Re: The "Film Look"
On 12/12/06, Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Pentax engineers (and others) refer to a desirable digital image goal > as having a "film look". To me, that means grain. > Each viewer will have a somewhat different interpretation of such a > statement, but is there some general generic understanding as to what > that means? > If you ask really, really nicely I'll tell you the secret to getting the "film look". -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com Shoot more film! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: The "Film Look"
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 21:07:45 +0100, Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 12/12/06, Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Pentax engineers (and others) refer to a desirable digital image goal >> as having a "film look". To me, that means grain. >> Each viewer will have a somewhat different interpretation of such a >> statement, but is there some general generic understanding as to what >> that means? > If you ask really, really nicely I'll tell you the secret to getting > the "film look". Yup, dead easy. Meanwhile, one wonders how long Karl Benz has tried to construct an engine that'd run on hay :o) -- Regards, Lucas -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: The "Film Look"
I know, I know. Use film. Scott Loveless wrote: > On 12/12/06, Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Pentax engineers (and others) refer to a desirable digital image goal >> as having a "film look". To me, that means grain. >> Each viewer will have a somewhat different interpretation of such a >> statement, but is there some general generic understanding as to what >> that means? >> >> > If you ask really, really nicely I'll tell you the secret to getting > the "film look". > > -- Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler. --Albert Einstein -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: The "Film Look"
I don't think I can conjure up that much "nice" without hurting myself somehow. =) Jack --- Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 12/12/06, Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Pentax engineers (and others) refer to a desirable digital image > goal > > as having a "film look". To me, that means grain. > > Each viewer will have a somewhat different interpretation of such a > > statement, but is there some general generic understanding as to > what > > that means? > > > If you ask really, really nicely I'll tell you the secret to getting > the "film look". > > -- > Scott Loveless > http://www.twosixteen.com > Shoot more film! > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: The "Film Look"
Everyone will then want the "digital look". Jack --- "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I know, I know. Use film. > > Scott Loveless wrote: > > On 12/12/06, Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Pentax engineers (and others) refer to a desirable digital image > goal > >> as having a "film look". To me, that means grain. > >> Each viewer will have a somewhat different interpretation of such > a > >> statement, but is there some general generic understanding as to > what > >> that means? > >> > >> > > If you ask really, really nicely I'll tell you the secret to > getting > > the "film look". > > > > > > > -- > Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler. > --Albert Einstein > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know. Ask your question on www.Answers.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: The "Film Look"
Jack Davis wrote: > Pentax engineers (and others) refer to a desirable digital image goal > as having a "film look". To me, that means grain. > Each viewer will have a somewhat different interpretation of such a > statement, but is there some general generic understanding as to what > that means? Generic? No. Mainly because there were so many varieties of film. Even some that were essentially grainless I suspect that they are more trying to avoid a "digital" look. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: The "Film Look"
Have, for many years, been a big fan and user "essentially grainless" 25, 50 and 100 ISO films. These were/are the films that I have replaced with digital, not so much for its work flow advantage, but because I see a cleaner more detrailed image. If film is your thing, knock yourself out. Jack --- mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jack Davis wrote: > > > Pentax engineers (and others) refer to a desirable digital image > goal > > as having a "film look". To me, that means grain. > > Each viewer will have a somewhat different interpretation of such a > > statement, but is there some general generic understanding as to > what > > that means? > > Generic? No. Mainly because there were so many varieties of film. > Even some that were essentially grainless > > I suspect that they are more trying to avoid a "digital" look. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > Any questions? Get answers on any topic at www.Answers.yahoo.com. Try it now. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: The "Film Look"
Have, for many years, been a big fan and user "essentially grainless" 25, 50 and 100 ISO films. These were/are the films that I have replaced with digital, not so much for its work flow advantage, but because I see a cleaner more detrailed image. If film is your thing, knock yourself out. Jack --- mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jack Davis wrote: > > > Pentax engineers (and others) refer to a desirable digital image > goal > > as having a "film look". To me, that means grain. > > Each viewer will have a somewhat different interpretation of such a > > statement, but is there some general generic understanding as to > what > > that means? > > Generic? No. Mainly because there were so many varieties of film. > Even some that were essentially grainless > > I suspect that they are more trying to avoid a "digital" look. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: The "Film Look"
- Original Message - From: "Jack Davis" Subject: The "Film Look" > Pentax engineers (and others) refer to a desirable digital image goal > as having a "film look". To me, that means grain. > Each viewer will have a somewhat different interpretation of such a > statement, but is there some general generic understanding as to what > that means? Some subtlety of colour, not oversharpened or oversaturated to the point of looking like a cartoon. For me, grain isn't an issue with film, I tend to not push any format past print sizes where it is visible. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: The "Film Look"
My interpretation of the "film look" is like watching a high quality movie ( 70mm print ) vs. a high defintion live video broadcast ( more like the "digital" look ). jco -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: The "Film Look"
Bingo! Image handling is everything. Jack --- William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Jack Davis" > Subject: The "Film Look" > > > > Pentax engineers (and others) refer to a desirable digital image > goal > > as having a "film look". To me, that means grain. > > Each viewer will have a somewhat different interpretation of such a > > statement, but is there some general generic understanding as to > what > > that means? > > Some subtlety of colour, not oversharpened or oversaturated to the > point > of looking like a cartoon. > For me, grain isn't an issue with film, I tend to not push any format > > past print sizes where it is visible. > > William Robb > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: The "Film Look"
I've had the same experience. Stills, by their nature, may lend themselves to more scrutiny. Jack --- "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My interpretation of the "film look" is like > watching a high quality movie ( 70mm print ) > vs. a high defintion live video broadcast > ( more like the "digital" look ). > jco > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: The "Film Look"
But the "look" is similar. I forgot to post that in either of these cases the film grain is NOT an issue. Its more the tonal range captured and the look of the extreme highlights. Film captures more but the curves are not straight, there is a knee on the hightlights. Whereas digital can't capture as much range but there isnt a knee, its straight right up to the point of clipping... jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Davis Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 9:15 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: The "Film Look" I've had the same experience. Stills, by their nature, may lend themselves to more scrutiny. Jack --- "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My interpretation of the "film look" is like > watching a high quality movie ( 70mm print ) > vs. a high defintion live video broadcast > ( more like the "digital" look ). > jco > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: The "Film Look"
You may be absolutely right in what you say. Jack --- "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But the "look" is similar. I forgot to > post that in either of these cases > the film grain is NOT an issue. Its more > the tonal range captured and the look > of the extreme highlights. Film captures > more but the curves are not straight, > there is a knee on the hightlights. Whereas > digital can't capture as much range but there > isnt a knee, its straight right up to > the point of clipping... > jco > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of > Jack Davis > Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 9:15 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: RE: The "Film Look" > > > I've had the same experience. Stills, by their nature, may lend > themselves to more scrutiny. > > Jack > --- "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > My interpretation of the "film look" is like > > watching a high quality movie ( 70mm print ) > > vs. a high defintion live video broadcast > > ( more like the "digital" look ). > > jco > > > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > > > > Do you Yahoo!? > Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. > http://new.mail.yahoo.com > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > Cheap talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. http://voice.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: The "Film Look"
Adding a film look to ones photographs can easily be done (at the present moment) - by using film. These were - of course - done more than 30 years ago: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/sets/72157594413264675/show/ Regards Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Jack Davis Sendt: 12. december 2006 19:48 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: The "Film Look" Pentax engineers (and others) refer to a desirable digital image goal as having a "film look". To me, that means grain. Each viewer will have a somewhat different interpretation of such a statement, but is there some general generic understanding as to what that means? Jack Any questions? Get answers on any topic at www.Answers.yahoo.com. Try it now. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.16/582 - Release Date: 12/11/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.16/582 - Release Date: 12/11/2006 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: The "Film Look"
Perfect solution! =) Jack --- Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Adding a film look to ones photographs can easily be done (at the > present > moment) - by using film. > These were - of course - done more than 30 years ago: > http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/sets/72157594413264675/show/ > Regards > > Jens Bladt > http://www.jensbladt.dk > +45 56 63 77 11 > +45 23 43 85 77 > Skype: jensbladt248 > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af > Jack > Davis > Sendt: 12. december 2006 19:48 > Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Emne: The "Film Look" > > > Pentax engineers (and others) refer to a desirable digital image goal > as having a "film look". To me, that means grain. > Each viewer will have a somewhat different interpretation of such a > statement, but is there some general generic understanding as to what > that means? > > Jack > > > > > > > Any questions? Get answers on any topic at www.Answers.yahoo.com. > Try it > now. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.16/582 - Release Date: > 12/11/2006 > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.16/582 - Release Date: > 12/11/2006 > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: The "Film Look"
I don't think they trying to make digital images look like film, rather they're goal is to try and have the high ISO digital noise look more like grain as opposed to pixels. Dave On 12/13/06, Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Pentax engineers (and others) refer to a desirable digital image goal > as having a "film look". To me, that means grain. > Each viewer will have a somewhat different interpretation of such a > statement, but is there some general generic understanding as to what > that means? > > Jack -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: The "Film Look"
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, David Savage wrote: > I don't think they trying to make digital images look like film, > rather they're goal is to try and have the high ISO digital noise look > more like grain as opposed to pixels. That's what I read in Ken's translation: film-grain-like noise. Kostas -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: The "Film Look"
As long as PS allows me to effectively reduce objectionable levels of grain (film like), I'll be fine. Jack --- Kostas Kavoussanakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, David Savage wrote: > > > I don't think they trying to make digital images look like film, > > rather they're goal is to try and have the high ISO digital noise > look > > more like grain as opposed to pixels. > > That's what I read in Ken's translation: film-grain-like noise. > > Kostas > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: The "Film Look"
Luckily we can adjust that in Photoshop. It does help some. J. C. O'Connell wrote: > But the "look" is similar. I forgot to > post that in either of these cases > the film grain is NOT an issue. Its more > the tonal range captured and the look > of the extreme highlights. Film captures > more but the curves are not straight, > there is a knee on the hightlights. Whereas > digital can't capture as much range but there > isnt a knee, its straight right up to > the point of clipping... > jco > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Jack Davis > Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 9:15 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: RE: The "Film Look" > > > I've had the same experience. Stills, by their nature, may lend > themselves to more scrutiny. > > Jack > --- "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> My interpretation of the "film look" is like >> watching a high quality movie ( 70mm print ) >> vs. a high defintion live video broadcast >> ( more like the "digital" look ). >> jco >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> > > > > > > > Do you Yahoo!? > Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. > http://new.mail.yahoo.com > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: The "Film Look"
You may be able to undo the "knee" on the film captures but its going to be impossible to undo the clipping on the digital capture when the dynamic range of the scene exceeds the digital system's (sensor) recording capability. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of graywolf Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 11:21 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: The "Film Look" Luckily we can adjust that in Photoshop. It does help some. J. C. O'Connell wrote: > But the "look" is similar. I forgot to > post that in either of these cases > the film grain is NOT an issue. Its more > the tonal range captured and the look > of the extreme highlights. Film captures > more but the curves are not straight, > there is a knee on the hightlights. Whereas > digital can't capture as much range but there > isnt a knee, its straight right up to > the point of clipping... > jco > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Jack Davis > Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 9:15 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: RE: The "Film Look" > > > I've had the same experience. Stills, by their nature, may lend > themselves to more scrutiny. > > Jack > --- "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> My interpretation of the "film look" is like >> watching a high quality movie ( 70mm print ) >> vs. a high defintion live video broadcast >> ( more like the "digital" look ). >> jco >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> > > > > > __ > __ > > Do you Yahoo!? > Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. > http://new.mail.yahoo.com > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: The "Film Look"
I take it you never shot slide film, JCO. I did, and the dynamic range of the *istD was a welcome increase. Jostein On 12/13/06, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You may be able to undo the "knee" on > the film captures but its going to be > impossible to undo the clipping on > the digital capture when the dynamic > range of the scene exceeds the digital system's > (sensor) recording capability. > jco > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > graywolf > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 11:21 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: The "Film Look" > > > Luckily we can adjust that in Photoshop. It does help some. > > > J. C. O'Connell wrote: > > But the "look" is similar. I forgot to > > post that in either of these cases > > the film grain is NOT an issue. Its more > > the tonal range captured and the look > > of the extreme highlights. Film captures > > more but the curves are not straight, > > there is a knee on the hightlights. Whereas > > digital can't capture as much range but there > > isnt a knee, its straight right up to > > the point of clipping... > > jco > > > > -Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > > Of Jack Davis > > Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 9:15 PM > > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > Subject: RE: The "Film Look" > > > > > > I've had the same experience. Stills, by their nature, may lend > > themselves to more scrutiny. > > > > Jack > > --- "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> My interpretation of the "film look" is like > >> watching a high quality movie ( 70mm print ) > >> vs. a high defintion live video broadcast > >> ( more like the "digital" look ). > >> jco > >> > >> > >> -- > >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> PDML@pdml.net > >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >> > > > > > > > > > > __ > > __ > > > > Do you Yahoo!? > > Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. > > http://new.mail.yahoo.com > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: The "Film Look"
I was reffering to color or BW neg film. Can you get slides from digital files and are they any wider dynamic range than shooting slide film in the first place? If you dont really need slides, then there isnt much point in shooting slide film unless you really want a certain "look" not available in neg films IMHO... jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jostein Øksne Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 4:28 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: The "Film Look" I take it you never shot slide film, JCO. I did, and the dynamic range of the *istD was a welcome increase. Jostein On 12/13/06, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You may be able to undo the "knee" on > the film captures but its going to be > impossible to undo the clipping on > the digital capture when the dynamic > range of the scene exceeds the digital system's > (sensor) recording capability. > jco > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of graywolf > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 11:21 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: The "Film Look" > > > Luckily we can adjust that in Photoshop. It does help some. > > > J. C. O'Connell wrote: > > But the "look" is similar. I forgot to > > post that in either of these cases > > the film grain is NOT an issue. Its more > > the tonal range captured and the look > > of the extreme highlights. Film captures > > more but the curves are not straight, > > there is a knee on the hightlights. Whereas > > digital can't capture as much range but there > > isnt a knee, its straight right up to > > the point of clipping... > > jco > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > > Of Jack Davis > > Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 9:15 PM > > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > Subject: RE: The "Film Look" > > > > > > I've had the same experience. Stills, by their nature, may lend > > themselves to more scrutiny. > > > > Jack > > --- "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> My interpretation of the "film look" is like > >> watching a high quality movie ( 70mm print ) > >> vs. a high defintion live video broadcast > >> ( more like the "digital" look ). > >> jco > >> > >> > >> -- > >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > __ > > __ > > > > Do you Yahoo!? > > Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. > > http://new.mail.yahoo.com > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: The "Film Look"
On 12/14/06, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I was reffering to color or BW neg film. Can you > get slides from digital files Yes and are > they any wider dynamic range than shooting > slide film in the first place? I don't know. If you > dont really need slides, then there > isnt much point in shooting slide film > unless you really want a certain "look" > not available in neg films IMHO... > jco > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Jostein Øksne > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 4:28 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: The "Film Look" > > > I take it you never shot slide film, JCO. > I did, and the dynamic range of the *istD was a welcome increase. > > Jostein > > > On 12/13/06, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You may be able to undo the "knee" on > > the film captures but its going to be > > impossible to undo the clipping on > > the digital capture when the dynamic > > range of the scene exceeds the digital system's > > (sensor) recording capability. > > jco > > > > -Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > > Of graywolf > > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 11:21 AM > > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > Subject: Re: The "Film Look" > > > > > > Luckily we can adjust that in Photoshop. It does help some. > > > > > > J. C. O'Connell wrote: > > > But the "look" is similar. I forgot to > > > post that in either of these cases > > > the film grain is NOT an issue. Its more > > > the tonal range captured and the look > > > of the extreme highlights. Film captures > > > more but the curves are not straight, > > > there is a knee on the hightlights. Whereas > > > digital can't capture as much range but there > > > isnt a knee, its straight right up to > > > the point of clipping... > > > jco > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > > > > Of Jack Davis > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 9:15 PM > > > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > > Subject: RE: The "Film Look" > > > > > > > > > I've had the same experience. Stills, by their nature, may lend > > > themselves to more scrutiny. > > > > > > Jack > > > --- "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> My interpretation of the "film look" is like > > >> watching a high quality movie ( 70mm print ) > > >> vs. a high defintion live video broadcast > > >> ( more like the "digital" look ). > > >> jco -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: The "Film Look"
Yes, you can get slides from digital files. There are a couple of guys I know in the Portland, Oregon area that own film recorders that can put digital files on film. I have never seen these devices, or have I transferred files to slide film. Jim A. > I was reffering to color or BW neg film. Can you > get slides from digital files and are > they any wider dynamic range than shooting > slide film in the first place? If you > dont really need slides, then there > isnt much point in shooting slide film > unless you really want a certain "look" > not available in neg films IMHO... > jco > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Jostein Øksne > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 4:28 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: The "Film Look" > > > I take it you never shot slide film, JCO. > I did, and the dynamic range of the *istD was a welcome increase. > > Jostein > > > On 12/13/06, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> You may be able to undo the "knee" on >> the film captures but its going to be >> impossible to undo the clipping on >> the digital capture when the dynamic >> range of the scene exceeds the digital system's >> (sensor) recording capability. >> jco >> >> -Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >> Of graywolf >> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 11:21 AM >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: The "Film Look" >> >> >> Luckily we can adjust that in Photoshop. It does help some. >> >> >> J. C. O'Connell wrote: >> > But the "look" is similar. I forgot to >> > post that in either of these cases >> > the film grain is NOT an issue. Its more >> > the tonal range captured and the look >> > of the extreme highlights. Film captures >> > more but the curves are not straight, >> > there is a knee on the hightlights. Whereas >> > digital can't capture as much range but there >> > isnt a knee, its straight right up to >> > the point of clipping... >> > jco >> > >> > -Original Message- >> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > >> > Of Jack Davis >> > Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 9:15 PM >> > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> > Subject: RE: The "Film Look" >> > >> > >> > I've had the same experience. Stills, by their nature, may lend >> > themselves to more scrutiny. >> > >> > Jack >> > --- "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> >> My interpretation of the "film look" is like >> >> watching a high quality movie ( 70mm print ) >> >> vs. a high defintion live video broadcast >> >> ( more like the "digital" look ). >> >> jco >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> >> PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > __ >> > __ >> > >> > Do you Yahoo!? >> > Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. >> > http://new.mail.yahoo.com >> > >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: The "Film Look"
About 10-12 years ago I was applying for a job as a lab tech for an advertising company that did all it's own in house photography & printing. I remember being shown a 4x5 transparency that had been captured on a digital back, burnt to CD, sent to another company that then transferred the digital file to film so they could print it in their wet lab. The quality of the transparency was very impressive. I recently had a look on their web site & everything is now done on large format commercial printers. Cheers, Dave At 10:09 AM 14/12/2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Yes, you can get slides from digital files. There are a couple of guys I >know in the Portland, Oregon area that own film recorders that can put >digital files on film. I have never seen these devices, or have I >transferred files to slide film. > >Jim A. > > > > I was reffering to color or BW neg film. Can you > > get slides from digital files and are > > they any wider dynamic range than shooting > > slide film in the first place? If you > > dont really need slides, then there > > isnt much point in shooting slide film > > unless you really want a certain "look" > > not available in neg films IMHO... > > jco -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: The "Film Look"
I agree - for snow flake photos where grain and noise are killers, Velvia 50 can't hold a candle to the *ist-D. But for street photography where I want a certain, um, grainy, effect, there's not substitute for film. I like Microdol-X, a fine(r) grain developer. IMO with a grainy film it simply results in a more uniform, controlled, but still quite definite grain compared to digital. I have yet to find a Photoshop filter that can reproduce the organic grain of real film - ultimately, whne you appply a filter a pattern appears, maybe not in small photos but in large ones the pattern can be quite annoying. It _is_ subtle but apparent. If I was a programmer I would write a grain simulation filter that looked at each pixel, used some logic to determine if that pixel was a good seed for a grain pattern, and then proceed with a random grain branching fractaly off of it if it was. In my experience, most grain filters just overlay a pre-determined 'grain' pattern over an image, and if the file is large enough the pattern repeats, and the discerning eye sees the repetition. - MCC Jack Davis wrote: > Have, for many years, been a big fan and user "essentially grainless" > 25, 50 and 100 ISO films. > These were/are the films that I have replaced with digital, not so much > for its work flow advantage, but because I see a cleaner more detrailed > image. > If film is your thing, knock yourself out. > > Jack -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: The "Film Look"
JCO, maybe you were referring to neg film. You wrote only "film" in general, so I couldn't know, could I? :-) Your arguments has a flip side that goes: If you don't need negatives, there's no point in shooting negative film either. Unless you want a certain "look" that is not available in slide film IMHO. Without any further substantiation, those claims seem quite futile to someone coming from the-other-kind-of-film. But that's not the point. You ask about dynamic range in digital versus films. Back in 2002 (seems like ages ago, doesn't it...) people on this list maintained that slide film had, on average, about five stops latitude between highlights and deepest shadows. Agfa slide films were reputed to have about half or one stop more, resulting in more details in the highlights. Colour negative film was much debated, and dynamic range varied more among brands and types than did slide film. IIRC, an average figure was about eight stops of latitude. B/W negative film was towering above everything with about 10 stops, depending on brands and types, and very much on development technique and chemicals. >From my personal experience with *istD, I would say that the latitude is around 6-7 stops for a raw file, placing it firmly between slide and colour negative film. To your question about producing slides from digital, the answer is yes. I believe it is possible to produce colour negatives from digital as well. A negative film would contain the dynamic range of a raw file, while a slide film would not. Jostein JCO wrote: > I was reffering to color or BW neg film. > Can you > get slides from digital files and are > they any wider dynamic range than shooting > slide film in the first place? > If you > dont really need slides, then there > isnt much point in shooting slide film > unless you really want a certain "look" > not available in neg films IMHO... > jco Rhetorics aside, > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Jostein Øksne > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 4:28 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: The "Film Look" > > > I take it you never shot slide film, JCO. > I did, and the dynamic range of the *istD was a welcome increase. > > Jostein > > > On 12/13/06, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You may be able to undo the "knee" on > > the film captures but its going to be > > impossible to undo the clipping on > > the digital capture when the dynamic > > range of the scene exceeds the digital system's > > (sensor) recording capability. > > jco > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > > Of graywolf > > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 11:21 AM > > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > Subject: Re: The "Film Look" > > > > > > Luckily we can adjust that in Photoshop. It does help some. > > > > > > J. C. O'Connell wrote: > > > But the "look" is similar. I forgot to > > > post that in either of these cases > > > the film grain is NOT an issue. Its more > > > the tonal range captured and the look > > > of the extreme highlights. Film captures > > > more but the curves are not straight, > > > there is a knee on the hightlights. Whereas > > > digital can't capture as much range but there > > > isnt a knee, its straight right up to > > > the point of clipping... > > > jco > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > > > > Of Jack Davis > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 9:15 PM > > > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > > Subject: RE: The "Film Look" > > > > > > > > > I've had the same experience. Stills, by their nature, may lend > > > themselves to more scrutiny. > > > > > > Jack > > > --- "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> My interpretation of the "film look" is like > > >> watching a high quality movie ( 70mm print ) > > >> vs. a high defintion live video broadcast > > >> ( more like the "digital" look ). > > >> jco > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > >> PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __ > > > __ > > > > > > Do you Yahoo!? > > > Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. > > > http://new.mail.yahoo.com > > > > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: The "Film Look"
No, low contrast (normal) color negative film has much more dynamic range capture than slide film so its better than slide film for average & contrasty scenes even if you dont need a negative ( used just for scanning ). I stopped using slide film about 10 years ago and went nearly all color neg film for scanning about 5 years ago. Color neg film is also much easier to develop yourself and get developed cheap and fast at labs. So I do NOT agree that the only reason to shoot color neg film is if you need a neg. The way I see it today with scanning it that unless you actually want to project the image in a projector, its ususally better to go with neg films for the other reasons stated too, not just for a "look" not available in slide films. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jostein Øksne Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 5:42 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: The "Film Look" JCO, maybe you were referring to neg film. You wrote only "film" in general, so I couldn't know, could I? :-) Your arguments has a flip side that goes: If you don't need negatives, there's no point in shooting negative film either. Unless you want a certain "look" that is not available in slide film IMHO. Without any further substantiation, those claims seem quite futile to someone coming from the-other-kind-of-film. But that's not the point. You ask about dynamic range in digital versus films. Back in 2002 (seems like ages ago, doesn't it...) people on this list maintained that slide film had, on average, about five stops latitude between highlights and deepest shadows. Agfa slide films were reputed to have about half or one stop more, resulting in more details in the highlights. Colour negative film was much debated, and dynamic range varied more among brands and types than did slide film. IIRC, an average figure was about eight stops of latitude. B/W negative film was towering above everything with about 10 stops, depending on brands and types, and very much on development technique and chemicals. >From my personal experience with *istD, I would say that the latitude is around 6-7 stops for a raw file, placing it firmly between slide and colour negative film. To your question about producing slides from digital, the answer is yes. I believe it is possible to produce colour negatives from digital as well. A negative film would contain the dynamic range of a raw file, while a slide film would not. Jostein JCO wrote: > I was reffering to color or BW neg film. > Can you > get slides from digital files and are > they any wider dynamic range than shooting > slide film in the first place? > If you > dont really need slides, then there > isnt much point in shooting slide film > unless you really want a certain "look" > not available in neg films IMHO... > jco Rhetorics aside, > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Jostein Øksne > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 4:28 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: The "Film Look" > > > I take it you never shot slide film, JCO. > I did, and the dynamic range of the *istD was a welcome increase. > > Jostein > > > On 12/13/06, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You may be able to undo the "knee" on > > the film captures but its going to be > > impossible to undo the clipping on > > the digital capture when the dynamic > > range of the scene exceeds the digital system's > > (sensor) recording capability. > > jco > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > > Of graywolf > > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 11:21 AM > > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > Subject: Re: The "Film Look" > > > > > > Luckily we can adjust that in Photoshop. It does help some. > > > > > > J. C. O'Connell wrote: > > > But the "look" is similar. I forgot to > > > post that in either of these cases > > > the film grain is NOT an issue. Its more > > > the tonal range captured and the look > > > of the extreme highlights. Film captures > > > more but the curves are not straight, > > > there is a knee on the hightlights. Whereas > > > digital can't capture as much range but there > > > isnt a knee, its straight right up to > > > the point of clipping... > > > jco > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > > Behalf > > > > Of Jack Davis > > > Sent: Tue
Re: The "Film Look"
you have made your point. I'm not going to bother anyone with my views in ths matter, since it is completely irrelevant to the issue we were discussing. However, after a recent foray into my archives, with subsequent PS work to clean up old scans, I must say I don't miss film for all the grains in the world! :-) Jostein On 12/14/06, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No, low contrast (normal) color negative film has much more dynamic > range capture > than slide film so its better than slide film for average & contrasty > scenes even if you dont need a negative ( used just for scanning ). > I stopped using slide film about 10 years ago and went nearly > all color neg film for scanning about 5 years ago. Color neg > film is also much easier to develop yourself and get developed > cheap and fast at labs. So I do NOT agree that the only reason > to shoot color neg film is if you need a neg. The way I see it > today with scanning it that unless you actually want to project the > image > in a projector, its ususally better to go with neg films for the other > reasons stated too, not just for a "look" not available in slide films. > jco > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Jostein Øksne > Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 5:42 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: The "Film Look" > > > JCO, maybe you were referring to neg film. You wrote only "film" in > general, so I couldn't know, could I? :-) > > Your arguments has a flip side that goes: > If you don't need negatives, there's no point in shooting negative film > either. Unless you want a certain "look" that is not available in slide > film IMHO. > > Without any further substantiation, those claims seem quite futile to > someone coming from the-other-kind-of-film. But that's not the point. > > You ask about dynamic range in digital versus films. Back in 2002 (seems > like ages ago, doesn't it...) people on this list maintained that slide > film had, on average, about five stops latitude between highlights and > deepest shadows. Agfa slide films were reputed to have about half or one > stop more, resulting in more details in the highlights. > > Colour negative film was much debated, and dynamic range varied more > among brands and types than did slide film. IIRC, an average figure was > about eight stops of latitude. B/W negative film was towering above > everything with about 10 stops, depending on brands and types, and very > much on development technique and chemicals. > > >From my personal experience with *istD, I would say that the latitude > is around 6-7 stops for a raw file, placing it firmly between slide and > colour negative film. > > To your question about producing slides from digital, the answer is yes. > I believe it is possible to produce colour negatives from digital as > well. A negative film would contain the dynamic range of a raw file, > while a slide film would not. > > Jostein > > > JCO wrote: > > I was reffering to color or BW neg film. > > Can you > > get slides from digital files and are > > they any wider dynamic range than shooting > > slide film in the first place? > > If you > > dont really need slides, then there > > isnt much point in shooting slide film > > unless you really want a certain "look" > > not available in neg films IMHO... > > jco > > > Rhetorics aside, > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > > Of Jostein Øksne > > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 4:28 PM > > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > Subject: Re: The "Film Look" > > > > > > I take it you never shot slide film, JCO. > > I did, and the dynamic range of the *istD was a welcome increase. > > > > Jostein > > > > > > On 12/13/06, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > You may be able to undo the "knee" on > > > the film captures but its going to be > > > impossible to undo the clipping on > > > the digital capture when the dynamic > > > range of the scene exceeds the digital system's > > > (sensor) recording capability. > > > jco > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > > > > Of graywolf > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 11:21 AM > > > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > > Subject: Re: The "Film Look" > > > > > >
RE: The "Film Look"
Well, dont forget there is much more to film than just lowly 35mm. I now use mostly LF, some MF, and some 35mm (mostly only fine grain BW for 35mm). you simply cannot get the picture quality of LF film with any digital systems that dont cost more than a new car! And thats why color neg is good for LF film if you want color, its easy to develop at home and there are very few local labs (actually none in my area) that will do it. Color slide films on the other hand are difficult to devolop as easily and consistantly as color neg at home and why I have pretty much abandoned them completely, even for 35mm because I dont use my projector anymore. Last time I used them for 35mm in any quantity was a trip to SF back in '96 if I recall correctly. But, I do remember one thing, I shot some 8x10 fujichrome test shots & once you see that on a light table, everything else looks like total doo doo...but it was a real hassle to develop and extremely critical on exposure for direct viewing. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jostein Øksne Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 9:53 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: The "Film Look" you have made your point. I'm not going to bother anyone with my views in ths matter, since it is completely irrelevant to the issue we were discussing. However, after a recent foray into my archives, with subsequent PS work to clean up old scans, I must say I don't miss film for all the grains in the world! :-) Jostein On 12/14/06, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No, low contrast (normal) color negative film has much more dynamic > range capture than slide film so its better than slide film for > average & contrasty scenes even if you dont need a negative ( used > just for scanning ). I stopped using slide film about 10 years ago and > went nearly all color neg film for scanning about 5 years ago. Color > neg film is also much easier to develop yourself and get developed > cheap and fast at labs. So I do NOT agree that the only reason > to shoot color neg film is if you need a neg. The way I see it > today with scanning it that unless you actually want to project the > image > in a projector, its ususally better to go with neg films for the other > reasons stated too, not just for a "look" not available in slide films. > jco > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Jostein Øksne > Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 5:42 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: The "Film Look" > > > JCO, maybe you were referring to neg film. You wrote only "film" in > general, so I couldn't know, could I? :-) > > Your arguments has a flip side that goes: > If you don't need negatives, there's no point in shooting negative > film either. Unless you want a certain "look" that is not available in > slide film IMHO. > > Without any further substantiation, those claims seem quite futile to > someone coming from the-other-kind-of-film. But that's not the point. > > You ask about dynamic range in digital versus films. Back in 2002 > (seems like ages ago, doesn't it...) people on this list maintained > that slide film had, on average, about five stops latitude between > highlights and deepest shadows. Agfa slide films were reputed to have > about half or one stop more, resulting in more details in the > highlights. > > Colour negative film was much debated, and dynamic range varied more > among brands and types than did slide film. IIRC, an average figure > was about eight stops of latitude. B/W negative film was towering > above everything with about 10 stops, depending on brands and types, > and very much on development technique and chemicals. > > >From my personal experience with *istD, I would say that the latitude > is around 6-7 stops for a raw file, placing it firmly between slide > and colour negative film. > > To your question about producing slides from digital, the answer is > yes. I believe it is possible to produce colour negatives from digital > as well. A negative film would contain the dynamic range of a raw > file, while a slide film would not. > > Jostein > > > JCO wrote: > > I was reffering to color or BW neg film. > > Can you > > get slides from digital files and are > > they any wider dynamic range than shooting > > slide film in the first place? > > If you > > dont really need slides, then there > > isnt much point in shooting slide film > > unless you really want a certain "look" > > not available in neg films IMHO... > > jco > > > Rhetorics aside, > > &g
Re: The "Film Look"
On Dec 14, 2006, at 2:42 AM, Jostein Øksne wrote: > From my personal experience with *istD, I would say that the latitude > is around 6-7 stops for a raw file, placing it firmly between slide > and colour negative film. I find 7-9 stops of useful DR with RAW capture on the *ist DS, similar to my Canon 10D. I think the K10D is maybe up a stop from that range and averages closer to 9 than 7, at least from my early testing. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: The "Film Look"
hehe. That means I still have some way to go with my raw processing, Godfrey. Both depressing and encouraging... Jostein On 12/14/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Dec 14, 2006, at 2:42 AM, Jostein Øksne wrote: > > > From my personal experience with *istD, I would say that the latitude > > is around 6-7 stops for a raw file, placing it firmly between slide > > and colour negative film. > > I find 7-9 stops of useful DR with RAW capture on the *ist DS, > similar to my Canon 10D. I think the K10D is maybe up a stop from > that range and averages closer to 9 than 7, at least from my early > testing. > > Godfrey > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: The "Film Look"
thanks, jco. you have made your point again. I don't think I need further iterations. Jostein On 12/14/06, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, dont forget there is much more to film than just lowly 35mm. I now > use mostly > LF, some MF, and some 35mm (mostly only fine grain BW for 35mm). > you simply cannot get the picture quality of LF > film with any digital systems that dont cost more > than a new car! And thats why color neg is good for > LF film if you want color, its easy to develop at home and there are > very few local labs (actually none in my area) that will do it. > Color slide films on the other hand are difficult to > devolop as easily and consistantly as color neg at home > and why I have pretty much abandoned them completely, even > for 35mm because I dont use my projector anymore. Last time I used them > for 35mm in any quantity was a trip to SF back > in '96 if I recall correctly. But, I do remember one thing, I shot > some 8x10 fujichrome test shots & once you see that on a light table, > everything else looks like total doo doo...but it was a real hassle > to develop and extremely critical on exposure for direct viewing. > jco > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Jostein Øksne > Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 9:53 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: The "Film Look" > > > you have made your point. I'm not going to bother anyone with my views > in ths matter, since it is completely irrelevant to the issue we were > discussing. > > However, after a recent foray into my archives, with subsequent PS work > to clean up old scans, I must say I don't miss film for all the grains > in the world! :-) > > Jostein > > On 12/14/06, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > No, low contrast (normal) color negative film has much more dynamic > > range capture than slide film so its better than slide film for > > average & contrasty scenes even if you dont need a negative ( used > > just for scanning ). I stopped using slide film about 10 years ago and > > > went nearly all color neg film for scanning about 5 years ago. Color > > neg film is also much easier to develop yourself and get developed > > cheap and fast at labs. So I do NOT agree that the only reason > > to shoot color neg film is if you need a neg. The way I see it > > today with scanning it that unless you actually want to project the > > image > > in a projector, its ususally better to go with neg films for the other > > reasons stated too, not just for a "look" not available in slide > films. > > jco > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > > Of Jostein Øksne > > Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 5:42 AM > > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > Subject: Re: The "Film Look" > > > > > > JCO, maybe you were referring to neg film. You wrote only "film" in > > general, so I couldn't know, could I? :-) > > > > Your arguments has a flip side that goes: > > If you don't need negatives, there's no point in shooting negative > > film either. Unless you want a certain "look" that is not available in > > > slide film IMHO. > > > > Without any further substantiation, those claims seem quite futile to > > someone coming from the-other-kind-of-film. But that's not the point. > > > > You ask about dynamic range in digital versus films. Back in 2002 > > (seems like ages ago, doesn't it...) people on this list maintained > > that slide film had, on average, about five stops latitude between > > highlights and deepest shadows. Agfa slide films were reputed to have > > about half or one stop more, resulting in more details in the > > highlights. > > > > Colour negative film was much debated, and dynamic range varied more > > among brands and types than did slide film. IIRC, an average figure > > was about eight stops of latitude. B/W negative film was towering > > above everything with about 10 stops, depending on brands and types, > > and very much on development technique and chemicals. > > > > >From my personal experience with *istD, I would say that the latitude > > is around 6-7 stops for a raw file, placing it firmly between slide > > and colour negative film. > > > > To your question about producing slides from digital, the answer is > > yes. I believe it is possible to produce colour negatives from digital > > > as well. A negative f
RE: The "Film Look"
OK, but to put it shortly, FILM STILL RULES when it comes to top quality imaging and you said you dont miss it. I think what you meant is you dont miss 35MM film which is something altogether different. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jostein Øksne Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 11:09 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: The "Film Look" thanks, jco. you have made your point again. I don't think I need further iterations. Jostein On 12/14/06, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, dont forget there is much more to film than just lowly 35mm. I > now use mostly LF, some MF, and some 35mm (mostly only fine grain BW > for 35mm). you simply cannot get the picture quality of LF > film with any digital systems that dont cost more > than a new car! And thats why color neg is good for > LF film if you want color, its easy to develop at home and there are > very few local labs (actually none in my area) that will do it. > Color slide films on the other hand are difficult to > devolop as easily and consistantly as color neg at home > and why I have pretty much abandoned them completely, even > for 35mm because I dont use my projector anymore. Last time I used them > for 35mm in any quantity was a trip to SF back > in '96 if I recall correctly. But, I do remember one thing, I shot > some 8x10 fujichrome test shots & once you see that on a light table, > everything else looks like total doo doo...but it was a real hassle > to develop and extremely critical on exposure for direct viewing. > jco > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Jostein Øksne > Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 9:53 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: The "Film Look" > > > you have made your point. I'm not going to bother anyone with my views > in ths matter, since it is completely irrelevant to the issue we were > discussing. > > However, after a recent foray into my archives, with subsequent PS > work to clean up old scans, I must say I don't miss film for all the > grains in the world! :-) > > Jostein > > On 12/14/06, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > No, low contrast (normal) color negative film has much more dynamic > > range capture than slide film so its better than slide film for > > average & contrasty scenes even if you dont need a negative ( used > > just for scanning ). I stopped using slide film about 10 years ago > > and > > > went nearly all color neg film for scanning about 5 years ago. Color > > neg film is also much easier to develop yourself and get developed > > cheap and fast at labs. So I do NOT agree that the only reason to > > shoot color neg film is if you need a neg. The way I see it today > > with scanning it that unless you actually want to project the image > > in a projector, its ususally better to go with neg films for the other > > reasons stated too, not just for a "look" not available in slide > films. > > jco > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > > Of Jostein Øksne > > Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 5:42 AM > > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > Subject: Re: The "Film Look" > > > > > > JCO, maybe you were referring to neg film. You wrote only "film" in > > general, so I couldn't know, could I? :-) > > > > Your arguments has a flip side that goes: > > If you don't need negatives, there's no point in shooting negative > > film either. Unless you want a certain "look" that is not available > > in > > > slide film IMHO. > > > > Without any further substantiation, those claims seem quite futile > > to someone coming from the-other-kind-of-film. But that's not the > > point. > > > > You ask about dynamic range in digital versus films. Back in 2002 > > (seems like ages ago, doesn't it...) people on this list maintained > > that slide film had, on average, about five stops latitude between > > highlights and deepest shadows. Agfa slide films were reputed to > > have about half or one stop more, resulting in more details in the > > highlights. > > > > Colour negative film was much debated, and dynamic range varied more > > among brands and types than did slide film. IIRC, an average figure > > was about eight stops of latitude. B/W negative film was towering > > above everything with about 10 stops, depending on brands and types,
Re: The "Film Look"
BTW, what I find with these DSLRs is substantially better DR than all but a very few films, of any format, either B&W or color. My old mentor/buddy who specializes in 'exotic process' 6x9cm and 4x5 inch B&W film work was impressed with the DR I was showing him when I visited with some portfolio prints on my trip. G On Dec 14, 2006, at 8:10 AM, Jostein Øksne wrote: > hehe. That means I still have some way to go with my raw > processing, Godfrey. > Both depressing and encouraging... > >> I find 7-9 stops of useful DR with RAW capture on the *ist DS, >> similar to my Canon 10D. I think the K10D is maybe up a stop from >> that range and averages closer to 9 than 7, at least from my early >> testing. >> >>> From my personal experience with *istD, I would say that the >>> latitude >>> is around 6-7 stops for a raw file, placing it firmly between slide >>> and colour negative film. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: The "Film Look"
If you only shot 35mm (like the vast majority of people, including on this list), missing 35mm is all that counts. -Adam Who still shoots 35mm and MF film, and will go LF in the future J. C. O'Connell wrote: > OK, but to put it shortly, FILM STILL RULES > when it comes to top quality imaging and you said > you dont miss it. I think what you meant > is you dont miss 35MM film which is something > altogether different. > jco > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: The "Film Look"
I dont think this is a correct statement in that there are a lot of low (normal) contrast negative films out there with extremely wide dynamic range CAPTURE capability, better than current digitals from everything I have read. They are not only not rare, they are probably the most common, both BW and Color. i.e. typical slow neg films. And you cant really tell the difference in a digital print, which is what you are using as an example, because those prints have less range than he films I am talking about and it wont be seen fully. Contact prints directly from film would be a better way to compare. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Godfrey DiGiorgi Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 12:36 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: The "Film Look" BTW, what I find with these DSLRs is substantially better DR than all but a very few films, of any format, either B&W or color. My old mentor/buddy who specializes in 'exotic process' 6x9cm and 4x5 inch B&W film work was impressed with the DR I was showing him when I visited with some portfolio prints on my trip. G On Dec 14, 2006, at 8:10 AM, Jostein Øksne wrote: > hehe. That means I still have some way to go with my raw > processing, Godfrey. > Both depressing and encouraging... > >> I find 7-9 stops of useful DR with RAW capture on the *ist DS, >> similar to my Canon 10D. I think the K10D is maybe up a stop from >> that range and averages closer to 9 than 7, at least from my early >> testing. >> >>> From my personal experience with *istD, I would say that the >>> latitude >>> is around 6-7 stops for a raw file, placing it firmly between slide >>> and colour negative film. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: The "Film Look"
On 14/12/06, Jostein Øksne, discombobulated, unleashed: >jco. >you have made your point again. >I don't think I need further iterations. Mark! -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: The "Film Look"
Cotty wrote: >On 14/12/06, Jostein Øksne, discombobulated, unleashed: > >>jco. >>you have made your point again. >>I don't think I need further iterations. > >Mark! For full effect, I suppose I should put it in ALL CAPS and repeat it a hundred times... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: The "Film Look"
Don't worry. I seem to get it for you. :-( On 12/14/06, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Cotty wrote: > > >On 14/12/06, Jostein Øksne, discombobulated, unleashed: > > > >>jco. > >>you have made your point again. > >>I don't think I need further iterations. > > > >Mark! > > For full effect, I suppose I should put it in ALL CAPS and repeat it a > hundred times... > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
