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,
> > Cott
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
Pho
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 f
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
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
_
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
||=|ht
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 anyon
- 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
so
- 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
mi
- 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
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
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
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]
<[E
"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 t
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
> "
Frantisek asked,
> Now, William, most advertisement agency people aren't _THAT_ stupid so they
> couldn't pick out B&W prints from colour prints.
>
> Or are they ;-)
>
In my experience, they very well could be . But I'm going to ask some
photographer's reps and, hopefully, some photographers as
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 B&W prints from colour prints.
Or are they ;-)
Good light!
27;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 e
urce: 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&
- 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
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
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
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,
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 d
- 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
- 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
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
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.
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 ter
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
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
What Herb said plus -
they have more control over the process.
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 8:02 PM
Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain
> your experience runs counter to all the major fine
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. anal
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 ca
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 "cart
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.graywo
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/ups
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 h
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
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 n
4x5 Provia or Velvia.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
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.
S
ame 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:
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 2:09 PM
Subject: Re: PP: Digital Gr
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
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 req
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 wom
- 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 re
- 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
- 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
regard
- 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 a
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
- 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 digita
- 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
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'
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 int
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 tr
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
- 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
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.
- 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 "Antoni
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]>
> Subj
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
- 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.
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 o
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 rou
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 gent
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
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
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.
Y
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
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
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
>
--- 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
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 digi
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
--- "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 yo
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
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
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 p
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
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 i
- 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 chr
eparations 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: R
In a message dated 1/23/2005 4:22:20 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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.
--- William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So when you do these manipulations, is the intent to make
things look
> as real as possible, introducing no biases of your own?
That depends entirely upon the intent of the photographer for
each photograph they might be inspired to create.
Certainly
- 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
- Original Message -
From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi"
Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain
An aesthetic preference for the texture of grain in an image is
fine. A photographer should be able to define whatever texture
they prefer that expresses their intent. With film, you have to
learn h
t;[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm laughing at your comment that film, by it's nature, is
> defective. It's very funny.I like your sense of humor.
>
>
> Shel
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
On 23 Jan 2005 at 23:26, William Robb wrote:
> Rob, digital imaging does, most certainly, impose a noise/transfer
> fingerprint.
> We bitch about parts of it from time to time with things like RAW
> converters leaving rough edges. stairstepping, and weird edge
> effects.
> We complain about not
I just have a different sense of humor than you ... what you seem to take
so seriously I find amusing.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
> I don't know what it is, Shel, since you seem to be unable to
> express yourself in a sensible, non-belligerently ignorant
> fashion.
I'm laughing at your comment that film, by it's nature, is defective. It's
very funny.I like your sense of humor.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Date: 1/23/2005 8:45:16 PM
> Subject: Re: PP: Digita
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain
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
ei
- Original Message -
From: "Shel Belinkoff"
Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain
Have you met JCO?
Please, tell me it isn't a Pseudo Mafud.
William Robb
- Original Message -
From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi"
Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain
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.
Pardon my blu
- Original Message -
From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi"
Subject: 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.
The digital look is what comes of
> 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
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:
>
>
> Have you met JCO?
>
> Shel
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)
ca
Have you met JCO?
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> 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
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
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
1 - 100 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
