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 underst
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 dif
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 s
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
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
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?
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
-
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
-
- 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 so
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
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 mean
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 lik
'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 &qu
---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,
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:
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/
>
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 imag
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
--
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 goa
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
&g
[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 for
ednesday, 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
> >
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
> 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,
ailable 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"
>
>
>
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 digit
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
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.
>
> Jost
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
t;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"
>
l 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 &
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
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 t
d 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
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:
&g
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 portf
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 a
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 a
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
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@pd
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
41 matches
Mail list logo
