[pure-silver] Re: what would you attribute the difference to?
- From: Tim Daneliuk <tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:56:45 -0500
Elias Roustom wrote:
> Tim,
>
> Nice shots, and I see what you mean about the highlights. Will we see
> scans of the film version?
I do not have that exact image in film. However, I do have similar
images. When/if I get a moment, I'll try and remember to scan
a neg and put it up for you to look at.
> I know even less about digital capture than I do about film - maybe when
> cameras as a whole give way to cell phones that get implanted in the
> brain I'll know a little more, but a tip that seems to be working for
> me, is that I undersexpose my digital shots (expose for the highlights
> at zone VII or VIII, let the shadows fall where they will) I can pull a
> lot of detail out of the shadows in Lightroom without losing any
> highlight values.
That is one strategy certainly, but with only 12 or 13 bits of conversion
typically, you're going to be giving up something with long tonal range
subjects.
>
> Elias
>
> On Aug 24, 2009, at 6:33 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> Carlileb@xxxxxxx wrote:
>>> In a message dated 8/24/2009 12:44:17 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
>>> elroustom@xxxxxxxxx writes:
>>>
>>>> Maybe it's just the difference
>>>> between digital and hand-made-in-the darkroom prints, though a
>>> better-than-I
>>>> photographer who has gone digital swears he can do anything he did
>>> before
>>>> better now.
>>>
>>> Not wanting to start a film v. digital debate-- they're both good--
>>> remember that with digital, what you're doing is simply re-creating the
>>> silver gelatin look. In terms of authenticity, it's not the same-- this
>>> purist aspect of silver is one of its big claims.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> <Sticks Beak Into Digital v. Chemical Snakepit>
>>
>> Offered in the spirit of observation, not trying to start a fight:
>>
>> I recently came back from a trip to upstate NY and shot both silver
>> and digital there. Comparing essentially identical scenes shot both
>> ways was an illuminating experience - though I must reveal that I only
>> shot monochrome silver whereas the digital was, of course, captured in
>> color. There is still a *huge* difference (in favor of silver) at
>> least if you're using pro-sumer grade digital.
>>
>> The problem is not resolution - my Nikon D-80 is "only" 10 MPix and it
>> looks just fine all the way up to 12"x18". The problem is the number
>> of bits used to convert the image from analog to digial. My Nikon,
>> like most in its price range is only a 12 bit color system. Even some
>> considerably more expensive cameras are only 13 or 14 bits. This is
>> not remotely enough to cover the same dynamic range of light film
>> can capture. Although film compresses the range nonlinearly, you
>> can easily have it hold in excess of 14 or 15 stops of light using
>> the right developers (Pyro) and techniques (N- processing, controlling
>> or eliminating agitation, high dilution, etc.) The digital stuff I
>> shot blocked the highlights in a lot of situations where the film
>> had plenty of detail left. For instance, in these waterfall shots notice
>> how the water highlights are completely blown out - they aren't on film:
>>
>> http://www.tundraware.com/Photography/VernooyFalls/
>>
>> These pictures really show the problem because they are JPEGs and thus
>> limited to *8 bit* color, but even the 12 bit raw files aren't much
>> better.
>>
>> Now there are certainly situations where this is no issue. If I were
>> a wedding or portrait phographer, shooting commercial tabletop, or
>> doing photojournalism, this limitation would be irrelevant. But when
>> you want long tonal range pictures with a lot of depth and richness to
>> the tonality, today's crop of digital can't even come close to film.
>>
>> At the very high end, Hasselblad, Rollei, and Phase One may have
>> something
>> that comes close enough to call it even. I don't know - I can't even
>> afford
>> to look at their ads, let alone buy one of their backs, ;) But even
>> then,
>> I doubt it. Even with 16 bits of conversion (and assuming a full gamut
>> calibrated display on which to manipulate things, and assuming a full
>> gamut
>> calibrated printer, and assuming you have the money for $500 ink changes,
>> and assuming you can afford paper that costs more than silver paper,
>> and ....)
>> there are several things that make me skeptical:
>>
>> - At best, they are going to be the equal of a good 6cm negative.
>> But I get considerably better tonal rendering on a 4x5 neg than I
>> do 6cm, and thus prefer to shoot in 4x5 whenever I can. I *Really*
>> doubt that even these very high end digital systems can match my
>> big fat silver 4x5 negs.
>>
>> - Then there's the problem of output media. I have yet to see an inkjet
>> paper - yes even the esoteric ones like Hanemuhle - and ink combination
>> that looks as pleasing as silver paper. Every single inkjet print I've
>> ever looked at has at least some slight metamerism problems. A
>> photographer friend of mine that has converted entirely to 100% digital
>> recently sent me a box of prints and challenged me to ID which where
>> silver
>> and which were digital. I nailed every one of the B&W prints (but
>> didn't
>> do so well with the color, since color is not really my thing).
>>
>> In short, digital at any price mere mortals can afford, is not today a
>> viable medium for long tonal range subjects. Moreover, without a lot
>> of ugly tweaking, it's tough to mimic the nonlinearities in the film
>> H/D curve + the fiddling one does during development. There are some
>> aftermarket Photo$hop plugins that claim to get you close, but I'll
>> have to see to believe. (It reminds me of all the digital signal
>> processing products claiming to be able to sound "just like" a classic
>> tube guitar amp like a Fender or Marshall - they don't.)
>>
>> Finally, there is the issue of cost effectiveness. For fun, I just
>> rehabbed an old Mamiya 645J I bought on eBay for less that $150. It
>> has tack sharp optics and an electronically controlled shutter. Some
>> of what I shot in upstate NY was done with this camera. So, for $150
>> for the hardware, another $50 for film, I'm ready to "capture and
>> manipulate images". To do the same thing digital, I need a $15K back,
>> a $1500 calibrated monitor, and around $1000 worth of software (since
>> the free programs like GIMP don't do 16-bit yet). And that's just to
>> get to the point where a print could be made. Don't get me started on
>> the cost of ink and paper. IOW, I just don't think it's a very cost
>> effective medium, at least not yet. The good news is that as all the
>> kids and techno-lemmings go after digital, it is driving down the
>> price of used film cameras and darkroom equipment for the rest of us :)
>>
>> I write this as I look at a print in my office shot in a boathouse in
>> Maine with a Hasselblad 500C/M on Agfapan 100. In the foreground sits
>> a coiled rope at about Zone VI. The very darkest recesses of the room
>> show detail right on the boundary of Zone II/III. Pouring though the
>> window is light well over 10 stops brighter than that. I developed the
>> neg in Pyro. It takes forever to print, but there is a TON of detail
>> held in window in the general range of Zones 12-14. Obviously, the
>> paper cannot hold all this information, so I make some judgments about
>> just how to place everything on the final print, but the final result
>> is quite lovely ... and quite impossible with digital stuff I've seen
>> so far.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Tim Daneliuk tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>>
>> =============================================================================================================
>>
>> To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to
>> your account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you
>> subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
>
> =============================================================================================================
>
> To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
> account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you
> subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,)
and unsubscribe from there.
Other related posts:
