[rollei_list] Re: Digital printing v. Analog

  • From: "Neil Gould" <neil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 07:44:00 -0500

Hi all,

Recently, you wrote:

> From: Laurence Cuffe <Laurence.Cuffe@xxxxxx>
>
> [...] if your really familiar with digital technology
> at the nuts and bolts level you know what the artifacts it produces look
> like and they stand out a mile. A normal viewer wont see them. Its
> just like poor dodging in a darkroom print. If you know how to do it,
you
> see it, if you don't, you wont.
> The second is interpolation digital textures, edge sharpening, and the
> like, again they can produce an image which is "hyper real" but its
> not the reality which was originally present, and thus I say it stinks.
>
> I think the area where its easiest to distinguish the results of
> digital from real film is textures, as the level of detail required to
> distinguish say silk from fine linen, or the surface of a birch leaf
> from the surface of a beach leaf is still a challenge for digital
> cameras.
>
Your comments have presented the issue very succinctly. I completely
agree, and find this discussion to be generally absurd because so far, it
has omitted the critical factor that can differentiate digital from analog
image capture: the content of the scene (Ritz cracker excepted)! There are
some scenes that will be better represented by one medium or the other,
but the general difference between the media is the ability to capture
subtle textures.

Even within film photography, there are those that think that airbrushed /
retouched images are superior, and those who prefer to print the edges of
the film frame to emphasize the unretouched aspect of their work. The
"retouching camp" would likely find digital image capture to be a great
improvement over their analog work, while the "subtle detail" camp sees
those images as an elaborate cartoon. Tastes great vs. less filling.

Regards,

Neil Gould


Other related posts: