm just a bit too young to have been reading anything in the mid-late 60's but I do have a small collection of old National Geo mags and if the print in those was of comparable quality (not res wise but relative to colour/contrast) then I wouldn't be impressed. There used to be an excellent archive site that housed a decent scans of the PB of the month for a good number of the editions right back into the 50's, unfortunately I just checked the URL and it's been yanked. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: PP: Digital Grain
- Original Message - From: Rob Studdert Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain They would have looked like 70's off-set print, not great and gamut limited. Rob, I have always treated you with the greatest of respect, so rather than tell you that you don't know what you are talking about, I will instead, invite you to try to find a 70's era Playboy magazine and have a look at the technical merits of the centerfold. The gamut is, admitedly, limited to the gamut of the inkset, just like today. That hasn't changed. As for the rest, as anyone who has seen one will attest, the quality was pretty spectacular. William Robb
Re: PP: Digital Grain
- Original Message - From: Godfrey DiGiorgi Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain Since I was around and reading Playboy in the mid-late 1960s, I'll tell you that I never liked the centerfolds. They looked heavily processed and artificial, not like real women. And regards to retouching ... if they were not retouched, they sure blurred a lot of pubic and facial hair. ;-) Lots of make-up and lots of grooming. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the models themselves recieved some airbrushing to smooth out their skin. I always thought the pictures had to be airbrushed, but apparently they only recieved minor retouching, not major airbrushing. Didn't they use Gowlandflexes, in addition to 4x5s, Hasselblads, Rolleiflexes, and other medium to large format cameras? 35mm was far from the established film standard in fashion and beauty work at that time. The centerfold camera may have been a Gowland, though I doubt it. It was a custom built camera that took a sheet of film the full size of the centerfold. My information, as I mentioned earlier, is from a fellow who assisted Playboy's centerfold photographer at that time, and I have read the same thing from other sources. William Robb
Re: PP: Digital Grain
- Original Message - From: Godfrey DiGiorgi Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain Yes, it is precisely analogous to choosing a film and processing treatment to achieve a visual effect. The difference is that you can choose the rendering you want after you've made the exposure, allowing more flexibility to the process. Ah, so if you don't have a photographic vision or style to call your own, you can just randomly snap off pictures and pick your style later. Some prefer a more calculatred approach to this, I guess. To get back to my original statement, there is no digital look. A photograph recorded with a digital camera looks as it ought to, as a capture of light without defects intrduced by the capture medium. Wanna buy a bridge? I have a nice one for sale. William Robb
Re: PP: Digital Grain
- Original Message - From: Rob Studdert Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain If anyone has only ever seen cartoon like rendering from a digital camera then they've never seen a well post processed digital image. I've certainly seen my share of them, but remember what I do for a living, and where I work. So far, I haven't been able to get my istD images to match the quality of the best colour printing I have done from film. Note: the best colour printing I have done was from 4x5 sheets, so I admit that my results are skewed in favour of film, but my 120 roll film work looks better than my digital work so far as well. I am not heavily post processing my digital stuff, but I have a pretty good handle on what I am doing with it. William Robb
Re: PP: Digital Grain
William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Godfrey DiGiorgi Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain Since I was around and reading Playboy in the mid-late 1960s, I'll tell you that I never liked the centerfolds. They looked heavily processed and artificial, not like real women. And regards to retouching ... if they were not retouched, they sure blurred a lot of pubic and facial hair. ;-) Lots of make-up and lots of grooming. I kept applying and applying for a groomer position. No such luck. Sighhh. keith It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the models themselves recieved some airbrushing to smooth out their skin. I always thought the pictures had to be airbrushed, but apparently they only recieved minor retouching, not major airbrushing. [...]
Re: PP: Digital Grain
William, I am very happy with the performance of film in 4x5 and larger formats. Grain and other defects become quite small. I've been producing photographs for exhibition and other use for close on 42 years now, and I'm quite happy to use film where it's appropriate. My current work does not require, would be constrained, by LF film and even MF film. 35mm film, on the other hand, is what digital cameras in this discussion are being compared against, and most significantly the digital cameras being discussed are Pentax DSLRs. A digital camera of this calibre with a good lens and sufficient resolution does a better job of making quality images for pictorial purposes ... It does not transfer defects of significance to the image and is easier to scale to large sizes (A3/A3 Super defining my upper limit for 35mm exhibition grade prints from film), it does not impart a look to the images that I have to work with or around. I can render whatever the recorded image might be with whatever look I feel is appropriate to the expression I seek, and I can choose the rendering flexibly, after the point of exposure. It's lovely to be accused of being a troll and an Antonio, whomsoever or whatsoever that might be. I really don't care, however, so you might as well save the invective for other souls. At the moment, all we have is: There is no digital look. A photograph recorded with a digital camera looks as it ought to, as a capture of light without defects intrduced by the capture medium. The first sentence I stand by. Digital recording, in and of themselves, do not have a specific look, unless you want to consider the lack of transferred film rendering defects as a look... As another list member said, the images a digital camera makes are neutral and very adaptable to a wide variety of rendering techniques. The second sentence is being quoted out of the context of the rest of the discussion and has assumptions embedded in it from the discussion. Of course digital cameras are not perfect, that goes without saying, and a proof could be made that no recording device can produce a 100% perfect recording of an original subject. Such a device would be a replicating device, not a recording device. Godfrey __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: PP: Digital Grain
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 10:11:49 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A neat advantage to the canvas stuff (haven't tried the linen) is that you end up with a print that's much more forgiving of being handled -- you can bend it and flex it and such and unlike regular paper it won't crease. :-) It doesn't crease, but I fear that the inks might flake off if you bent it enough to crease it. At least for pigment inks. Dye inks might get into the surface enough that it wouldn't be a problem unless the coating on the underlying media started flaking off. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: PP: Digital Grain
i find it fairly easy to tell the difference between a film and a digital print from a camera of at least 5MP on 8x10. in nearly all cases i prefer the digital source and in many cases, if i care to, i can emulate the film look of Provia or Velvia with a medium amount of work. i never do it because i don't think it is worth it. when i shot a lot of BW, i used to use and deliberately induce grain for its artistic effect. after i started shooting color regularly, grain was my enemy and anything i could to do remove it was better, as far as i was concerned. i feel the same about adding grain to a digital source as i do applying a grain removal filter to a film scan, i do it because i like what i get. Herb - Original Message - From: Ann Sanfedele [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 2:09 PM Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain But I was ,with one exception, able to tell the digital shots from the film shots that Cotty presented to those of us who went to GFM (The photo meet in North Carolina) last year. As BIll Robb said (I paraphrase) there is something about them.
Re: PP: Digital Grain
your experience runs counter to all the major fine art pros in my area. they dropped wet prints en masse not long after the Epson archival inkjet printers came out because the results were better looking and way more consistent. just as important to the pros as better looking was that they stayed better looking. the wet prints up on the wall for exhibit had a life of a few months under gallery lighting before they faded too much to be sold. Fuji Crystal Archival paper was better only by a little bit under exhibition lighting. all of them still shoot film, but they switched to digital prints early on. most of them acknowledge that digital is at least as good as their film for most of their work, but still prefer film because they have a huge investment in knowing how to get the most out of it. one of the guys was featured in Outdoor Photographer a few months back and shoots 4x5 Provia or Velvia. Herb - Original Message - From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 5:23 PM Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain I've certainly seen my share of them, but remember what I do for a living, and where I work. So far, I haven't been able to get my istD images to match the quality of the best colour printing I have done from film.
Re: PP: Digital Grain
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Godfrrey has in no way demonstrated that he is another Antonio. His positions are politely and intelligently argued. I don't think the discussion should take this kind of personal turn. Paul I agree with Paul. I've seen Godfrey post in other places and he's never impressed me as a troll. He's impressed me as someone with many interests and well-expressed opinions relating to his many interests. I don't remember seeing any trollish behaviour from him anywhere. By the way, welcome to the PDML, Godfrey. ERNR
Re: PP: Digital Grain
In a message dated 1/24/2005 11:12:53 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think the strongest images are those that speak to you so clearly you don't for a minute think about the technique that was used to create it. If the first thing that pops in to your head when you look at a photo is whether it is film or digital, then the photo probably isn't worth thinking too long about :) annsan the discombobulated and opinionated Truer words were never spoken. Marnie :-)
Re: PP: Digital Grain
Graywolf mused: Did I mention that the last time I was down in Charlotte I had a short coversation at a stop light with a guy driving a silver 450. He reved it out off the light just so I could hear that V-12 at full chat. Sigh..., I can not even immagine paying that much for a house. I'm still trying to persuade I guy I know that he needs me to come along the next time he takes his Ferrari out to the track. It's an F355, I believe, with the optional track package. He picked it up when his Viper got crumpled (with a friend driving). You can buy houses for just the premium he paid over sticker to get that car immediately, rather than going on a waiting list. (Not his house, though; that's on the wrong side of 8 figures).
Re: PP: Digital Grain
Did I mention that the last time I was down in Charlotte I had a short coversation at a stop light with a guy driving a silver 450. He reved it out off the light just so I could hear that V-12 at full chat. Sigh..., I can not even immagine paying that much for a house. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- William Robb wrote: I can tell you with absolute assuredness that Ferraris are the worlds worst cars, based on how long they would last on the street during a Regina winter. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.2 - Release Date: 1/21/2005
Re: PP: Digital Grain
On 24 Jan 2005 at 21:14, Graywolf wrote: For most of us photography is a hobby, not a religion. In the end digital is no more true to reality than film, just differently different. Of course I'm not disputing film has its place and digital imaging is far from a religion but it ain't cartoon like either. Having invested significant cash into many film cameras of very high calibre over the years I can only say that I really do think my DSLR has been one of my best camera purchases from a productivity and consistency/quality perspective. I'm pumping out more life like prints than I ever attained using film equipment and similar techniques. Is it wrong to try to inform others of how to attain similar success? Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: PP: Digital Grain
In a message dated 1/24/2005 10:45:02 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In conclusion, the final digital image contains defects also, they are just different types of defects from film. rg = Agreed. Six of one, half a dozen of another. Every medium has its downside/upside. In art, say, drawing, whatever the medium one uses (charcoal, pen ink, pencil -- different types of paper -- newsprint, charcoal paper, etc.), one tries to work with its limitations. I feel redundant (I know I've said it before), but I think any craft entails that, working within the parameters of the medium. Or trying, cleverly, to find *work arounds* as much as possible. No medium is perfect. All have *defects* or maybe, more accurately, limitations. The craftsmanship (womanship) comes from knowing the limitations of each medium as well as one can and working with them as well as one can. Marnie aka Doe
Re: PP: Digital Grain
On 24 Jan 2005 at 21:20, Graywolf wrote: Playboy's centerfold used to be printed from direct separations made from 8x10 Ektachromes. I have no idea what they do these days. The old process was positive art-work (usually reflective, but transmissive would be possible using a special re-pro camera set up) to neg lith film to plate. But regardless of art-work source the main limitations in 4 colour print are the screen size and grid orientation, the precision of the press and the gamut of the inks. None of these elements were near as good as they are now back in the 60's. Unfortunately I can't find any support for my assertions on the web, discussion of pre-computer plate making is very thin on the ground. All my knowledge simply stems from spending time in and around the print/pre-press industry during their transition to computer based pre-production right through to direct digital to plate. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: PP: Digital Grain
On 24 Jan 2005 at 19:54, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I have the same problem with vinyl audiophiles Oh NO! (shakes head) It's been my observation that the only thing nastier than a film vs. digital flame war is a digital audio vs. analogue audio flame war that breaks out on a tangent to the film vs. digital ones. *Those* are even nastier than the computer platform flame wars. Hoping against all hope this doesn't happen here again ... LOL, I have great vinyl and digital gear and I appreciate both. I'd much rather have a HDD full of MP3s in my car as I head off into a long drive than a stack of vinyl :-) The problems occur (like in the film vs digital wars) when users can't accept/understand the limitations of their techniques/equipment. It helps being an electronics/audio/broadcast engineer with keen eyes and ears :-) Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: PP: Digital Grain
What Herb said plus - they have more control over the process. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 8:02 PM Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain your experience runs counter to all the major fine art pros in my area. they dropped wet prints en masse not long after the Epson archival inkjet printers came out because the results were better looking and way more consistent. just as important to the pros as better looking was that they stayed better looking. the wet prints up on the wall for exhibit had a life of a few months under gallery lighting before they faded too much to be sold. Fuji Crystal Archival paper was better only by a little bit under exhibition lighting. all of them still shoot film, but they switched to digital prints early on. most of them acknowledge that digital is at least as good as their film for most of their work, but still prefer film because they have a huge investment in knowing how to get the most out of it. one of the guys was featured in Outdoor Photographer a few months back and shoots 4x5 Provia or Velvia. Herb - Original Message - From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 5:23 PM Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain I've certainly seen my share of them, but remember what I do for a living, and where I work. So far, I haven't been able to get my istD images to match the quality of the best colour printing I have done from film.
Re: PP: Digital Grain
Yah, and Velvia has accurate color rendition. Digital is good enough for most uses, very convenient, and a money maker for professionals. Why can you guys not leave it at that? But, no, it has to be DIGITAL UBERALL!. For most of us photography is a hobby, not a religion. In the end digital is no more true to reality than film, just differently different. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Rob Studdert wrote: On 24 Jan 2005 at 21:08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your fixating on one thing he said that was perhaps a bit over the top. Much of his argument was valid and well supported. As I said, it matters not whether one agrees with him. To label him as a troll is grossly unfair. I must be a troll, I can understand exactly what Godfrey is arguing and I'm right with him, Antonio he's not. I just can't understand why others here can't get their heads around the concepts, it's not difficult, film's had a good run, it's been surpassed, simple. I have the same problem with vinyl audiophiles, with my digital gear I can faithfully record and reproduce audible differences between turn-tables and pre- amps, most audiophiles can't understand the significance of that feat either. If anyone has only ever seen cartoon like rendering from a digital camera then they've never seen a well post processed digital image. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.2 - Release Date: 1/21/2005
Re: PP: Digital Grain
Playboy's centerfold used to be printed from direct separations made from 8x10 Ektachromes. I have no idea what they do these days. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Rob Studdert wrote: On 24 Jan 2005 at 6:36, William Robb wrote: Sorry if anyone has seen this post already but I didn't see it back, I'm sure I'm missing about 50% of the posts at the moment, so if I haven't replied to a post I'm not ignoring you :-) I'm not totally conversant with how a film image gets made into seperations for publication, but the centerfolds in the old days were produced from unenlarged Ektachromes, as opposed to enlarging the images, which is what you would do if the image had been shot on a smaller format film. They would have looked like 70's off-set print, not great and gamut limited. Before the advent of computer generated films for plate production plates were made on a repro camera using mechanical screens and filters and most often from original reflective artwork at 100%. So they would likely have been made from prints. Around the early 80's some of the larger print houses went digital in my neck of the woods so until then it wouldn't have been likely that any prints were made from direct scans of transparencies. Not until the mid 90's did stochastic screening became a reality and off-set prints really started to look fine grained. Until that point even though most printing plates were produced from laser printed films they still used regular screens and were resolution limited through the absolute resolution of the imagesetters and the limitations of the film to plate process. On top of that few off-set presses had the inherent accuracy to ensure sufficient registration to make a high resolution system such as Diamond Screen work. Some reading: http://www.heidelberg.com/wwwbinaries/bin/files/dotcom/en/products/prinect/scree ning_technology_eng.pdf Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.2 - Release Date: 1/21/2005
Re: PP: Digital Grain
Not if you make it clear that you are talking about money making productivity (grin). I think you are reacting too negatively to the cartoon effect statement. It simply means that digital tends to simplify the image a bit. There is a lost of detail as a trade off for smoothness. To me the term describes that perfectly, to you it seems to be a disparagement of your investment. Remember I was the most pro-digital guy on the list before Pentax actually came out with a DSLR. I clearly understand the benifits of digital, especially to the guy out there trying to make a living with his camera. All I really object to is the insistance that film is, or should be, dead. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Rob Studdert wrote: On 24 Jan 2005 at 21:14, Graywolf wrote: For most of us photography is a hobby, not a religion. In the end digital is no more true to reality than film, just differently different. Of course I'm not disputing film has its place and digital imaging is far from a religion but it ain't cartoon like either. Having invested significant cash into many film cameras of very high calibre over the years I can only say that I really do think my DSLR has been one of my best camera purchases from a productivity and consistency/quality perspective. I'm pumping out more life like prints than I ever attained using film equipment and similar techniques. Is it wrong to try to inform others of how to attain similar success? Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.2 - Release Date: 1/21/2005
Re: PP: Digital Grain
Quoting Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I have the same problem with vinyl audiophiles Oh NO! (shakes head) It's been my observation that the only thing nastier than a film vs. digital flame war is a digital audio vs. analogue audio flame war that breaks out on a tangent to the film vs. digital ones. *Those* are even nastier than the computer platform flame wars. Hoping against all hope this doesn't happen here again ... ERNR
Re: PP: Digital Grain
I've been staying out of this, since I tend to be argumentative anyway, but are you sure it's another? mike wilson wrote: H. It appears we have another Antonio. 'Bye Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: --- mike.wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry, Godfey, but that paragraph is the biggest load of bollocks. _Nothing_ records a photograph without defects. However correctly it is used. Digital captures are more likely to have gross defects (hot pixel, anyone?) than film. Thank you for your opinion. I disagree: evidence indicates otherwise. Godfrey __ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: PP: Digital Grain
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain I'm still trying to persuade I guy I know that he needs me to come along the next time he takes his Ferrari out to the track. Persuade him to bring it up here next week. Pansy ass little Italian sports car. Lets see if the little cousin to Fix It Again Tony's worst nightmare can even start in the morning when it's -30. Then lets see how it deals with a foot of snow on the street. Maybe Mr. Ferrari driver would like to drag race my Nissan down Albert Street on the nice slick ice rink our streets have become. Before or after the plow has shined them up. Don't matter to me. Friggin girly boy cars. HAR!!! William Robb
Re: PP: Digital Grain
- Original Message - From: Herb Chong Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain your experience runs counter to all the major fine art pros in my area. Well, I guess I am still better at film than digital. Thats life. William Robb
Re: PP: Digital Grain
On 24 Jan 2005 at 22:00, Graywolf wrote: Not if you make it clear that you are talking about money making productivity (grin). Simply speaking of personal productivity no $$$ signs in there. I think you are reacting too negatively to the cartoon effect statement. It simply means that digital tends to simplify the image a bit. There is a lost of detail as a trade off for smoothness. It seems I need to send you a *ist D based print or two :-) To me the term describes that perfectly, to you it seems to be a disparagement of your investment. Not at all, to me this has been an extremely cost effective investment in my photo kit purchasing history. And I'd gladly shell out the same or more again for a higher spec body, maybe then I'd even feel comfortable dumping my MF gear. In any case (and fortunately) I rarely find the need to justify my expenditures to others. :-) Remember I was the most pro-digital guy on the list before Pentax actually came out with a DSLR. I clearly understand the benifits of digital, especially to the guy out there trying to make a living with his camera. All I really object to is the insistance that film is, or should be, dead. Film is pretty much deceased for the vast majority of picture takers where I live, it's just a fact. I understand that film will linger much like vinyl recordings, but like vinyl it will be little but a niche product. And all along the while the digital image making options will get broader and more capable further isolating film photography. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: PP: Digital Grain
A month ago I played a bit with digital grain, and posted this: http://www.jbuhler.com/blog/archives/0142.html I think it kind of works. I need to print a full frame of this and see it side by side with some real Tri X. One of these days. j On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 11:12:38 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: PP = post processing I was visiting the Adobe site recently looking through the actions people have uploaded (to share) for PS. Discovered a few that would add grain to digital pictures. I wondered has anyone on the list tried that? Adding grain, that is. Not necessarily those specific actions at the Adobe site that supposedly add grain. Just curious. Somehow I don't think it would work that well. Marnie aka Doe :-) -- Juan Buhler http://www.jbuhler.com blog at http://www.jbuhler.com/blog
Re: PP: Digital Grain
In a message dated 1/23/2005 9:22:21 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A month ago I played a bit with digital grain, and posted this: http://www.jbuhler.com/blog/archives/0142.html I think it kind of works. I need to print a full frame of this and see it side by side with some real Tri X. One of these days. j Bit grainy. Is Tri-X really that grainy? But interesting results, thanks. Marnie aka Doe
Re: PP: Digital Grain
The grain structure of Tri-X - or any BW film for that matter - varies with the developer used and the developing technique, including time, temperature, and agitation, and, to a greater or lesser degree, the exposure. To answer your question, yes and no, more or less, it depends. Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bit grainy. Is Tri-X really that grainy? But interesting results, thanks.
Re: PP: Digital Grain
Grain was once the nemesis of film photographers. Over the years, some came to incorporate it as part of a style or look. Tri-X, at its inception, was heralded as a high-speed film with minimal grain. For years, photographers worked to eliminate the grain. Yes, there have been exceptions, and some have incorporated a grainy look as part of their artistry. But it seems somewhat ludicrous to try to introduce artificial grain in digital photography. I expect this will be a short lived pursuit. Digital does many thins well. Grain is not one of them. Minimal grain is one of them. Paul The grain structure of Tri-X - or any BW film for that matter - varies with the developer used and the developing technique, including time, temperature, and agitation, and, to a greater or lesser degree, the exposure. To answer your question, yes and no, more or less, it depends. Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bit grainy. Is Tri-X really that grainy? But interesting results, thanks.
Re: PP: Digital Grain
My feelings exactly. If you want the look of film (which is more than just grain) then shoot film. If you want a digital look, shoot digital. Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Grain was once the nemesis of film photographers. Over the years, some came to incorporate it as part of a style or look. Tri-X, at its inception, was heralded as a high-speed film with minimal grain. For years, photographers worked to eliminate the grain. Yes, there have been exceptions, and some have incorporated a grainy look as part of their artistry. But it seems somewhat ludicrous to try to introduce artificial grain in digital photography. I expect this will be a short lived pursuit. Digital does many thins well. Grain is not one of them. Minimal grain is one of them. Paul The grain structure of Tri-X - or any BW film for that matter - varies with the developer used and the developing technique, including time, temperature, and agitation, and, to a greater or lesser degree, the exposure. To answer your question, yes and no, more or less, it depends. Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bit grainy. Is Tri-X really that grainy? But interesting results, thanks.
Re: PP: Digital Grain
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Grain was once the nemesis of film photographers. Over the years, some came to incorporate it as part of a style or look. Tri-X, at its inception, was heralded as a high-speed film with minimal grain. For years, photographers worked to eliminate the grain. Yes, there have been exceptions, and some have incorporated a grainy look as part of their artistry. But it seems somewhat ludicrous to try to introduce artificial grain in digital photography. I expect this will be a short lived pursuit. Digital does many thins well. Grain is not one of them. Minimal grain is one of them. Paul I agree with Steady. I consider grain to be a Necessary Evil when it just cannot be avoided, and I can't see trying to introduce it into a nice clean image. But then again I'm also personally not partial to cross-processing, the Holga effect or that semi-negative/semi-positive process (name forgotten) that started out with accidentally flashing one's print in the developer. Probably not a true artist, but at least true to my own tastes -- that's gotta be worth something ... ERNR
Re: PP: Digital Grain
Shel is right. The look of film is more than just grain. But it's not a lot more than just grain. I've been showing my book to some art buyers for major ad agencies and some photographers reps. At the mement, the color pics in my book is a mix of digital and medium format printed at 11 x17. All of the prints are inkjet. The film prints were scanned from the 6x78 negs. I find that even the most knowledgable critics are frequently unable to distinguish the digital from the medium format film. That's not to say that there are no differences, but they are minimal to be sure. Paul My feelings exactly. If you want the look of film (which is more than just grain) then shoot film. If you want a digital look, shoot digital. Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Grain was once the nemesis of film photographers. Over the years, some came to incorporate it as part of a style or look. Tri-X, at its inception, was heralded as a high-speed film with minimal grain. For years, photographers worked to eliminate the grain. Yes, there have been exceptions, and some have incorporated a grainy look as part of their artistry. But it seems somewhat ludicrous to try to introduce artificial grain in digital photography. I expect this will be a short lived pursuit. Digital does many thins well. Grain is not one of them. Minimal grain is one of them. Paul The grain structure of Tri-X - or any BW film for that matter - varies with the developer used and the developing technique, including time, temperature, and agitation, and, to a greater or lesser degree, the exposure. To answer your question, yes and no, more or less, it depends. Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bit grainy. Is Tri-X really that grainy? But interesting results, thanks.
Re: PP: Digital Grain
In a message dated 1/23/2005 2:45:38 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My feelings exactly. If you want the look of film (which is more than just grain) then shoot film. If you want a digital look, shoot digital. Shel === I would tend agree with that. Which is why I was surpassed to see actions at Adobe to add grain to digital photos. So I was wondering what the results might be. Thanks to Juan I now have some idea. But it does seem like an immense waste of time and counterproductive too. Since one of the really nice things about digital is the non-graininess. OTOH, when doing art, the appearance of a drawing, say, can quite different based on the quality paper used -- coarseness, etc. That would be a nice option in digital. I just don't know how practical it is. No clue, really. Marnie aka Doe :-)
Re: PP: Digital Grain
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain Shel is right. The look of film is more than just grain. But it's not a lot more than just grain. I've been showing my book to some art buyers for major ad agencies and some photographers reps. At the mement, the color pics in my book is a mix of digital and medium format printed at 11 x17. All of the prints are inkjet. The film prints were scanned from the 6x78 negs. I find that even the most knowledgable critics are frequently unable to distinguish the digital from the medium format film. That's not to say that there are no differences, but they are minimal to be sure. By the time you have scanned the film and output it to inkjet, you have pretty much equalized film and digital anyway. I get to scan a hell of a lot fo film these days, and I am finding that more often than not, scanned film just doesn't look quite as good as a digital original. William Robb
Re: PP: Digital Grain
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain I would tend agree with that. Which is why I was surpassed to see actions at Adobe to add grain to digital photos. So I was wondering what the results might be. Thanks to Juan I now have some idea. But it does seem like an immense waste of time and counterproductive too. Since one of the really nice things about digital is the non-graininess. OTOH, when doing art, the appearance of a drawing, say, can quite different based on the quality paper used -- coarseness, etc. That would be a nice option in digital. I just don't know how practical it is. No clue, really. In the early days of photography, photographers would commit all sorts of butchery to their negatives to make the resulting images look more like paintings. Eventually, photography grew up and became an accepted medium. Adding grain to digital is along the same mindset. William Robb
Re: PP: Digital Grain
There is no such thing as a digital look. A digital image can look like anything, including a perfect emulation of whatever grain floats your boat. Godfrey --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shel is right. The look of film is more than just grain. But it's not a lot more than just grain. I've been showing my book to some art buyers for major ad agencies and some photographers reps. At the mement, the color pics in my book is a mix of digital and medium format printed at 11 x17. All of the prints are inkjet. The film prints were scanned from the 6x78 negs. I find that even the most knowledgable critics are frequently unable to distinguish the digital from the medium format film. That's not to say that there are no differences, but they are minimal to be sure. Paul My feelings exactly. If you want the look of film (which is more than just grain) then shoot film. If you want a digital look, shoot digital. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: PP: Digital Grain
That's just about the most absurd comment I've read here recently ... there is a definite look to digital images when they come out of the camera. Then, after you muck around with them in Photoshop and whatever, they may take on a different look. Show me a digital camera that will produce Tri-X tonality and grain structure right out of the box. Perhaps you meant to say that a digital image can BE MADE to look like anything ... Shel [Original Message] From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] There is no such thing as a digital look. A digital image can look like anything, including a perfect emulation of whatever grain floats your boat.
Re: PP: Digital Grain
TriX looks like what it does because of the defects of Tri-X film. No digital camera I know of has been designed to produce a photograph with defects emulating Tri-X. Define a digital look. If you mean grainless, clean photographs, you are not defining a digital look; you're saying what film is supposed to be trying to produce. Godfrey --- Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's just about the most absurd comment I've read here recently ... there is a definite look to digital images when they come out of the camera. Then, after you muck around with them in Photoshop and whatever, they may take on a different look. Show me a digital camera that will produce Tri-X tonality and grain structure right out of the box. Perhaps you meant to say that a digital image can BE MADE to look like anything ... Shel [Original Message] From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] There is no such thing as a digital look. A digital image can look like anything, including a perfect emulation of whatever grain floats your boat. __ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? http://my.yahoo.com
Re: PP: Digital Grain
On 23 Jan 2005 at 19:41, Shel Belinkoff wrote: That's just about the most absurd comment I've read here recently ... there is a definite look to digital images when they come out of the camera. Then, after you muck around with them in Photoshop and whatever, they may take on a different look. Show me a digital camera that will produce Tri-X tonality and grain structure right out of the box. Perhaps you meant to say that a digital image can BE MADE to look like anything ... Direct digital captured images don't look like anything, they are as close to neutral as we can currently achieve if processed by someone with an understanding of limitations of the media. Without getting into a pissing match or speaking for Godfrey I expect the point that was being made is that digital imaging should not impose its own noise/transfer fingerprint on the image unlike film. (And I'm not referring to in camera image processing either, just like you aren't referring to an instant film process.) Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: PP: Digital Grain
ROTFLMAO Have you met JCO? Shel [Original Message] From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: 1/23/2005 8:00:41 PM Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain TriX looks like what it does because of the defects of Tri-X film. No digital camera I know of has been designed to produce a photograph with defects emulating Tri-X. Define a digital look. If you mean grainless, clean photographs, you are not defining a digital look; you're saying what film is supposed to be trying to produce. Godfrey --- Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's just about the most absurd comment I've read here recently ... there is a definite look to digital images when they come out of the camera. Then, after you muck around with them in Photoshop and whatever, they may take on a different look. Show me a digital camera that will produce Tri-X tonality and grain structure right out of the box. Perhaps you meant to say that a digital image can BE MADE to look like anything ... Shel [Original Message] From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] There is no such thing as a digital look. A digital image can look like anything, including a perfect emulation of whatever grain floats your boat. __ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? http://my.yahoo.com
Re: PP: Digital Grain
Sure they do, Rob ... they look like digital images. They look different than film, different than a tintype, or a daguerreotype ... they have their own look. Calling it neutral is fine. Digital images look neutral, ergo, the neutral look is digital, since that neutrality (as defined by you) cannot be achieved by film. It's not a pissing match, Rob ... it's a strong disagreement. Shel [Original Message] From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 23 Jan 2005 at 19:41, Shel Belinkoff wrote: That's just about the most absurd comment I've read here recently ... there is a definite look to digital images when they come out of the camera. Then, after you muck around with them in Photoshop and whatever, they may take on a different look. Show me a digital camera that will produce Tri-X tonality and grain structure right out of the box. Perhaps you meant to say that a digital image can BE MADE to look like anything ... Direct digital captured images don't look like anything, they are as close to neutral as we can currently achieve if processed by someone with an understanding of limitations of the media. Without getting into a pissing match or speaking for Godfrey I expect the point that was being made is that digital imaging should not impose its own noise/transfer fingerprint on the image unlike film. (And I'm not referring to in camera image processing either, just like you aren't referring to an instant film process.) Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: PP: Digital Grain
Whatever the heck you're laughing about simply demonstrates uncomfortable ignorance or an inability to express yourself coherently. No, I have not met JCO: I don't know who or what JCO is. Godfrey --- Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ROTFLMAO Have you met JCO? Shel __ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: PP: Digital Grain
It's not a pissing match, Rob ... it's a strong disagreement. I don't know what it is, Shel, since you seem to be unable to express yourself in a sensible, non-belligerently ignorant fashion. From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] Direct digital captured images don't look like anything, they are as close to neutral as we can currently achieve if processed by someone with an understanding of limitations of the media. Without getting into a pissing match or speaking for Godfrey I expect the point that was being made is that digital imaging should not impose its own noise/transfer fingerprint on the image unlike film. (And I'm not referring to in camera image processing either, just like you aren't referring to an instant film process.) That's correct, Rob has it just about right. A quality digital camera used correctly does a clean job of recording a photograph without creating defects in the rendering. How the photograph is textured/rendered is up to the judgement of the photographer. Godfrey __ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com
