Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: dwdallam on July 03, 2008, 04:30:37 am
-
I thought this was amusing:
FILM:
IMAGE QUALITY
RESOLUTION: A glass plate from 1880 still has more resolution than a Canon 1Ds-MkII. Film always wins here when used by a skilled photographer. One source of confusion is here (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml), which uses bad science using prints too small (13 x 19") to show the difference. Also note that you're not even seeing the actual prints, but screen resolution images (about 72 - 100DPI) at that site. He throws away most of the resolution of the film. (It doesn't matter that his film was scanned at 3,200 DPI and it's completely irrelevant that the printer was set to 2880 DPI, since all that resolution was down-converted for your screen.) As I keep trying to say, if all you want is 13 x 19" inkjet prints made on a $700 Epson by all means get an $8,000 1Ds. If you want to feel the texture of every grain of sand on a 40 x 60" print, stick with 4 x 5" as photographers do.
From Ken Rockwell:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm#examples (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm#examples)
and this one is better:
OK, I've had it with this idiocy. back to top of article Here are the examples I've been too busy shooting to waste my time scanning and posting. We all know the other websites showing a big name digital SLR looking as good as film resolution. Baloney. You may not realize that those sites are actually sponsored by those camera companies and the guy running them doesn't really know how to get good results on film. He then only compares them at such low resolution that you can't see what film's resolution is all about. It takes skill to get optimum resolution on film.
From Ken Rockwell:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm#examples (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm#examples)
I do have to admit the guy has a funny and entertaining style of writing.
-
I thought this was amusing:
FILM:
IMAGE QUALITY
RESOLUTION: A glass plate from 1880 still has more resolution than a Canon 1Ds-MkII. Film always wins here when used by a skilled photographer. One source of confusion is here (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml), which uses bad science using prints too small (13 x 19") to show the difference. Also note that you're not even seeing the actual prints, but screen resolution images (about 72 - 100DPI) at that site. He throws away most of the resolution of the film. (It doesn't matter that his film was scanned at 3,200 DPI and it's completely irrelevant that the printer was set to 2880 DPI, since all that resolution was down-converted for your screen.) As I keep trying to say, if all you want is 13 x 19" inkjet prints made on a $700 Epson by all means get an $8,000 1Ds. If you want to feel the texture of every grain of sand on a 40 x 60" print, stick with 4 x 5" as photographers do.
From Ken Rockwell:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm#examples (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm#examples)
and this one is better:
OK, I've had it with this idiocy. back to top of article Here are the examples I've been too busy shooting to waste my time scanning and posting. We all know the other websites showing a big name digital SLR looking as good as film resolution. Baloney. You may not realize that those sites are actually sponsored by those camera companies and the guy running them doesn't really know how to get good results on film. He then only compares them at such low resolution that you can't see what film's resolution is all about. It takes skill to get optimum resolution on film.
From Ken Rockwell:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm#examples (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm#examples)
I do have to admit the guy has a funny and entertaining style of writing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205194\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is really very simple. The guy is a fruitcake with a massive ego. Not surprisingly, he is a bit amusing.
-
It would be interesting if he could come up with some evidence for the sponsor comment though.
-
He citicises this site for 'bad-science' and then goes onto post a comparison between a film image and a digital image and this is what he has to say about the digital camera used in the comparison 'The digital camera image is the same crop from a brand-new multi-megapixel digital camera made by the same company that keeps paying some bad-science photography websites to pimp it as being better than film' and you want evidence!!!.....
-
I've come to believe the Ken Rockwell is the cleverest troll in the history of the internet. He says just enough 'common sense' stuff to get some people to take him seriously, but in fact the joke's on them because taken as a whole his website is a farce.
-
I've come to believe the Ken Rockwell is the cleverest troll in the history of the internet. He says just enough 'common sense' stuff to get some people to take him seriously, but in fact the joke's on them because taken as a whole his website is a farce.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205220\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Only based on his ideas about color management, I'd have to agree. Add him to the list along with Mr sRGB (Will Crocket).
-
I've come to believe the Ken Rockwell is the cleverest troll in the history of the internet. He says just enough 'common sense' stuff to get some people to take him seriously, but in fact the joke's on them because taken as a whole his website is a farce.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=205220\")
Ken references the web site of [a href=\"http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/index.html]Roger Clark[/url]. On checking Roger's web site, I was rather surprised to learn that Roger agrees with most of Ken's statements except on the issue of dynamic range and highlight clipping. Roger is a true expert in digital imaging and I would give a lot of weight to his opinion. Ken's analysis seems a bit dated, since he talks about the Nikon D100 and D1h. Extrapolating from Roger's data, it would seem that the Canon 1DsMIII would beat any 35 mm film camera hands down.
Bill
-
For those that haven't seen
http://www.bahneman.com/liem/blog/article...._Rockwell_Facts (http://www.bahneman.com/liem/blog/article.php?story=Ken_Rockwell_Facts)
-
Do we really need to waste space on this? Rockwell really is beyond the pale.
Michael
-
It is part off the learning experience in digital photography to read on Ken Rockwell site. Lucky enough I soon found other sources. Sometimes he actually does nice tests. But his opinion is often not mine. But he is just another source.
One thing I learnt fast. Mention Ken Rockwell and people go ballistic. He is funny.
He likes no other than himself. He also often proves to himself that he is right. But take his site as blog. Blogs are funny to read but rarely you learn much new. It is just one guys opinions.
Just a tip from me to you. You will stay more healthy by not taking stuff on internet seriously.
-
Please tell me you can level a libel suit? That would make my week
-
Do we really need to waste space on this? Rockwell really is beyond the pale.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205238\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No such thing as bad publicity
Kevin.
-
Lol. A lot of diehard film guys are just delusional in their claims.
This is also beginning to happen now in the motion picture realm, where cameras like Red and Genesis are starting to take a bite out of chemical film's stranglehold on the industry.
-
In MY day, we made our photomographs in blood, and we LIKED IT!
-
If you read Ken Rockwell's "About Me" page, you find this disclaimer:
" I offer no warrantees of any kind, except that there are many deliberate gaffes, practical jokes and downright foolish and made-up things lurking. While this site is mostly accurate, it is neither legally binding nor guaranteed. The only thing I do guarantee is that there is plenty of stuff I simply make up out of thin air, as does The Onion."
-
I read Ken Rockwells site once and that's all it took for me to realize what a complete incompetent, ignorant, moron he was!! I call him "The Blanket" as in he makes blanket statements about everything, like buying this lens with this camera makes no sense, or "TV Makes You Stupid" (disclaimer, I don't watch much TV) or a litany of other incoherent statements. The internet is a cesspool of misinformation and Ken Rockwell is certainly one of the leading contributors. Why even post his name here?
This KR statement certainly is very ironic considering the source,
"The Internet can make you stupid or smart, depending on what you do there."
-
This is really very simple. The guy is a fruitcake with a massive ego. Not surprisingly, he is a bit amusing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205195\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ken talks garbage.
Apparently the D700 is an amateur camera, Michael Reichmann is obsessed by technology and not a real photographer, and the extra features of the Nikon SB600 and SB800 flashes absent from the SB400 are nothing but fluff. Oh and all lenses are sharp.
Ken even had the gall to state that he is a much better photographer than Art Morris, who according to Ken is another gear obsessive. Art Morris is one of the world's most respected bird photographers.
Someone who can make such statements is a fool.
He used to be an engineer, and he must have been a very bad one given his poor reasoning skills.
-
The digital versus film argument is long dead as far as most of us are concerned. This site is yet another statement of what we all know, using a laboratory microscope to squeeze everything from the film:
http://www.janrik.net/MiscSubj/2007/FilmVs...SLR_Images.html (http://www.janrik.net/MiscSubj/2007/FilmVsDSLRTests20070528/A_Comparison_of_Film_and_DSLR_Images.html)
-
At best Rockwell and Clark are exploiting the misuse of "extinction resolution", at well under 10% MTF. This is of technical interest in astronomy and such, where all you need to do is distinguish black from white ("star or no star") but rather irrelevant to artistic photographic image quality ("revealing the shadings of the star's complexion"), where measures like 50% MTF are far more relevant.
P. S. It is Rockwell who pimps his sponsors, suggesting where to buy your gear, so his business is generating web-site hits.
-
... "TV Makes You Stupid" (disclaimer, I don't watch much TV)...
Funny you felt the need to add the disclaimer... just proves Ken's point.
-
I wonder what we could get in this comparison: Take a Leica M8 and M7 - shoot B&W - get the best landscape images you can side-by-side, lots of trees, rocks, etc. Use a really fine-grain B&W film of ISO 25 or better on the M7 and shoot a stop or two over so you can soft-develop the negatives. Think the M8 would win? I dunno about that. I could believe that a direct scan would beat film in any case.
-
Funny you felt the need to add the disclaimer... just proves Ken's point.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205341\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think that you need to read what I wrote one more time, the entire paragraph! He made a blanket statement that "TV makes you stupid" isn't that blanket statement idiotic? In other words, there are educational shows on TV, you can also watch DVDs, VHS, etc. on your TV. You can extract something out of almost anything and become a more learned person. I don't watch much TV; that doesn't prove his point, quite the contrary. Naturally everything should be done in moderation, if all you did is watched TV, you'd be obese, not social, etc. If all you did was eat, you'd get fat, so shall we say, eating makes you fat? If you exercised 24 hours per day you will probably die within a few days, so we can say "Exercise will kill you"? Blanket statements are generally written by people who are intellectually deficient!
-
How's this: Watching TV puts you at risk of stupidity. Racing motorcycles puts you at risk of grave injury. Does that sound like a recommendation for either? It's more accurate technically than Ken's statement, but is it that superior? One thing our intellect gives us the ability to do is understand, even when the statement isn't technically accurate.
-
I note that the "Digital Camera Image" is labeled "© 2003." It was therefore taken with a digital camera that is at least five years old, and possibly considerably older. We are all aware that digital camera technology has come a long ways in the the last few years.
Also, I don't see where he identifies the camera in question. For all we know it could be one of the early 3-Mpixel cameras.
-
I'm quite aware that top-end digital cameras have surpassed film in most if not all areas, but I have to point out that the DR test on the Clark site is biased: It measures detail that can be brought back in the shadows. With slide film, it makes sense. But with print film, you can overexpose by several stops and stull retain full color and detail in print or with multiple scans, into a range where a digital camera or slide film would return clipped channels and irretrievable whites. It probably still has less DR than digital, but for some situations it has more useful dynamic range.
Aside from pointing that out, I have to admit that I go read Rockwell's opinions on new cameras and old lenses when they come out. When I was first getting into photography and was reading up on the internet, I found him a useful source of technical knowledge, knowledge which has now been heavily salted with the awareness that he is in many ways a hack. He had convinced me to spend $600 on a D40 with kit lens for my first DSLR. Not having the money yet to buy, I had plenty of time to mull this over. I ended up handling a D40 in a store and finding that it felt slightly more solid and less cheap than the rebel sitting beside it, and then I went and handled my friend's entry level Olympus... $400 later, I had a much better camera than the D40, a camera that Rockwell had dismissed as essentially pointless.
Beyond his somewhat misguided opinions, one of the things that really irritates me is his complete ignoring of other brands. He hasn't mentioned anything besides Canon, Nikon, and Fuji SLRs in years. There are old mentions of Olympus and Pentax and even Kodak, but from his site you'd get the impression that Sony doesn't even make cameras. Given the fact that other brands have come to surpass Canon and Nikon's offerings in their respective price ranges in many ways, you'd think they'd at least get a mention. Instead, he just tells everyone the best deal in digital is the Nikon D40. It's just unfortunate, because half the people reading don't know any better.
-
This is really very simple. The guy is a fruitcake with a massive ego. Not surprisingly, he is a bit amusing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205195\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree with the first part, but I must take issue with the last point. I browsed KR's site once and found a lot of simplistic and trite stuff, a lot of misinformation, and nothing very amusing.
I get better amusement by reading the reactions to KR on LL.
-
He citicises this site for 'bad-science' and then goes onto post a comparison between a film image and a digital image and this is what he has to say about the digital camera used in the comparison 'The digital camera image is the same crop from a brand-new multi-megapixel digital camera made by the same company that keeps paying some bad-science photography websites to pimp it as being better than film' and you want evidence!!!.....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205209\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I want evidence that this site is bought off by camera companies to lie to people. That remark has its ass hanging out all over the place. It's an opinion as it stands.
Everyone knows you can scan a negative with higher resolution than any digital camera. You can even scan 80 year old negatives from 80 year old cameras with 80 year old film and get more resolution. The comparison is then how good scanners are at scanning negatives and reproducing them with high resolution, not how a MF film camera compares to a 1DS3 using traditional processing and enlarging techniques. And yes this analogy is a bit off the mark. What Rockwell is saying is that a MF negative has in it more detail possible, and that detail can be extracted using a negative scanner.
That being the case, it is something to think about. If you can use a 700US MF camera or even a 35mm and get three times the resolution using a high end scanner, that is truly something people should think about. Why not go back to film for landscape and use a scanner if detail DR and is so important?
-
Ken references the web site of Roger Clark (http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/index.html). On checking Roger's web site, I was rather surprised to learn that Roger agrees with most of Ken's statements except on the issue of dynamic range and highlight clipping. Roger is a true expert in digital imaging and I would give a lot of weight to his opinion. Ken's analysis seems a bit dated, since he talks about the Nikon D100 and D1h. Extrapolating from Roger's data, it would seem that the Canon 1DsMIII would beat any 35 mm film camera hands down.
Bill
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205230\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It will until you take the 35mm negative and scan it using a 2, 000US negative scanner. Then you get a 80mb file instead of a 21 MB file.
-
Do we really need to waste space on this? Rockwell really is beyond the pale.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205238\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well Michael, can you validly refute his positions? It's a fair thing to ask.
Of course there is no way to "prove" his comment about you being in the pocket of camera makers because he has no evidence. His was just an assertion that can be dismissed for the same reasons yours above can: no evidence, no argument. Forget about that comment unless he can shoulder up the evidence. The burden of evidence is always on the person asserting "x". So that's a non issue.
I'm taking about his position of the MF vs digital using a scanner. Show us how beyond the pale he is. I would like to see a step by step refutation of his points on this issue. I could care less about Ken Rockwell's personality, but we should all try to use valid counter arguments, right?
If he is beyond the pale and worth stating that he is "beyond the pale" then I would think (maybe I'm wrong) that you would offer a valid counter argument to his?
The only motivation I have for the above is that I want to learn about this. That's it.
-
Please tell me you can level a libel suit? That would make my week
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205253\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You can't level a libel suit off an opinion. He gave no evidence or misleading evidence. He just said it off the cuff, which is equal to an opinion. I think it's crap for anyone to do that sort of thing unless he or she can back it up with evidence, which Rockwell did not.
The best defense of this sort of thing is a valid, well reasoned, evidence containing argument. Anything else make it look like he's on to something.
-
I wonder what we could get in this comparison: Take a Leica M8 and M7 - shoot B&W - get the best landscape images you can side-by-side, lots of trees, rocks, etc. Use a really fine-grain B&W film of ISO 25 or better on the M7 and shoot a stop or two over so you can soft-develop the negatives. Think the M8 would win? I dunno about that. I could believe that a direct scan would beat film in any case.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205344\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think we're in the minority here, but I think this too. Rockwell did post his evidence for his position about scanned negatives being superior to any digital on the market.
His other comments are not of much interest to me, but the film scanned vs digital is from what I can see and from what I've read, a valid point. Who can inform us that Rockwell's position on this point is wrong?
Before anyone says that I'm trying to troll for Rockwell, please let me say this: I use to read Rockwell's site years ago when I was first starting out. I found him amusing and he had some reasonable points. The reason I visited his site recently was that I was reading some essay where the author was talking about a MF he use to use. I wanted to see the camera he was talking about so I Googled it to see what it was, and Rockwell's site was the first to come up. So I just read the essay. So again, please those of you and especially Michael, don't think I'm trying to stir anything up.
However, I am interested in Rockwell's point about MF scanned vs the best digital in resolution. He does have 100% crops of each camera, and the crops are telling, if true and accurate. Of course he is really comparing digital to digital, but his point is that using a scanner and a MF negative, you will get vastly better images than any digital consumer camera. Is he right?
-
I think that you need to read what I wrote one more time, the entire paragraph! He made a blanket statement that "TV makes you stupid" isn't that blanket statement idiotic? In other words, there are educational shows on TV, you can also watch DVDs, VHS, etc. on your TV. You can extract something out of almost anything and become a more learned person. I don't watch much TV; that doesn't prove his point, quite the contrary. Naturally everything should be done in moderation, if all you did is watched TV, you'd be obese, not social, etc. If all you did was eat, you'd get fat, so shall we say, eating makes you fat? If you exercised 24 hours per day you will probably die within a few days, so we can say "Exercise will kill you"? Blanket statements are generally written by people who are intellectually deficient!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205371\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Or just trying to be funny. Rockwell is obviously not stupid. One might say that those who offer false dichotomies are intellectually deficient, but that would be a blanket statement in itself, because "generally" is a blanket word.
It doesn't take much research to gather enough evidence that shows many really smart people use blanket statements for many reasons, not simply because they are intellectually deficient. I'm not trying to start anything here, but in the spirit of intellectual hygiene, I thought it important to respond.
-
I note that the "Digital Camera Image" is labeled "© 2003." It was therefore taken with a digital camera that is at least five years old, and possibly considerably older. We are all aware that digital camera technology has come a long ways in the the last few years.
Also, I don't see where he identifies the camera in question. For all we know it could be one of the early 3-Mpixel cameras.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205386\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It doesn't really matter for his point. He's saying if you take MF negative and scan it in you can get a 180MB file by using the scanner resolution. Compare that to say the 1DS3's 21MB digital capture and you get the point. I'm not saying he is right, but that is his position.
-
It will until you take the 35mm negative and scan it using a 2, 000US negative scanner. Then you get a 80mb file instead of a 21 MB file.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205428\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The file size is irrelevent. What matters is the underlying detail. In other words, the amount of information (not the pixel count). Anyway this is long since dead, and it is widely accepted that a ~12MP DSLR beats colour film, at least in terms of resolution if not dynamic range.
-
You can't level a libel suit off an opinion.
In the UK you can. If I said on my web site "MR is paid by Canon to push their product" then I would be open to legal action as that statement is libellous, since it is untrue (or at least I have absolutely no reason to suppose that it is true).
I think Ken needs to be careful what he says. Now that would be a first.
-
It doesn't really matter for his point. He's saying if you take MF negative and scan it in you can get a 180MB file by using the scanner resolution. Compare that to say the 1DS3's 21MB digital capture and you get the point. I'm not saying he is right, but that is his position.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205436\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think that there is a lot to be said for scanning film and I´m not even sure that you need to go to b/w film to find out! Kodachrome-as-was scans very well in the CanoScanFS4000US and as I am using Nikon lenses in both film camera and digital, I am fairly accustomed to the expectations of what I might get from either.
There are down sides to film insofar as the costs involved, the doubts about processing standards, the inevitable spotting that has to take place. There are also, I suppose, scanning technique problems, but when you put all that aside and look at the end product on paper, then film, to me, produces the more traditional look, which is what I like.
Digital colour seems to look very impressive, but as most of what I´m interested in doing ends up as b/w print, I won´t argue in that area.
Anyway, getting hung up on comparing different sites isn´t going to be very productive: we find ourselves here because we like it; others are free to differ, so why should anyone complain? To each his own.
Rob C
-
Or just trying to be funny. Rockwell is obviously not stupid. One might say that those who offer false dichotomies are intellectually deficient, but that would be a blanket statement in itself, because "generally" is a blanket word.
It doesn't take much research to gather enough evidence that shows many really smart people use blanket statements for many reasons, not simply because they are intellectually deficient. I'm not trying to start anything here, but in the spirit of intellectual hygiene, I thought it important to respond.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205436\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Seriously pale, that has to be the stupidest thing that I've ever read! Not to start anything! If you have the ability to read then you would have to know that the word "generally" is NOT a blanket statement especially not in the context of this discussion! A blanket statement covers everything, whereas generally covers a high percentage, I'm sorry if you can't understand the difference.
Why is it obvious to you that KR isn't stupid?
It would be fine to use a blanket statement if it were true, but I have noticed KR makes them constantly and gave just 2 examples. All new Ferraris are expensive, a blanket statement right? Is it accurate? It could be, it just depends on the person writing it and his/her perspective. TV makes you stupid is a stupid statement! Lens A is worthless if used on camera A, is the same, blanket statements that simply aren't true or accurate. My point (obviously you missed it) was that KR doesn't state generally speaking, most of the time, a high percentage of the time, etc. he makes blanket statements regarding everything from camera gear to tv watching.
I don't need to research intellectually deficient people, there's enough of them everywhere. It's ok to respond, but why not respond with something which makes sense?
-
In the UK you can. If I said on my web site "MR is paid by Canon to push their product" then I would be open to legal action as that statement is libellous, since it is untrue (or at least I have absolutely no reason to suppose that it is true).
I think Ken needs to be careful what he says. Now that would be a first.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205441\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
He gave you his reasons and evidence that from which he derived his conclusion. It's purely circumstantial, for sure. You would need to first prove definitively that his argument is knowingly untrue.
On the other hand, we can parse his position by putting it in the best argument form we can given the information, and then test it for validity and soundness:
His argument goes something like this, which is invalid:
(1) LL image quality test comparing digital to scanned negatives is wrong.
(2) It's easy to see that MF scanned negatives are much better in quality than the best digital file.
(3) Since it's easy to see this difference for anyone who understands photographic and digital principles that this is true, LL must be giving out bad information knowingly.
(4) One very good reason bad information like this would be given out by people who know better is that companies pay people to do it.
(5) Conclusion: LL is being paid by camera companies.
What I would do to refute this argument would be to attack the premises first. Is the information KR gives accurate and accepted? If not, then the entire argument fails and you need go no further with it. If so, then we need to look at the argument's form to make sure that even though the premises are true, the argument's conclusions follow a valid form, that is, don't make leaps.
So second, I would test the validity of the argument's form, since an argument can be valid and unsound, meaning the premise(s) are false, but the logic is sound. (e.g., Socrates was a man. All men are deers. Ergo, Socrates was a deer. False premise, with valid argument form. Everything follows with no leaps. In this case, the first premise's "predicate" is 'distributed" in the second and the second in the third (predicate logic). You can see the validity by exchanging "deer" with "mortal" or "All As, are B's. All Bs are Cs. Therefore, all As are Cs.)
We see here that KR's argument is unsound because his premises do not lead directly to his conclusion--that LL is paid off by camera companies does not follow directly from his premises (If LL is giving out bad information, there may be other reasons for giving bad information rather than being paid off).
So in summary, even if his information is correct, the argument does not follow to it's conclusion. But if his information is correct, it does call to question many things.
-
Seriously pale, that has to be the stupidest thing that I've ever read! Not to start anything! If you have the ability to read then you would have to know that the word "generally" is NOT a blanket statement especially not in the context of this discussion! A blanket statement covers everything, whereas generally covers a high percentage, I'm sorry if you can't understand the difference.
Why is it obvious to you that KR isn't stupid?
It would be fine to use a blanket statement if it were true, but I have noticed KR makes them constantly and gave just 2 examples. All new Ferraris are expensive, a blanket statement right? Is it accurate? It could be, it just depends on the person writing it and his/her perspective. TV makes you stupid is a stupid statement! Lens A is worthless if used on camera A, is the same, blanket statements that simply aren't true or accurate. My point (obviously you missed it) was that KR doesn't state generally speaking, most of the time, a high percentage of the time, etc. he makes blanket statements regarding everything from camera gear to tv watching.
I don't need to research intellectually deficient people, there's enough of them everywhere. It's ok to respond, but why not respond with something which makes sense?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205451\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
"It's ok to respond, but why not respond with something which makes sense?"
See my post on KR argument and how to refute it.
---------
I never took any of his statements to mean "ALL." If you take his statements to mean ALL, then he is simply wrong, but that does not make him intellectually deficient, or anyone else for that matter.
-
When I suggested scanning was superior I was referring to a direct scan, i.e. "scanning back", no film involved. My suggestion for a film -vs- digital comparison would be two similar (and similar sized) cameras, B&W, and "soft developing" the negative on the film side. This is critical in reducing the grain. It also is important to have the best possible optics so as to minimize that influence in the results.
-
And speaking of negatives, we haven't talked about comparing prints of all-film (chemical) processing -vs- scanning the negative and processing digitally from there.
-
It really amazes me that here, in mid-2008, there are still some people that maintain the image quality superiority of film. To me this simply shows that they have little real world experience. This was a heated topic back in 2001 - 2003 but has long since been laid to rest.
Are there still people shooting film and doing darkroom prints or making scans? Yes of course. Some simply like the process. That's cool. But most of the leading photographic schools, like RIT, now teach the chemical darkroom as an alternative process, not mainstream technology any longer.
Does anyone seriously think that the majority (I'm not saying all) of the world's leading fine art and commercial photographers use digital is simply because of convenience. Not!
No, pundits and knowledgeable reporters laid the digital vs film argument to rest some years ago. When leading large format fine art photographers like Charles Cramer and Alain Briot give up film for digital you know that the battle has been won, and it's all over except for a few die-hards who haven't yet gotten the message.
Now, if you'll please excuse me, I have to go to the mailbox and pick up this month's checks from the major camera makers, all of whom are paying me to preach the advantages of digital. And, if you want to see how effective that program is, go to any camera store in the world and compare the number of film cameras on the shelves to the number of digital cameras. Boy, I must be powerful.
Cheers,
Michael
Ps: I still own and use at least three film cameras, more for fun than anything else, and for when image quality is less important than fun or a special application. I use my Hasselblad / Imacon scanner, and curse every time when I have to spend an hour or more cleaning dust spots, but that's another story.
As for my chemical darkroom of 30+ years. Gone, finished, closed, no regrets.
-
It really amazes me that here, in mid-2008, there are still some people that maintain the image quality superiority of film. To me this simply shows that they have little real world experience. This was a heated topic back in 2001 - 2003 but has long since been laid to rest.
Here's a piece I did in 1999:
http://www.digitaldog.net/files/Filmvsdigital.pdf (http://www.digitaldog.net/files/Filmvsdigital.pdf)
Here's a better JPEG to see what was printed:
http://digitaldog.net/files/FilmVsDigital.jpg (http://digitaldog.net/files/FilmVsDigital.jpg)
Not a bad scanner used too (ScanMate 5000).
-
He gave you his reasons and evidence that from which he derived his conclusion. It's purely circumstantial, for sure. You would need to first prove definitively that his argument is knowingly untrue.
Not so, at least in the UK. In court it would be for Ken to prove that his statement are fact, and hence not libel. Assuming someone took him to court of course.
On the other hand, we can parse his position by putting it in the best argument form we can given the information, and then test it for validity and soundness:
His argument goes something like this, which is invalid:
(1) LL image quality test comparing digital to scanned negatives is wrong.
(2) It's easy to see that MF scanned negatives are much better in quality than the best digital file.
(3) Since it's easy to see this difference for anyone who understands photographic and digital principles that this is true, LL must be giving out bad information knowingly.
(4) One very good reason bad information like this would be given out by people who know better is that companies pay people to do it.
(5) Conclusion: LL is being paid by camera companies.
What I would do to refute this argument would be to attack the premises first. Is the information KR gives accurate and accepted? If not, then the entire argument fails and you need go no further with it. If so, then we need to look at the argument's form to make sure that even though the premises are true, the argument's conclusions follow a valid form, that is, don't make leaps.
So second, I would test the validity of the argument's form, since an argument can be valid and unsound, meaning the premise(s) are false, but the logic is sound. (e.g., Socrates was a man. All men are deers. Ergo, Socrates was a deer. False premise, with valid argument form. Everything follows with no leaps. In this case, the first premise's "predicate" is 'distributed" in the second and the second in the third (predicate logic). You can see the validity by exchanging "deer" with "mortal" or "All As, are B's. All Bs are Cs. Therefore, all As are Cs.)
We see here that KR's argument is unsound because his premises do not lead directly to his conclusion--that LL is paid off by camera companies does not follow directly from his premises (If LL is giving out bad information, there may be other reasons for giving bad information rather than being paid off).
So in summary, even if his information is correct, the argument does not follow to it's conclusion. But if his information is correct, it does call to question many things.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205454\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sorry but is there much point in giving Ken any credit? His methodology is so often completely half baked, and his statements so absurd, that it is not worth the time and effort.
My regret is that some people find him funny (humorous), and I never have done. I just find him rather sad.
-
Now, if you'll please excuse me, I have to go to the mailbox and pick up this month's checks from the major camera makers, all of whom are paying me to preach the advantages of digital. And, if you want to see how effective that program is, go to any camera store in the world and compare the number of film cameras on the shelves to the number of digital cameras. Boy, I must be powerful.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205477\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Can you PM me the contact-information of the guys at Canon, Nikon and Hasselblad who bribe you?
I've preached the advantages of digital for free so far, so I feel I deserve at least a free Mark III, D3(x) and H3D for my efforts too. :-D
-
Are there still people shooting film and doing darkroom prints or making scans? Yes of course. Some simply like the process. That's cool. But most of the leading photographic schools, like RIT, now teach the chemical darkroom as an alternative process, not mainstream technology any longer.
Speaking of which, we (RIT) just mothballed another 80 or so darkrooms... If anyone would like a good deal on a truckload of Omega 4x5 enlargers, lets talk!
Greg
-
Actually in my world I have a slightly different viewpoint.
As most major labs and institutions are mothballing their darkrooms , we in fact have increased the size of our darkrooms. We just installed a 55inch x 480inch wet sink to accomodat 4x8 ft fibre prints from enlargers and lambda.
We are still getting clients landing in Toronto and dropping off film and producing prints on enlargers to be exhibited .
Increasingly we are printing from digital files to fibre *wet* , in fact I think today digital prints outweigh the enlarger prints. But as I find that there still is those who do appreciate a crafted enlarger print and are willing to invest in film cameras and wait for the results.
I have been working in both area's as a exhibition and portfolio printer for 20 odd years in TO and as Michael points out the conversion to digital is a done deal. No argument .
But I strongly believe there is a place for both in the ** art ** and ** commercial ** world .
In fact I think most of the best advances are when digital and wet technology is combined, and that is where I believe we are headed.
As an aside,
The major schools should take a moment to pause and keep some of the darkrooms open, my bet is the ones that do will attract the new wave of students.
Colour Carbon prints off digital negs , I think will pass the grade with any one on this form , I think.
Today , I just spent two hours at a local highschool accessing their needs for enlargers, sinks, and digital printers. All which we will donate to a very appreciative Principle and dedicated photography teacher.
Those who feel film cameras are obsolete and useless are more than welcome to donate any and all film cameras, 35-8x10. as well any digital slrs are also very welcome.
send me a email at bob@elevatordigital.ca and I will make sure all this equipment gets into the hands of some very appreciative students.
ps. I too shoot famly snaps and vacation snaps, but I use a digital point and shoot for this and keep the Noblex and Fuji 6x9 loaded with HP5 for the art prints.
It really amazes me that here, in mid-2008, there are still some people that maintain the image quality superiority of film. To me this simply shows that they have little real world experience. This was a heated topic back in 2001 - 2003 but has long since been laid to rest.
Are there still people shooting film and doing darkroom prints or making scans? Yes of course. Some simply like the process. That's cool. But most of the leading photographic schools, like RIT, now teach the chemical darkroom as an alternative process, not mainstream technology any longer.
Does anyone seriously think that the majority (I'm not saying all) of the world's leading fine art and commercial photographers use digital is simply because of convenience. Not!
No, pundits and knowledgeable reporters laid the digital vs film argument to rest some years ago. When leading large format fine art photographers like Charles Cramer and Alain Briot give up film for digital you know that the battle has been won, and it's all over except for a few die-hards who haven't yet gotten the message.
Now, if you'll please excuse me, I have to go to the mailbox and pick up this month's checks from the major camera makers, all of whom are paying me to preach the advantages of digital. And, if you want to see how effective that program is, go to any camera store in the world and compare the number of film cameras on the shelves to the number of digital cameras. Boy, I must be powerful.
Cheers,
Michael
Ps: I still own and use at least three film cameras, more for fun than anything else, and for when image quality is less important than fun or a special application. I use my Hasselblad / Imacon scanner, and curse every time when I have to spend an hour or more cleaning dust spots, but that's another story.
As for my chemical darkroom of 30+ years. Gone, finished, closed, no regrets.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205477\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
As an aside,
The major schools should take a moment to pause and keep some of the darkrooms open, my bet is the ones that do will attract the new wave of students.
Colour Carbon prints off digital negs , I think will pass the grade with any one on this form , I think.
We’re not doing away with darkrooms entirely, just reclaiming/repurposing space to deal with curricular changes and current technology. We started out with ~185 darkrooms when the building was opened in the late 60’s. I’m aiming for around 35-40 to remain in service for the foreseeable future. We will also maintain our E-6 and C-41 machines until utilization bottoms out and we can’t run enough film to keep them in control... RA-4 will be around indefinitely to support our Lambda.
So this is more about accepting and dealing with mainstream reality in the marketplace. If our students want to use film cameras and take elective classes in stuff like C printing and the Zone System, they will still have the option. Back in the spring, we received a generous donation of M series cameras from the principal owner of Leica to help perpetuate the teaching of film-based photography. And we still have quite a fleet of 4x5’s.
But to be honest, we’re talking about a digital generation (all of our incoming students grew up with computers and Photoshop) and for the most part, they have very little interest in analog processes...
Greg
-
But to be honest, we’re talking about a digital generation (all of our incoming students grew up with computers and Photoshop) and for the most part, they have very little interest in analog processes...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205513\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Little interest and expect for historical purposes, little need. Its useful to provide as a historical context, but for practical knowledge in a horrendously difficult business to make a living at, is teaching film any more useful (outside of history) compared to teaching Photography capture on glass? Or having prepress students learn manual stripping or design students learning PageMaker?
-
Little interest and expect for historical purposes, little need. Its useful to provide as a historical context, but for practical knowledge in a horrendously difficult business to make a living at, is teaching film any more useful (outside of history) compared to teaching Photography capture on glass? Or having prepress students learn manual stripping or design students learning PageMaker?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205518\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I know (indirectly) several people doing photography degrees in the UK, and both a doing lots of film, and not so much digital. I have the impression that the teachers are well out of date.
-
I am a member of two other film forums , APUG and Large Format, total membership of over 40k. Thats a hell of a lot of people still shooting film and loving the process.
Though small by comparison to digital , film is a niche, viable, prosperous vocation for myself and staff.
I remember the days of a Lisle Camera *1983* before Lambda, Lightjet, Lightroom and mainstream PS.
Driven by a sequence array of commands that then pushed stepper motors of a overhead frontlight and backlight process camera. This system broke down every three days and in the day was over 400k to purchase.
The Manual Masks were hand stripped to lay over film to do montage, multiple image composites that today can be accomplished in one hour what would take back then two days. All of the blending , masking , selections that we find so easy today came from this history.
I think there is major lessons to be learned from those film days as well 40 thousand film and darkroom users can't be all wrong.
The best imaging is still to come and I believe it will include film. Specifically in high end separations off laser exposing devices to be laid down on Historic processes.
I am very interested in a digital back for large format to produce images to separate and make alternative prints. I think I will wait a year or two as prices and options become more practical.
-
I think there is major lessons to be learned from those film days as well 40 thousand film and darkroom users can't be all wrong.
I don't think anyone is saying they are wrong. 40K is a drop in the bucket too. But its not right or wrong. Its what's appropriate to teach and support. Its no more wrong than how the Amish prefer to handle their transportation. But I don't think anyone is suggesting that due to that mindset, schools should be scaling back transportation design majors and instead teaching classes in fixing carriages or how to clean horse hoofs.
The film, darkroom process isn't dead, its just terminal. Its the opposite of a growth market and as such, with today's economy, what manufacturers can continue to support it and for how long? It will be a smaller and smaller niche market, being harder for those who wish to use it to find support and the products to purchase and/or the cost will be very high. What's different about this than what we saw with dye transfer? I'm sure someone out there is still doing it, from supplies they hoarded when they were smart enough to see the writing on the wall. Didn't make them wrong, just in a market that wasn't well (or at all) supported.
-
I would totally agree with your sentiments if I felt that the film and wet paper industry is dead.
But from my vantage point I actually see a growth in fibre wet printing.
2002 our lab produced the first mural show that combined laser *lambda exposure* onto photographic paper*agfa classic*.
2005 Harmon Group introduced their wet paper version and four labs worldwide started using this product. Picto - Paris , Metro Imaging - UK , Lamont Imaging - New York and Elevator - Canada.
since this time other labs are introducing this product line, including Dalmation Labs- USA, Duggal USA to name a few.
The paper is Ilford Galerie grade 4 with an extended red sensitivety. As well an Agfa emulsion has been beta tested and will be on the market in Sept 08.
Basically an analoque product maximised for laser exposure from digital files.
Finishing is the exact same as enlarger prints with the same archival attributes.
I would imagine all these operations in different parts of the world see the oportunnities in wet chemical technology that indeed requires a darkroom.
My guess is Universities with Lambdas will soon follow suit and embrace the joining of digital and analoque methods for the digital aware young students.
-
... Blanket statements are generally written by people who are intellectually deficient!...
Problem with blanket statements is not that they are "generally written by people who are intellectually deficient" (highly debatable anyway). The problem is that they are often read by "intellectually deficient" readers, who tend to take them at face value, i.e., literally. "Intellectually deficient" readers are also more likely to be unaware of certain figures of speech, notably the one known as hyperbole, in which, according to Wikipedia, "...statements are exaggerated. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, and is not meant to be taken literally. Hyperbole is used to create emphasis. It is a literary device often used in poetry, and is frequently encountered in casual speech...."
-
I read Rockwell's site from time to time - for entertainment mostly, with a mixture of way off base comments (and ridiculous comments especially if there is implied or other criticism of Luminous Landscape on ethics!!) with some bits (bytes ?:-) of good information here and there.
I believe the post that started this thread quoted from Rockwell this statement "As I keep trying to say, if all you want is 13 x 19" inkjet prints made on a $700 Epson by all means get an $8,000 1Ds. If you want to feel the texture of every grain of sand on a 40 x 60" print, stick with 4 x 5" as photographers do."
Does anyone really disagree with that opinion - i.e. that the technical quality that can be obtained from 4x5" film (using the best analog methods or best scanning) will be superior to a DSLR (i.e. 35mm size sensor with 16mp for example)? That is, the statement is not comparing 4x5" film to the results from a medium format back (such as Michael uses, and used for some good technical comparison tests published on LL).
So, when many people say digital is superior to film, it would help to say what format of film is being compared to what size of digital sensor.
I used to shoot large format (4x5 to 8x10) color landscapes, and eventually dropped LF entirely and now use a full-frame DSLR because I rarely print larger than 13x19", and the results for me are only slightly inferior to 4x5, and there's no comparison to convenience, ongoing costs, and spontaneity (and for most shots the use of view camera movements is not important to me). At larger print sizes there is no comparison and film (4x5 or larger) wins big time over DLSR images, as long as the scan is very good. And, taking a 6x or higher power loupe to a 4x5" transparency or neg and comparing the amount of detail seen to that viewed from a DSLR file on a computer screen, there is no comparison - the 4x5 is in a totally superior league to the DSLR. So, on this one particular point, I would have to agree with Rockwell's statement.
-
Little interest and expect for historical purposes, little need. Its useful to provide as a historical context, but for practical knowledge in a horrendously difficult business to make a living at, is teaching film any more useful (outside of history) compared to teaching Photography capture on glass? Or having prepress students learn manual stripping or design students learning PageMaker?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205518\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I disagree...I think most of us here started on film cameras and the one thing we all gained from that process was previsualising light. Rather than the instant feedback of digital, we had to 'look' and 'read' the light in a scene much more carefully. Through a lot of trial and error, crappy shots, mistakes I think ,even now shooting with my 5D, my skills of composition, 'reading' of light quality, and creative vision have been enhanced by using film.
I often see a lot of weak work by the young 20 somethings starting on digital. They often go for the 'whizz bang' of crazy color saturations and 'shoot from the hip' chance compositions ,but lack much depth or scrutiny of repeated viewings.
-
I disagree...I think most of us here started on film cameras and the one thing we all gained from that process was previsualising light.
That requires film? How so? Sounds like the old time, macho school of learning. So instead of using instant evaluation of the image on an LCD (or 60 seconds with a "Roid"), we need to labor in a stinky darkroom to learn about previsulizing? I'm not buying it, but if you do, fine.
-
It really amazes me that here, in mid-2008, there are still some people that maintain the image quality superiority of film. To me this simply shows that they have little real world experience. This was a heated topic back in 2001 - 2003 but has long since been laid to rest.
Are there still people shooting film and doing darkroom prints or making scans? Yes of course. Some simply like the process. That's cool. But most of the leading photographic schools, like RIT, now teach the chemical darkroom as an alternative process, not mainstream technology any longer.
Does anyone seriously think that the majority (I'm not saying all) of the world's leading fine art and commercial photographers use digital is simply because of convenience. Not!
No, pundits and knowledgeable reporters laid the digital vs film argument to rest some years ago. When leading large format fine art photographers like Charles Cramer and Alain Briot give up film for digital you know that the battle has been won, and it's all over except for a few die-hards who haven't yet gotten the message.
Now, if you'll please excuse me, I have to go to the mailbox and pick up this month's checks from the major camera makers, all of whom are paying me to preach the advantages of digital. And, if you want to see how effective that program is, go to any camera store in the world and compare the number of film cameras on the shelves to the number of digital cameras. Boy, I must be powerful.
Cheers,
Michael
Ps: I still own and use at least three film cameras, more for fun than anything else, and for when image quality is less important than fun or a special application. I use my Hasselblad / Imacon scanner, and curse every time when I have to spend an hour or more cleaning dust spots, but that's another story.
As for my chemical darkroom of 30+ years. Gone, finished, closed, no regrets.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205477\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I believe you are not taking him too seriously... He is using specific topics like Film vs Digital at the right time..... just before the release of 50MP hehehehehe.... and obviously for personal reasons!!! His blog/website doesn't stand a chance and is far from being at the level of LL in every respect and I think we all know that!!!
Furthermore, I think it's fair to say that the guy is amusing and we give him that much
-
After reading two sentences written by krockwell, most adults should know why he has a website.
HOWEVER, before those of you who have never published *any* test/comparison results continue heaping disrespect on Roger Clark, I'd suggest you find out just how much more he knows than *you*. (I not-at-all humbly admit I fit that category).
He is - *literally* - a rocket scientist.
He works/has worked for NASA, doing *digital* imaging.
If you don't like how he compared film to digital, (and it's clear, if you can comprehend the at-most three-syllable words he uses, that he prefers digital) then grow some male appendages, and post your own, contradictory, results.
I'll be here, listening to the crickets chirp away.
-
As someone who posted in respectful disagreement of Clark's test methods, I find the language in your post unnecessarily provocative and perhaps better suited to some alternative forums?
I don't need to do any scientific testing of the fact that Clark's DR test is biased towards the strengths of digital and against the strengths of negative film. That is my one and only complaint. I see this every day when I look through film prints rescued from overexposed negatives, and then delete multiple RAW files due to a couple stops overexposure. I agree entirely with the fact that digital has superior shadow range, and may even have greater overall range, but anyone who has used both side by side can't ignore that negative film has an advantage in the highlights. If you want the scientific, definitive tests demonstrating this, I don't have to produce them myself (I lack the resources anyways). They've already been placed on the internet, and in fact posted in this very thread: Test (http://www.janrik.net/MiscSubj/2007/FilmVsDSLRTests20070528/A_Comparison_of_Film_and_DSLR_Images.html)
Clark may be literally a rocket scientist, but that doesn't stop me from finding this second test to be far more balanced. It illuminates the strengths and weaknesses of both mediums. I'm not saying that Clark intentionally biased his test. But that specific section is biased nonetheless. I fully respect that he prefers digital and agree that digital has surpassed film in nearly all ways. I'm just pointing out a small but important error, not attacking his preferences or integrity.
On a sidenote, would you care to post any test results demonstrating that the posession or lack of male reproductive organs enables one to post test results contradicting those of another?
-
That requires film? How so? Sounds like the old time, macho school of learning. So instead of using instant evaluation of the image on an LCD (or 60 seconds with a "Roid"), we need to labor in a stinky darkroom to learn about previsulizing? I'm not buying it, but if you do, fine.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205582\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well... because we had to be careful of what we took is the simplest answer.Getting exposure right for one. As well...when you only had a roll of 24 or 36 you'd make damn sure you got it right the first time.
I never mentioned darkroom, and I dont see what machismo or age has anything to do with it. I suppose you are one of those that didn't shoot film I take it....as you are not 'buying it'.Young whippersnapper..lol
-
Problem with blanket statements is not that they are "generally written by people who are intellectually deficient" (highly debatable anyway). The problem is that they are often read by "intellectually deficient" readers, who tend to take them at face value, i.e., literally. "Intellectually deficient" readers are also more likely to be unaware of certain figures of speech, notably the one known as hyperbole, in which, according to Wikipedia, "...statements are exaggerated. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, and is not meant to be taken literally. Hyperbole is used to create emphasis. It is a literary device often used in poetry, and is frequently encountered in casual speech...."
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205544\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I wrote the exact same thing last night in response to this statement, but thought it would just be obfuscated.
-
I read Rockwell's site from time to time - for entertainment mostly, with a mixture of way off base comments (and ridiculous comments especially if there is implied or other criticism of Luminous Landscape on ethics!!) with some bits (bytes ?:-) of good information here and there.
I believe the post that started this thread quoted from Rockwell this statement "As I keep trying to say, if all you want is 13 x 19" inkjet prints made on a $700 Epson by all means get an $8,000 1Ds. If you want to feel the texture of every grain of sand on a 40 x 60" print, stick with 4 x 5" as photographers do."
Does anyone really disagree with that opinion - i.e. that the technical quality that can be obtained from 4x5" film (using the best analog methods or best scanning) will be superior to a DSLR (i.e. 35mm size sensor with 16mp for example)? That is, the statement is not comparing 4x5" film to the results from a medium format back (such as Michael uses, and used for some good technical comparison tests published on LL).
So, when many people say digital is superior to film, it would help to say what format of film is being compared to what size of digital sensor.
I used to shoot large format (4x5 to 8x10) color landscapes, and eventually dropped LF entirely and now use a full-frame DSLR because I rarely print larger than 13x19", and the results for me are only slightly inferior to 4x5, and there's no comparison to convenience, ongoing costs, and spontaneity (and for most shots the use of view camera movements is not important to me). At larger print sizes there is no comparison and film (4x5 or larger) wins big time over DLSR images, as long as the scan is very good. And, taking a 6x or higher power loupe to a 4x5" transparency or neg and comparing the amount of detail seen to that viewed from a DSLR file on a computer screen, there is no comparison - the 4x5 is in a totally superior league to the DSLR. So, on this one particular point, I would have to agree with Rockwell's statement.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205548\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I said that exact same thing but I don't think people want to hear it. Once again, the comparison from RW site is a 4x5 negative scanned compared to ANY digital image all things being equal (exposure, etc.). The reason is that the negative will have more detail than the digital, and when scanned into digital, the scanner, if good enough, will out resolve a digital image by taking the information from the negative. That digital image will be superior because the scanner can scan more information from the 4x5 negative than a digital camera can record.
This is the argument:
1. High end scanners can record more detail form a 4x5 negative than digital cameras can produce on their own.
2. If you want the most detail in your images that you can get for the price, buying a scanner and 4x5 film camera will produce more detail and do it cheaper than an 8,000US digital camera, or even a 30, 000.
3. If someone tells you this is not true, here is my evidence [see KR site].
4. [We ignore the reference to being paid off by camera companies because that is another argument which I have already covered.]
5. Therefore, scanned 4x5 negatives will produce vastly better images than digital cameras, until digital cameras can out resolve scanners.
Caveat: This image superiority will most likely not be noticeable with images 13x19 and smaller.
When you clean out all of KR's hyperbole, his argument sounds valid and sound, but I have vastly less technical experience than most of you, so how about a valid and sound argument refuting his argument?
-
Ken, who I think is great fun, seems to be saying two things
54 film is better than a single digital capture from the DSLRs affordable by most people
TRUE
Film transitions to 'blown highlights' in a more pleasant manner
TRUE
I would add that film doesnt Moiree and digital noise is, to many, less aesthetically pleasing than grain
I would also add that using 200ISO in the sun with flash (which you need to stop those horrid highlights) stuck at 250th of a second can kill digtial images by forcing the selection of F16 - no worries with film you grab a roll of 50ISO
Personally I can live with that stuff compared to the pain of taking film exposure to output
SMM
-
One important thing missing in the scanning suggestions is "what are we scanning?" i.e. you can increase the resolution of the scan all you want, but are you getting more *useful* detail? Someone needs to do some side-by-sides and compare analog apples to digital apples. And in those comparisons, could we compare typical color images as well as max. resolution B&W images?
-
One important thing missing in the scanning suggestions is "what are we scanning?" i.e. you can increase the resolution of the scan all you want, but are you getting more *useful* detail? Someone needs to do some side-by-sides and compare analog apples to digital apples. And in those comparisons, could we compare typical color images as well as max. resolution B&W images?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205643\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think the fact is that there is much more information on a film negative than there is in a digital capture using consumer cameras. If you can extract that information, then you get a better image when converted to digital.
-
He is - *literally* - a rocket scientist.
He works/has worked for NASA, doing *digital* imaging.
Well he says so. But he's certainly no color scientist based on my readings of his opinions of color management which are simply way off base. So for me, it's difficult to take his other ideas seriously or really believe he's anything more than the janitor at NASA.
-
Well... because we had to be careful of what we took is the simplest answer.Getting exposure right for one. As well...when you only had a roll of 24 or 36 you'd make damn sure you got it right the first time.
I'm still not really buying that. And the exposure information on the back of the LCD is a big fat lie if you're shooting Raw anyway.
There is something to be said for the talent of those who worked before us on equipment technology we find prehistoric. I shot the Olympus games for the LAOOC in 1984 using film, Canons with motor drives, NO auto focus. I was amazed at the historical sports images shot with sheet film of the past and couldn't believe how difficult that must have been compared to what I was using. And I think how much easier it must be today to shoot sports with digital capture and have instead feedback, really great auto focus. But I don't know that the great sports photographers of today (or any talented photographer of today) is any less a photographer because their mode of capture makes some aspects faster and easier. In the end, its the person behind the camera as we all know.
At some point, you have to decide what's appropriate technology to teach and use. I don't think using dated equipment makes you a better shooter.
-
One important thing missing in the scanning suggestions is "what are we scanning?" i.e. you can increase the resolution of the scan all you want, but are you getting more *useful* detail?
So true. There's a huge difference in the quality of a scan even between what are arguably excellent film scanners. I sat down years ago with Bill Atkinson when he said he wanted a demo of an Imacon. He's got a Tango drum scanner. There simply was no way I could pull out the subtle highlight detail in his film on the Imacon to match his Tango drum scan. Night and day. And the Imacon (at the time, an 848) was a pretty good representation of what many photographers thought was a great scanner. Well it's good, its no Tango.
As for the highlight in film comments, I find it interesting in that film has an H&D curve, digital capture is linear. Half of all the data is in the first stop of highlight. Are those doing these comparisons shooting correctly for Raw (ETTR)? Or are they crippling the digital from the exposure stage?
-
I disagree...I think most of us here started on film cameras and the one thing we all gained from that process was previsualising light. Rather than the instant feedback of digital, we had to 'look' and 'read' the light in a scene much more carefully. Through a lot of trial and error, crappy shots, mistakes I think ,even now shooting with my 5D, my skills of composition, 'reading' of light quality, and creative vision have been enhanced by using film.
I often see a lot of weak work by the young 20 somethings starting on digital. They often go for the 'whizz bang' of crazy color saturations and 'shoot from the hip' chance compositions ,but lack much depth or scrutiny of repeated viewings.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205576\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As I understand it many pros are having to become media stars in order to earn a good living. Whereas in the past good photography was enough, now so many amateurs are producing excellent shots, and distributing them for free, or at low prices, that stock work does not generate the income it once did.
Photography has become easier, and I don't think that is a bad thing. For example some of the insect photos taken by amateurs at the UK Butterflies charity web site are superb. Yes some amateurs do produce badly composed technically poor images and think that all they have to do to get a masterpiece is 'crank up' the saturation to 11. But many produce superb work. I see no advantage to film, unless you like the film look, and that can be simulated.
I find digital so much more convenient. I no longer have to keep a notebook and record shooting details as they are in the image EXIF data.
-
One important thing missing in the scanning suggestions is "what are we scanning?" i.e. you can increase the resolution of the scan all you want, but are you getting more *useful* detail? Someone needs to do some side-by-sides and compare analog apples to digital apples. And in those comparisons, could we compare typical color images as well as max. resolution B&W images?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=205643\")
Much of the work you recommend has already been done by [a href=\"http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/scandetail.html#digicamres2]Roger Clark[/url]. By way of comparison, it is interesting to compare the detail in the area of interest in Roger's 4 by 5 inch scan to the examples from a digital scanning back posted here. (http://www.betterlight.com/fullRes_zoomifyLIST.html)
Rockwell disses Michael's megapixel shootout testing methods, but by comparison his own tests methods are a joke. He does manage to demonstrate that a 4 by 5 inch film scan has more image detail than an image obtained with an old 6MP digital camera. Then he goes on to make statements not supported by any data.
Ken apparently overexposes his digital images and complains about burned out highlights, which he states are less a problem with film. With the broad shoulder of negative film that might be true, but in another area of his post he states that by film he means Velvia. Now Velvia has a much more restricted dynamic range than digital, and his assertion here makes no sense.
While his posts make for some interesting and colorful reading, he tends to overstate his case. Most serious photographers do not use Ken as a reliable source of information. After all, he says that your camera doesn't matter.
Bill
-
Well... because we had to be careful of what we took is the simplest answer.Getting exposure right for one. As well...when you only had a roll of 24 or 36 you'd make damn sure you got it right the first time.
I never mentioned darkroom, and I dont see what machismo or age has anything to do with it. I suppose you are one of those that didn't shoot film I take it....as you are not 'buying it'.Young whippersnapper..lol
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205627\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It does sound like machismo along the lines of "We 'ad it 'ard when I were lad". You still have to get things right. You still have to get up early if you want to find sleepy insects, or walk for miles to find the rare insect you were hoping to find. Or work damned hard to find a good landscape composition and be there at the right time of day when the light is good. The idea that film helps you visualise is nonsense. It's just that the tools are in most respects better. And that is not a bad thing.
As as aside, some people argue that view cameras force you to slow down, and think, and I would not disagree with that. But I have no problem using a DSLR, and thinking, and I am not alone.
-
I think the fact is that there is much more information on a film negative than there is in a digital capture using consumer cameras. If you can extract that information, then you get a better image when converted to digital.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205651\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If you mean a 35mm slide compared to a DX/FX ~12MP camera, then no, that is incorrect.
-
This is the argument:
1. High end scanners can record more detail form a 4x5 negative than digital cameras can produce on their own.
2. If you want the most detail in your images that you can get for the price, buying a scanner and 4x5 film camera will produce more detail and do it cheaper than an 8,000US digital camera, or even a 30, 000.
3. If someone tells you this is not true, here is my evidence [see KR site].
4. [We ignore the reference to being paid off by camera companies because that is another argument which I have already covered.]
5. Therefore, scanned 4x5 negatives will produce vastly better images than digital cameras, until digital cameras can out resolve scanners.
Caveat: This image superiority will most likely not be noticeable with images 13x19 and smaller.
You can't argue with the above because it's so undefined! Lets look at a few:
"High end scanners can record more detail form a 4x5 negative than digital cameras can produce on their own."
Define high end scanner? I just posted above how two so called high end scanners produced huge differences in the scan. Who's opinion of high end? CCD or PMT? Oil mounted? Who did the scan and did they know how to use the software. In the wrong hands, anyone can make a scan on a "high end" scanner that sucks and digital "wins". The scan is critical to the evaluation here. How can someone argue film is "better" when scanned considering a hugely critical part of the process is so undefined? And was the film shot correctly for scanning or looking pretty on a light box? Was the digital shot for optimal quality (ETTR) and what Raw converter and end user? What about sharpening? In scanner or converter? So someone wants to write a definitive analysis of which is better using one sentence and boneheads boggle it up as it its the word of god?
Ken certainly doesn't act (write or investigate) like a scientist, rocket or otherwise.
"If you want the most detail in your images that you can get for the price, buying a scanner and 4x5 film camera will produce more detail and do it cheaper than an 8,000US digital camera, or even a 30, 000"
Again, at face value, that's rubbish. Does the person making this statement have any idea the cost of a good drum scanner like a Tango (let alone the maintenance agreements)? And who's defining detail? All that non image forming grain is or isn't detail?
"5. Therefore, scanned 4x5 negatives will produce vastly better images than digital cameras, until digital cameras can out resolve scanners. "
Most "experts" (at least those with scientific bkgnds I respect, Ken not one) suggest that scanning film over 3000ppi or so buys you nothing in terms of data. You're resolved down to the film grain. But again, huge difference in what you get with a 3000, lets even say 5000ppi scan off a PMT drum, oil/gel mounted and a CCD scanner using a decent lens (Imacon). So who's to say digital can't out resolve the scanner? Where's Ken's science?
-
Well he says so. But he's certainly no color scientist based on my readings of his opinions of color management which are simply way off base. So for me, it's difficult to take his other ideas seriously or really believe he's anything more than the janitor at NASA.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=205674\")
If you take the trouble to read Roger's bibliography, you would see that he has published more than 200 articles in peer reviewed scientific journals. By way of comparison, how many such articles have you published? Hint: articles in Digital PhotoPro magazine do not count here.
[a href=\"http://www.clarkvision.com/rnc/publist.html]Clark Bibliography[/url]
I have read most of Roger's posts on his website and very few deal with color management. Can you give an example of where he is way off base? In any event, his area of expertise is not in color management.
-
As someone who posted in respectful disagreement
[Then my issue was not with you...]
I see this every day when I look through film prints rescued from overexposed negatives, and then delete multiple RAW files due to a couple stops overexposure.
[Please post samples, so that *I* can learn more! (And thanks for the film/digi link, I had not seen it prior.]
On a sidenote, would you care to post any test results demonstrating that the posession or lack of male reproductive organs enables one to post test results contradicting those of another?
[I would, but you would never overcome the shock...
-
Well he says so. But he's certainly no color scientist based on my readings of his opinions of color management which are simply way off base. So for me, it's difficult to take his other ideas seriously or really believe he's anything more than the janitor at NASA.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205674\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The same type of reasoning leads me to the conclusion that, though you are an author, your snarky comments indicate that your book is worthless.
BTW, Dan Margulis was right, you were wrong.
-
A fun discussion. But I think many take Mr. Rockwell too seriously, and then, not seriously enough.
Sure, he often likes to say something that sounds kind of off the wall, but then if you read what he really says (ie. the whole article) he usually makes sense.
Take his point about shooting landscapes, comparing a 35mm sized digital camera to a 4x5 film camera. He's right, the 4x5 images will have more detail for less money. Not a bad observation.
I have a Canon 5D which I like, but I noticed right away that for landscapes, I can get more image quality (the qualities that matter to me) with my 6x9 film camera.
Of course for shooting fast things or in low light or without a tripod, the 5D is the superior choice with image quality that comes close, but does not equal the 6x9 film scanned.
I don't understand the comments though about the reviewers on the payroll of the camera companies. That's just kind of dumb, but the rest of what he says usually makes sense...
-
I don't understand the comments though about the reviewers on the payroll of the camera companies. That's just kind of dumb, but the rest of what he says usually makes sense...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205711\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's not just dumb, it's rude and even libelous.
But he's clearly not worth exerting any energy over, so let's let the whole thing die, which is what it deserves.
Michael
-
I wasnt saying shooting film makes you a better photographer. It simply hones the skill of previsualisation of light. What you do with that, with whatever tool, makes you the better photographer.I ,personally, don't see the point of shooting film any longer, but I do think my skills as a photographer were improved by using those prehistoric beasts. I had a camera that had no focus finder, and I had to guesstimate distances. I can now do that quite well...and has come in handy a few times ,with my 5d even.
As far as Ken's statement of photographer's like MR being on the 'payroll' of camera companites. A statement like that is NOT libel. He would have to cite a specific photographer and company. It is a broad blanket statement (he does it all the time of course).
Doesn't MR get access to new photo equipment by the camera manufacturers? For review...and (of course beneficial to the manufacturer) exposure on his website?
Just curious.
-
Doesn't MR get access to new photo equipment by the camera manufacturers? For review...and (of course beneficial to the manufacturer) exposure on his website?
Just curious.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205727\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Enough already?
-
If you take the trouble to read Roger's bibliography, you would see that he has published more than 200 articles in peer reviewed scientific journals.
If you took the time to read what I wrote, I was referring to Ken.
By way of comparison, how many such articles have you published? Hint: articles in Digital PhotoPro magazine do not count here.
Clark Bibliography (http://www.clarkvision.com/rnc/publist.html)
I'm not sure why articles in DPP don't count. But considering the articles I wrote monthly for PEI Mag dating back to the early 1990s, then and now PPA Mag, PDN, Publish, Photoshop User, Electronic Publishing, Digital Output, MacWeek, etc, I think its at well over 100 (I actually haven't counted nor have seen the need).
-
Ken the scientist (Rocket or otherwise):
I know this stuff. Did you know I conceived the world's first dedicated digital colorspace converter chip, the TMC2272, back in 1990 when I worked at TRW LSI Products? I've been working with the matrix math, hardware and software that does this for decades. I also coined the word "gigacolors," for use with 36-bit and 48-bit color data. I was only kidding, but the word is still used. TRW LSI was a small, ultra-creative division of TRW, and I got away putting the same mirth I use on this website into the datasheets I wrote. The industry copied us and the word lives on.
From the piece on color management which I'd find easy to dismiss:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/adobe-rgb.htm (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/adobe-rgb.htm)
-
Well Michael, can you validly refute his positions? It's a fair thing to ask.
Of course there is no way to "prove" his comment about you being in the pocket of camera makers because he has no evidence. His was just an assertion that can be dismissed for the same reasons yours above can: no evidence, no argument. Forget about that comment unless he can shoulder up the evidence. The burden of evidence is always on the person asserting "x". So that's a non issue.
I'm taking about his position of the MF vs digital using a scanner. Show us how beyond the pale he is. I would like to see a step by step refutation of his points on this issue. I could care less about Ken Rockwell's personality, but we should all try to use valid counter arguments, right?
If he is beyond the pale and worth stating that he is "beyond the pale" then I would think (maybe I'm wrong) that you would offer a valid counter argument to his?
The only motivation I have for the above is that I want to learn about this. That's it.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=205429\")
Doug -
Please don't take offense, but the articles you linked to in the OP are laughable. You've been around here long enough to know that Michael cares about IQ and does real world tests all the time. Just buy this DVD and you'll have all the answers to your questions
[a href=\"http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/back-testing.shtml]http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/back-testing.shtml[/url]
Will a great scan of a properly exposed 4x5 negative hold up better under a loupe than the same shot with a Canon d30? Sure, but with today's 12+ megapixel DSLRs and normal print sizes at normal viewing distances. There's little to be desired from film. I've watched your progression from newbie on these boards to someone who is actually making money doing this. I commend your drive and commitment however, I think you would be better off spending more time on vision and less on technique. I am a horrid photographer who gets lucky every few months with a decent shot, but as a musician, I can make something great with inferior tools.
This is not a debate about camera vs photographer, just simply a suggestion that you might want to spend as much energy into your artistic vision as you do in your technical vision. Again, this is no meant to be offensive or even a critique as I've seen you site several times and you do have some very nice images. This is advice I give to many students when they ask how a particular drummer gets his sound. 9 times out of 10, it's because he knows how to play the instrument, not because it's a better instrument.
I find that in the real world, a great image would never be any greater by squeezing that last bit of resolution out of it. Sure there's a big gap between an entry level point and shoot and a drum scanned 4x5, but not so much between a 1dsIII and that same scan.
Michael proves this point throughout this website, it's in almost every review if you are willing to look for it. I can't think of a review where he doesn't mention how a camera stacks up in real world prints. I've never had an image worthy of a print larger that 13x19", once I do, then I'll start to focus on how to get better print quality. You seem satisfied with Costco's output, which has very little dynamic range when compared to a good inkjet print. I use them all the time and wish I could have better, but as a hobbyist, it suits my needs perfectly.
In the words of KR, this is all my opinion, and it's only worth whatever you want to take from it. I for one, get a great deal of knowledge and advice from this site and get all my technical answers from the reviews at DPreview. Would I like a 1dsIII - sure, but I'd have to sell one of my many vintage drumkits first, and I'd never get a better print than I do from my current 40D as 95% of my prints are 8x10s.
Joe
-
If you took the time to read what I wrote, I was referring to Ken.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205749\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As the following quotes clearly show any reasonable person would infer that your comments were addressed to Roger Clark. It is Dr. Clark who works on NASA projects and is literally a rocket scientist.
After reading two sentences written by krockwell, most adults should know why he has a website.
HOWEVER, before those of you who have never published *any* test/comparison results continue heaping disrespect on Roger Clark, I'd suggest you find out just how much more he knows than *you*. (I not-at-all humbly admit I fit that category).
He is - *literally* - a rocket scientist.
He works/has worked for NASA, doing *digital* imaging.
If you don't like how he compared film to digital, (and it's clear, if you can comprehend the at-most three-syllable words he uses, that he prefers digital) then grow some male appendages, and post your own, contradictory, results.
I'll be here, listening to the crickets chirp away.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205609\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well he says so. But he's certainly no color scientist based on my readings of his opinions of color management which are simply way off base. So for me, it's difficult to take his other ideas seriously or really believe he's anything more than the janitor at NASA.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205674\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm not sure why articles in DPP don't count. But considering the articles I wrote monthly for PEI Mag dating back to the early 1990s, then and now PPA Mag, PDN, Publish, Photoshop User, Electronic Publishing, Digital Output, MacWeek, etc, I think its at well over 100 (I actually haven't counted nor have seen the need).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205749\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
None of those articles are in peer reviewed scientific journals and none would earn you tenure at a university or recognition in the scientific community. In these circles, the number of publications is important.
-
Doesn't MR get access to new photo equipment by the camera manufacturers? For review...and (of course beneficial to the manufacturer) exposure on his website?
Just curious.
Sure I get gear for review, on loan, just as do dozens if not hundreds of other magazine and web journalists around the world each month.
What's your point? Does "access" in your mind equate to being somehow beholden to or "bought". Come one! Really.
When I write a negative review, which I do often enough, does that mean I have to pay them?
No reply needed. This is simply too tedious.
Michael
-
deleted
-
None of those articles are in peer reviewed scientific journals and none would earn you tenure at a university or recognition in the scientific community.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205758\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Oh, I see. So every such magazine or even web site with information should be dismissed because they are not peer reviewed scientific journals and the authors of such articles are not looking for tenure at a university, so we'll just dismiss them.
In these circles, the number of publications is important.
Apparently they are important to you. Maybe you could suggest where, aside from say Rogers' site you suggest we go for such critically defined scientific information on digital imaging.
-
I see this every day when I look through film prints rescued from overexposed negatives, and then delete multiple RAW files due to a couple stops overexposure.
[Please post samples, so that *I* can learn more! (And thanks for the film/digi link, I had not seen it prior.]
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=205704\")
As stated, I don't have the resources to do a real test. In fact, my only memory media is a 1gb CF card, so all of those overexposed RAW files get deleted. But here's an example from back when I used to shoot jpeg: A quick snapshot from a vacation at disney, where I forgot to dial down the flash and sections of the face and white shirt ended up at least several stops overexposed. Shooting RAW with a fuji S5, you might be able to pull something out of this, but not with conventional DSLRs.
[a href=\"http://www.majhost.com/gallery/orcrist/sadfgwer/de250326.jpg]example[/url]
The first film shot here was exposed on 400 speed film with the meter accidentally left at the 50 mark from a day of slide film. I fixed it 1/3 of the way through the roll, so I had it developed normally for 400 speed film, and the printer pulled this perfectly fine looking image out of it (note quality isn't great because my only way to digitize my film images is to scan the 4x6 prints on our cheap scanner/copier):
example (http://www.flickr.com/photos/er1kksen/2077670209/)
This second one was overexposed by 3 stops (400 film at 100) and developed normally as well. 4 stops overexposure and 3 stops overexposure, respectively, with no apparent negative effects. If anything, the grain was finer. I recently shot another roll and deliberately exposed at 100, 3 stops over, and then pulled development to 200. Better colors, lower contrast (it was a portrait shoot), and finer grain. I won't be able to get them from the printer until next weekend. Anyways, here's the second one:
example (http://www.flickr.com/photos/er1kksen/2078555424/)
I don't know about you, but I've never managed to pull an extra 4 stops out of the highlights of any digital file. Certainly not with results that are perhaps better than the "correct" exposure. This, and the test I linked to, are the basis of my belief that negative film has superior highlight latitude to digital. This is not contrary to anything stated in Clark's tests, it's simply meant to point out an apparent gap in his DR testing methods, since they're set up to measure only the detail that can be rescued from the shadows. I'm not trying to disprove him, just add some relevant information.
If you have examples demonstrating that digital is capable of greater highlight latitude than digital, I'd love to see it, so that I can start using whatever technique it is you're using with my (admittedly limited in DR) Olympus.
-
So one day Brer Rockwell figgers to play a trick on all dem real photographers, and he sets a tar baby out on de road wit nuttin but a sign dat say, "Yo' Camera Dasn't Mattah". Well, along comes Brer Reichmann and he sees dat tar baby settin dere wit dat sign and he sez, ize gwine to spank dat tar baby fo havin setch a stoopid sign. Well, he grabs dat tar baby to give him dat spankin and...
Poor Michael.
-
So one day Brer Rockwell figgers to play a trick on all dem real photographers, and he sets a tar baby out on de road wit nuttin but a sign dat say, "Yo' Camera Dasn't Mattah". Well, along comes Brer Reichmann and he sees dat tar baby settin dere wit dat sign and he sez, ize gwine to spank dat tar baby fo havin setch a stoopid sign. Well, he grabs dat tar baby to give him dat spankin and...
Poor Michael.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205813\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's just possibly the best way of summing up that situation I've heard so far.
-
Oh, I see. So every such magazine or even web site with information should be dismissed because they are not peer reviewed scientific journals and the authors of such articles are not looking for tenure at a university, so we'll just dismiss them.
Apparently they are important to you. Maybe you could suggest where, aside from say Rogers' site you suggest we go for such critically defined scientific information on digital imaging.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=205765\")
For a few sources for peer reviewed literature, you might look [a href=\"http://www.lib.washington.edu/uwill/cycle/marine%20sciences/peer-review.html]here[/url] or here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review). In the field of biology and medicine, Pubmed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed) is a good source. Google Scholar is also a good resource.
Roger Clark's specialty involves digital imaging in astrophysics and many of his papers are in the more specialized journals, as you can see from his bibliography. He has quite a few papers in Nature (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7043/full/nature03596.html), which is at the very top of the heap in scientific circles. He has also published in the popular literature, such as Sky and Telescope.
Quite a few experts publish in the popular literature, but if you want your reference to be taken seriously in science or medicine, it is best to use a primary reference in the peer reviewed literature. Standards on this forum are more relaxed, but the point of bringing up this entire topic is to let people know Roger is a true scientist accustomed to publishing in rigorous journals and hopefully the material on his web site would be in the same tradition. One has to be careful about the reliability of much of the information on the net, and I would give much more weight to a post from Roger than from a buffoon like Ken Rockwell.
-
If you have examples demonstrating that digital is capable of greater highlight latitude than digital, I'd love to see it, so that I can start using whatever technique it is you're using with my (admittedly limited in DR) Olympus.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205780\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
We got off-track... I don't question that print film may have greater dynamic range.
RE: your Oly, ETTR, and when noise intrudes in the shadows, I found it best to desaturate the shadows, then use median blur followed by an 'edit, apply to color' in PS. Or you can blur the a and b channels in LAB mode.
-
If you mean a 35mm slide compared to a DX/FX ~12MP camera, then no, that is incorrect.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205684\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I watched a program on PBS where digital scientist were working to restore 1920s silent film and they were saying they were glad they had the celluloid to digitally extract the information from the old film because there was much more information on the old film than could be recorded at that time--around 2004--with the best digital video recorders. They concluded that when a digital image is recorded at X resoilution, it's fixed at that resolution., no matter how far technology goes. Whereas when you extrac the detail from film, it's head room continues to surpass the best digital imagning hardware in the world, so as scanners get better, you continue to see more detail from the film. You just have to "extract it."
So if that is wrong, please--show evidence. I'm interested in understanding why scientist in the above program are wrong about their position.
-
If you mean a 35mm slide compared to a DX/FX ~12MP camera, then no, that is incorrect.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205684\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I watched a program on PBS where digital scientist were working to restore 1920s silent film and they were saying they were glad they had the celluloid to digitally extract the information from the old film because there was much more information on the old film than could be recorded at that time--around 2004--with the best digital video recorders. They concluded that when a digital image is recorded at X resolution, it's fixed at that resolution., no matter how far technology goes. Whereas when you extract the detail from film, it's head room continues to surpass the best digital imaging hardware in the world, so as scanners get better, you continue to see more detail from the film. You just have to "extract it." I mean this is not an exact reproduction of what they were saying, but fill in the gaps I've left out, and not hit me on all my misunderstandings in what perhaps they were trying to say, and that I got confused. I'm just trying to learn here.
-
I'm still not really buying that. And the exposure information on the back of the LCD is a big fat lie if you're shooting Raw anyway.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205678\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You mean the histogram lies?
-
You can't argue with the above because it's so undefined! Lets look at a few:
"High end scanners can record more detail form a 4x5 negative than digital cameras can produce on their own."
Define high end scanner? I just posted above how two so called high end scanners produced huge differences in the scan. Who's opinion of high end? CCD or PMT? Oil mounted? Who did the scan and did they know how to use the software. In the wrong hands, anyone can make a scan on a "high end" scanner that sucks and digital "wins". The scan is critical to the evaluation here. How can someone argue film is "better" when scanned considering a hugely critical part of the process is so undefined? And was the film shot correctly for scanning or looking pretty on a light box? Was the digital shot for optimal quality (ETTR) and what Raw converter and end user? What about sharpening? In scanner or converter? So someone wants to write a definitive analysis of which is better using one sentence and boneheads boggle it up as it its the word of god?
Ken certainly doesn't act (write or investigate) like a scientist, rocket or otherwise.
"If you want the most detail in your images that you can get for the price, buying a scanner and 4x5 film camera will produce more detail and do it cheaper than an 8,000US digital camera, or even a 30, 000"
Again, at face value, that's rubbish. Does the person making this statement have any idea the cost of a good drum scanner like a Tango (let alone the maintenance agreements)? And who's defining detail? All that non image forming grain is or isn't detail?
"5. Therefore, scanned 4x5 negatives will produce vastly better images than digital cameras, until digital cameras can out resolve scanners. "
Most "experts" (at least those with scientific bkgnds I respect, Ken not one) suggest that scanning film over 3000ppi or so buys you nothing in terms of data. You're resolved down to the film grain. But again, huge difference in what you get with a 3000, lets even say 5000ppi scan off a PMT drum, oil/gel mounted and a CCD scanner using a decent lens (Imacon). So who's to say digital can't out resolve the scanner? Where's Ken's science?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205687\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't really disagree with your analysis., but please try to see past the content to the argument "form." There are always variables that need to be defined out and accounted for. However, we need to at least have a general starting point before we can do anything about finding truth.
Your first objection can be explained away this way: It is possible to get a better image from 4x5 film using a scanner. (You define "better" and make sure you cover the entire gamut of what better can and does mean in this context both scientifically and simply visually from an eye point of view when viewing the print. I can't because I don't understand the science behind it or the terminology. But you are right to point out that these things need to be nailed down before we can make a rightful judgment.)
Again, I agree that my reconstruction of KR supposed argument is not taking into consideration every aspect of all science and terminology on the subject. At this point I have but one question:
Do you think an accurate comparison between the quality of scanned film and digital images from consumer cameras is possible? If not, then ANY comments on the subject are in the past and at present hopelessly condemned to meaninglessness.
If so, then simply use the arguments form (or some iteration of it) and reconstruct the argument using your more clear terminology, then use the evidence--if you accept it--that already exists.
The bottom line is this:
We are NOT dealing with KR, but the conclusion he comes to regarding scanned 4 x 5 negatives and digital consumer cameras and the final "quality" of both.
If it is possible to scientifically test his conclusion--WHERE IS THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE PRO OR CON?
-
If you took the time to read what I wrote, I was referring to Ken.
I'm not sure why articles in DPP don't count. But considering the articles I wrote monthly for PEI Mag dating back to the early 1990s, then and now PPA Mag, PDN, Publish, Photoshop User, Electronic Publishing, Digital Output, MacWeek, etc, I think its at well over 100 (I actually haven't counted nor have seen the need).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205749\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No digital dog, now you're not being fair as to what you said. Let me refresh your memory:
QUOTE(skid00skid00 @ Jul 4 2008, 08:24 PM)
He is - *literally* - a rocket scientist.
He works/has worked for NASA, doing *digital* imaging.
Digital dog in reply to the above:
Well he says so. But he's certainly no color scientist based on my readings of his opinions of color management which are simply way off base. So for me, it's difficult to take his other ideas seriously or really believe he's anything more than the janitor at NASA.
Also, your articles are not peer reviewed scientific journals, which require vastly more rigor than trade magazines:
QUOTE(bjanes @ Jul 5 2008, 07:54 AM)
If you take the trouble to read Roger's bibliography, you would see that he has published more than 200 articles in peer reviewed scientific journals.
-
It's not just dumb, it's rude and even libelous.
But he's clearly not worth exerting any energy over, so let's let the whole thing die, which is what it deserves.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205715\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree we should not bring up the unsupported comment KR makes anymore because those types of rumors never result in anything positive, even when they are proven to be false. It's a lose lose situation.
But the idea behind 4 x 5 scanned vs digital is interesting and worth discussing.
-
Doug -
Please don't take offense, but the articles you linked to in the OP are laughable. You've been around here long enough to know that Michael cares about IQ and does real world tests all the time. Just buy this DVD and you'll have all the answers to your questions
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/back-testing.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/back-testing.shtml)
Will a great scan of a properly exposed 4x5 negative hold up better under a loupe than the same shot with a Canon d30? Sure, but with today's 12+ megapixel DSLRs and normal print sizes at normal viewing distances. There's little to be desired from film. I've watched your progression from newbie on these boards to someone who is actually making money doing this. I commend your drive and commitment however, I think you would be better off spending more time on vision and less on technique. I am a horrid photographer who gets lucky every few months with a decent shot, but as a musician, I can make something great with inferior tools.
This is not a debate about camera vs photographer, just simply a suggestion that you might want to spend as much energy into your artistic vision as you do in your technical vision. Again, this is no meant to be offensive or even a critique as I've seen you site several times and you do have some very nice images. This is advice I give to many students when they ask how a particular drummer gets his sound. 9 times out of 10, it's because he knows how to play the instrument, not because it's a better instrument.
I find that in the real world, a great image would never be any greater by squeezing that last bit of resolution out of it. Sure there's a big gap between an entry level point and shoot and a drum scanned 4x5, but not so much between a 1dsIII and that same scan.
Michael proves this point throughout this website, it's in almost every review if you are willing to look for it. I can't think of a review where he doesn't mention how a camera stacks up in real world prints. I've never had an image worthy of a print larger that 13x19", once I do, then I'll start to focus on how to get better print quality. You seem satisfied with Costco's output, which has very little dynamic range when compared to a good inkjet print. I use them all the time and wish I could have better, but as a hobbyist, it suits my needs perfectly.
In the words of KR, this is all my opinion, and it's only worth whatever you want to take from it. I for one, get a great deal of knowledge and advice from this site and get all my technical answers from the reviews at DPreview. Would I like a 1dsIII - sure, but I'd have to sell one of my many vintage drumkits first, and I'd never get a better print than I do from my current 40D as 95% of my prints are 8x10s.
Joe
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205754\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If you are referring to the RW essay, I know that. I didn't link to it because I thought it was great information. I initially thought it was amusing because I've read Micheal's essays on digital vs film. What I really thought at first glance was that RW's pissed because Micheal is so much better than him and doing better business wise, which made me laugh! But then I really did get interest in the 4x5 scanned vs digital question, and that's where we are STILL trying to get.
This isn't a bad thread at all. We're trying to work things out and we are working them out. We're becoming more and more focused on the argument as a whole, although it is taking some time to focus our abilities.
I agree with your analysis that more time should be spent on doing photography than understanding the technology behind it. But if you look at my posts, you'll also see that I post a lot for several months, and then not very much for several months. It's a sort of cycle I go through which I hope continues to increase my abilities, because when I hit the wall in ability--if I'm not at a level that I can respect myself--I'm done. The cycle is like this: I go out and hit photography hard all the time, everyday don't visit the web much because I'm busy trying to get better AT the "vision" as you aptly put it. Then I start to question myself about how best to use the tools I have, and I start to obsess over it. Then I start to read more and do tons more research. It's just a cycle for me. But your point is spot on and well taken.
As far as prints are concerned, your points are true. I had a local photographer + photo retail store + print shop tell me once that he ran one of the first 20D images FROM the camera shot in JPG mode by a skilled photographer--meaning that he had the 20D set up correctly for JPG production and nailed the white balance using a card and the exposure, and he said that right out of the camera onto the ink jet--top of the line Epson back then around 2006--at 12 x 18 that it was better than any 35MM he saw printed on the same machine after scanning. This was right after teh 5D came out and he bought a 5D because of that print.
Again, your points are all well taken.
-
Sure I get gear for review, on loan, just as do dozens if not hundreds of other magazine and web journalists around the world each month.
What's your point? Does "access" in your mind equate to being somehow beholden to or "bought". Come one! Really.
When I write a negative review, which I do often enough, does that mean I have to pay them?
No reply needed. This is simply too tedious.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205760\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
QUOTE
Doesn't MR get access to new photo equipment by the camera manufacturers? For review...and (of course beneficial to the manufacturer) exposure on his website?
Just curious.
It doesn't matter if you get 10 million a month. If your analysis stands up to scrutiny, it's as good as any information. The test information stands on it's own regardless of any other variable.
-
Oh, I see. So every such magazine or even web site with information should be dismissed because they are not peer reviewed scientific journals and the authors of such articles are not looking for tenure at a university, so we'll just dismiss them.
Apparently they are important to you. Maybe you could suggest where, aside from say Rogers' site you suggest we go for such critically defined scientific information on digital imaging.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205765\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's not his point and you know it.
You doubted RC's credentials, and bjanes stuck you on your comment. And the above is what you responded with. Not fair dog and you know it.
RC is a authority on this subject. RC has proven he is an authority on the subject not only because he understands the physics behind it (proven by his university degree and his work at NASA), but because he has written scientifically peer reviewed essays published in peer reviewed journals demonstrating his understanding of the subject. The conclusion is that If we should not dismiss your understanding of the subject, then surely, surely, we should not dismiss RC's either. And when it comes right down to who is the alpha male or female in science, it's those who publish their experiments -- that is, prove to the the scientific community that their ideas posses the sort of depth and accuracy and are thus to be reasoned with, not dismissed.
-
Ken the scientist (Rocket or otherwise):
From the piece on color management which I'd find easy to dismiss:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/adobe-rgb.htm (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/adobe-rgb.htm)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205751\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
QUOTE
I know this stuff. Did you know I conceived the world's first dedicated digital colorspace converter chip, the TMC2272, back in 1990 when I worked at TRW LSI Products? I've been working with the matrix math, hardware and software that does this for decades. I also coined the word "gigacolors," for use with 36-bit and 48-bit color data. I was only kidding, but the word is still used. TRW LSI was a small, ultra-creative division of TRW, and I got away putting the same mirth I use on this website into the datasheets I wrote. The industry copied us and the word lives on. --KR
That's pretty impressive though, the TMC2272. Obviously not a moron.
-
I watched a program on PBS where digital scientist were working to restore 1920s silent film and they were saying they were glad they had the celluloid to digitally extract the information from the old film because there was much more information on the old film than could be recorded at that time--around 2004--with the best digital video recorders. They concluded that when a digital image is recorded at X resoilution, it's fixed at that resolution., no matter how far technology goes. Whereas when you extrac the detail from film, it's head room continues to surpass the best digital imagning hardware in the world, so as scanners get better, you continue to see more detail from the film. You just have to "extract it."
So if that is wrong, please--show evidence. I'm interested in understanding why scientist in the above program are wrong about their position.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=205843\")
I cannot comment on that film as I have not seen it. I will though add that I worked as a research scientist for many years and published in leading journals. One thing to note is that just because a 'scientist' has a PhD and publications to his name means not a lot if he/she is commenting on something outside of their narrow field of research. They can be just as prone as anyone else to talk nonsense when straying outside their field of expertise. That is just a gentle warning. As I say, I cannot comment on a film I have not seen, and I do not know the field of expertise of the scientists concerned. But note that it would have been B&W film, and that generally has more detail than colour. That MIGHT explain their comment. In other words, they might have been right, given a caveat.
But the sad truth is that there is so much nonsense talked about digital versus film, and some people get very animated on the subject.
That said, numerous people will tell you that in there experience, a 10-12 MP DSLR will beat 35mm colour slide film as far as resolution and DR are concerned. That is my position. I know that a D200 beats 100 ISO colour slide film as far as detail goes, and beats it in terms of DR. But there are far more respected and experienced people out there who say the same thing. Huge numbers of well known pros will agree with that statement, or one like it.
Okay, so if you do not accept the word of me (I don't blame you), or experienced pros (that is harder to figure out), what about proof. Well, I think I gave you some corroboration earlier. But here it is again:
[a href=\"http://www.janrik.net/MiscSubj/2007/FilmVsDSLRTests20070528/A_Comparison_of_Film_and_DSLR_Images.html]http://www.janrik.net/MiscSubj/2007/FilmVs...SLR_Images.html[/url]
This is only an ISO 200 film, but then again the DSLR against which it is compared is only 6MP. This test has the advantage of not using a desktop scanner, hence you cannot argue that the desktop scanner is getting in the way. The fact that he uses a lab microscope to image the film indicates that he is getting all of the detail from the film.
Now here is the Clark view:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/fil...l.summary1.html (http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html)
Notice how he gives a D70 as having the same spatial resolution as an ISO 200 film. And yet the earlier test shows the D70 to be much better. So maybe we can conclude that Clark's chart is biased against the DSLR, and that in fact a DSLR will perform better than he indicates/
Here is another view:
http://www.vildaphoto.net/nikond2x/ (http://www.vildaphoto.net/nikond2x/)
The above tests suffer from using a desktop scanner, but FWIW my tests using a lab microscope indicate that a good scanner (Minolta 5400 in my case) does get all the detail from a Fuji Provia 100F slide.
What we really need is a careful test using Velvia 50, 'scanned' using a low power lab microscope, compared with a ~12MP DSLR image, using the same subject and FOV.
-
We're trying to work things out and we are working them out. We're becoming more and more focused on the argument as a whole, although it is taking some time to focus our abilities.
Count me out of the we. I worked it out years ago.
-
I agree we should not bring up the unsupported comment KR makes anymore because those types of rumors never result in anything positive, even when they are proven to be false. It's a lose lose situation.
But the idea behind 4 x 5 scanned vs digital is interesting and worth discussing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205853\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Digital what? If you are going to make that sort of statement, you should at least be precise, rather than vague. That is Ken's domain.
Ken's test of scanned 4x5 film versus a D200 is crap. Of course 4x5 wins. It is a stuid pointless test. 4x5 slides cost a small fortune to buy and develop, and they are difficult to work with, as is the camera. A D200 is small, light, fairly cheap, and has a huge range of lenses. Ever tried using a 4x5 camera for macro shots of dragonflies? Basically Ken is a first rate self publicist, but a very bad engineer and a mediocre photographer. He is prone to saying very stupid things, and he is very egocentric. When he insults people like Art Morris, putting down their skill, and boasts about his own skill, he makes himself look a fool.
-
QUOTE
I know this stuff. Did you know I conceived the world's first dedicated digital colorspace converter chip, the TMC2272, back in 1990 when I worked at TRW LSI Products? I've been working with the matrix math, hardware and software that does this for decades. I also coined the word "gigacolors," for use with 36-bit and 48-bit color data. I was only kidding, but the word is still used. TRW LSI was a small, ultra-creative division of TRW, and I got away putting the same mirth I use on this website into the datasheets I wrote. The industry copied us and the word lives on. --KR
That's pretty impressive though, the TMC2272. Obviously not a moron.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205859\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The problem with Ken is that you just do not know how much is truth and how much is fantasy and self aggrandisement. I read his ''essay on MTF and came away confused. Now I happen to understand what an MTF plot is, and frankly I'm not sure Ken does. Having read some of his essays, I simply do not think that he has the analytical skills required to do high level mathematics. He may well have worked in a team on a product, but something tells me we are not being told the whole picture.
-
Count me out of the we. I worked it out years ago.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205874\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Then why post?
-
Digital what? If you are going to make that sort of statement, you should at least be precise, rather than vague. That is Ken's domain.
Ken's test of scanned 4x5 film versus a D200 is crap. Of course 4x5 wins. It is a stuid pointless test. 4x5 slides cost a small fortune to buy and develop, and they are difficult to work with, as is the camera. A D200 is small, light, fairly cheap, and has a huge range of lenses. Ever tried using a 4x5 camera for macro shots of dragonflies? Basically Ken is a first rate self publicist, but a very bad engineer and a mediocre photographer. He is prone to saying very stupid things, and he is very egocentric. When he insults people like Art Morris, putting down their skill, and boasts about his own skill, he makes himself look a fool.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205875\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What we have been talking about this entire thread. I truncated it so as not to retype the entire point of the thread. You can't fill in the blanks given the entire thread?
-
One thing to note is that just because a 'scientist' has a PhD and publications to his name means not a lot if he/she is commenting on something outside of their narrow field of research.
snip
What we really need is a careful test using Velvia 50, 'scanned' using a low power lab microscope, compared with a ~12MP DSLR image, using the same subject and FOV.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205872\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And you think I don't know that? If you had read my posts you would have seen that I'd stated that when we take a scientist's research seriously is at the time when and only when he or she publishes his or her findings with all of the evidence in peer reviewed journals, and then only after others have had time to digest the published material.
And if we don't have careful tests using your parameters above then reading other "tests" that do not conform to acceptable criteria is pointless. We either have definitive evidence or we do not. If not, then we need more evidence before we conclude. You can trow up a million sites with charts done by 100s of "scientists" and if they all differ then none are conclusive. Well, one might be conclusive, but that remains to be seen.
It seems to me at this point that there needs to be a test done with agreed upon control groups, or baselines, from which to start, that all people agree is an equal starting place or foundation. It also seems that respected and non respected people have operated fast and loose in this comparison.
What I'd like to see is something like this:
1. 4x5 negative with everything as correct as can be--exposure, etc. You know, as good as can be captured and turned into a negative for scanning, as well as humanly possible.
2. The above scanned into digital format as best as humanly possible given X scanner--whatever is fair as a comparison goes. I think RWs point is that you can buy a scanner for 1/3 the price of a 1DS3 and have it scan the negative from a 4x5 well enough to get better results compared with X digital camera.
3. A digital camera taking the same image in the same light, yes yes, very scientific because we want to keep the controls exactly the same for both formats, the best the camera can capture that given control image.
3. 100% crops from each file; large format prints judged both on loupe and regular viewing distance; smaller prints, such as 12 x 18s same thing.
Yes, from this perspective RWs "test" is simply anecdotal. The least he could have done was shoot a still life in a studio environment.
Obviously, this sort of test either cannot be done, or it is incredibly difficult to compare both formats equally.
-
Then why post?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205888\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You comment does not make sense. You made some statements using the term 'we' and I don't like someone telling me what I need to do, or what they think I understand.
-
It strikes me as remarkable that people are still debating this topic. This was hot from about 1999 to 2002. I can only imagine that anyone still seriously debating this simply doesn't have real-world experience with it themselves, and hasn't bothered reading the huge amount of print and online material available.
With the exception of some extremely hi-resolution technical (and high contrast) scientific films, there simply isn't any real information beyond about 4000 ppi on film. Yes, you can scan at higher resolutions, but all you are doing is magnifying grain not image information. There's precious little to be gained other than ending up with a larger file size, which can also be accomplished by ressing up.
Why do we see that almost all commercial scanners stop at between 3200 and 4000 ppi. It's not a technical limit. It's because the manufacturers know that this is where resolution stops with typical films.
Are drum scanners better than dedicated CCD scanners. Yes, but a good Imacon scan can get awfully close, and unless one has $20-$30,000 a year to keep a drum maintained properly, the cost benefit ratio becomes astronomical.
People are also forgetting about the question of film flatness. This is an issue when shooting as well as scanning. One of the dirty little secrets of sheet film use in large format cameras is that even the smallest amount of kinking and curvature of the film in the holder leads to sub-optimal images.
Does anyone remember when Contax put a vacuum mechanism in the RTSIII? They did so because their research showed that even in 35mm cameras, a pressure plate alone isn't enough to ensure optimum film flatness. And, let's not even talk about roll film with paper backing.
The same is true with scanning. Lack of film flatness and the absolutely horrendous carriers that most consumer grade scanners use obviates any other issues. This is one of the reasons for the success of Imacon Flextight scanners. They managed to really keep the film flat. It also explains why fluid mounting with flatbeds is so important, though few people bother because of the hassle and mess.
Needless to say this isn't an issue with digital, where the sensor plane is fixed and accurate (one hopes) to within required tolerances.
So for those that want to tread the rocky Rockwell road of misinformation, fine. Otherwise try catching up on some of the information available from competent photographers who have done research and tests in this area over the past 15 years.
Michael
-
And you think I don't know that?
Sorry, it did seem that you don't. I will explain.
You referred very briefly to a programme you saw on PBS which I assume means Public Broadcasting Service. You gave no details of the background of the 'scientists' or the nature of the film they were analysing. You also said the film contained more 'information' than digital. You gave no details of what that information was. Are we talking resolution, or dynamic range, or both? And your statement referred to digital video recorders, about which you gave no details. So, I don't mean to be rude, but your account is not very helpful, as what you posted is very superficial and poorly defined.
For example, those 'scientists' might have been experts at archiving old film, and not experts in digital cameras. We don't know, as you did not give details.
You mention digital video recorders. My guess is that these are the bottle neck and that they do not begin to approach the capabilities of a modern DSLR. After all, most digital videos are watched on a TV format, so my guess is that the resolution was low. Of course I might be wrong. But yet again, we just do not know as you did not give details.
So IMO you have taken out of context a statement that you saw on a TV programme, and misapplied it to a different area.
Of course if you can find out more details, then your story might be of interest, but as it stands, it isn't, at least in terms of this discussion.
-
Sorry, it did seem that you don't. I will explain.
You referred very briefly to a programme you saw on PBS which I assume means Public Broadcasting Service. You gave no details of the background of the 'scientists' or the nature of the film they were analysing. You also said the film contained more 'information' than digital. You gave no details of what that information was. Are we talking resolution, or dynamic range, or both? And your statement referred to digital video recorders, about which you gave no details. So, I don't mean to be rude, but your account is not very helpful, as what you posted is very superficial and poorly defined.
For example, those 'scientists' might have been experts at archiving old film, and not experts in digital cameras. We don't know, as you did not give details.
You mention digital video recorders. My guess is that these are the bottle neck and that they do not begin to approach the capabilities of a modern DSLR. After all, most digital videos are watched on a TV format, so my guess is that the resolution was low. Of course I might be wrong. But yet again, we just do not know as you did not give details.
So IMO you have taken out of context a statement that you saw on a TV programme, and misapplied it to a different area.
Of course if you can find out more details, then your story might be of interest, but as it stands, it isn't, at least in terms of this discussion.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205895\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There is a post where I explain when and how we take scientific research seriously, which explains I'm aware of what you say I'm not regarding scientific research. You must have missed it. The PBS broadcast was only a casual observation, which is quite obvious given my post when taken in context, and I admitted in that very post I could have misunderstood it.
Why the personal attack?
-
What I'd like to see is something like this:
1. 4x5 negative with everything as correct as can be--exposure, etc. You know, as good as can be captured and turned into a negative for scanning, as well as humanly possible.
[snip]
Why? What a stupid comparison to make.
Do we also want to compare a firework with a Saturn 5 rocket? Or a Trabant with a Formula 1 racing car?
-
There is a post where I explain when and how we take scientific research seriously, which explains I'm aware of what you say I'm not regarding scientific research. You must have missed it. The PBS broadcast was only a casual observation, which is quite obvious given my post when taken in context, and I admitted in that very post I could have misunderstood it.
Why the personal attack?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205897\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It was not a personal attack. It was a criticism of your post. You cited the PBS programme as support of your views. Hence my post.
-
When the original 1Ds came to the market more than 5 years ago, some very experienced commercial photographers tested the camera head to head with 35mm color films. Their conclusion was very simple: there was more real image detail in the digital file than in the film no matter what kind of film scanner or scanning resolution was used and these guys had acces to several top drum scanners and professional scanning services. (No, there are no links to these tests, this is based on a conversation and "scientifically not valid").
Anyway, comparing the resolution of 4x5 velvia and 35mm (or smaller) digital is as pointless as anything ever anywhere. Btw, in the same amount of time that someone uses taking 3 bracketed exposures with 4x5, you can take enough panoramic shots with your dslr or mfdb to get "enough" resolution, if that's what you are looking for.
This ship is sinking, it might be better to abandon it before someone gets hurt...
J
-
It strikes me as remarkable that people are still debating this topic. This was hot from about 1999 to 2002. I can only imagine that anyone still seriously debating this simply doesn't have real-world experience with it themselves, and hasn't bothered reading the huge amount of print and online material available.
With the exception of some extremely hi-resolution technical (and high contrast) scientific films, there simply isn't any real information beyond about 4000 ppi on film. Yes, you can scan at higher resolutions, but all you are doing is magnifying grain not image information. There's precious little to be gained other than ending up with a larger file size, which can also be accomplished by ressing up.
Why do we see that almost all commercial scanners stop at between 3200 and 4000 ppi. It's not a technical limit. It's because the manufacturers know that this is where resolution stops with typical films.
Are drum scanners better than dedicated CCD scanners. Yes, but a good Imacon scan can get awfully close, and unless one has $20-$30,000 a year to keep a drum maintained properly, the cost benefit ratio becomes astronomical.
People are also forgetting about the question of film flatness. This is an issue when shooting as well as scanning. One of the dirty little secrets of sheet film use in large format cameras is that even the smallest amount of kinking and curvature of the film in the holder leads to sub-optimal images.
Does anyone remember when Contax put a vacuum mechanism in the RTSIII? They did so because their research showed that even in 35mm cameras, a pressure plate alone isn't enough to ensure optimum film flatness. And, let's not even talk about roll film with paper backing.
The same is true with scanning. Lack of film flatness and the absolutely horrendous carriers that most consumer grade scanners use obviates any other issues. This is one of the reasons for the success of Imacon Flextight scanners. They managed to really keep the film flat. It also explains why fluid mounting with flatbeds is so important, though few people bother because of the hassle and mess.
Needless to say this isn't an issue with digital, where the sensor plane is fixed and accurate (one hopes) to within required tolerances.
So for those that want to tread the rocky Rockwell road of misinformation, fine. Otherwise try catching up on some of the information available from competent photographers who have done research and tests in this area over the past 15 years.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205893\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So this means that a correctly scanned and correctly created 4 x 5 negative will not outperform--in any areas we choose, those being DR, contrast, detail, etc., of say a 1DS MKII?
Let me be very careful here to so as to avoid the gas chamber:
Terms:
1. correctly: as good as a professional can do with the 4 x 5 camera.
2. outperform: give more detail, color, DR in prints and when viewed 100% on screen in any film used, be in color, B&W, etc.
3. scanned: using a scanner that cost no more than the digital camera being compared.
Also, even if it is anecdotal, if a vast majority of large names in landscape photography are giving up their view cameras for digital, then I really don't care about the scientific research. If it's good enough for them, good enough for the people who run the art galleries they show their stuff in, and good enough for their customers, then it's more than good enough for me.
The question is, however, are the big landscape photographers happy with digital cameras for landscapes? I really do not know the answer to that, except I would assume that you are, which does say a lot. It would say even more if it were a consensus among LS photographers that they prefer digital over film--mainly because the quality is as close to film so as not to make any finished printing difference, or close enough that lugging around and prepping a view camera is no longer warranted.
And thanks for your post. I feel this thread is coming very close to an end because we've pretty much ran the gamut of things to say on the topic--save some definitive information yet to be posted.
-
Do we really need to waste space on this? Rockwell really is beyond the pale.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205238\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's like masochism, some people like that
-
So this means that a correctly scanned and correctly created 4 x 5 negative will not outperform--in any areas we choose, those being DR, contrast, detail, etc., of say a 1DS MKII?
Why do you keep harping back to such a pointless comparison?
-
No digital dog, now you're not being fair as to what you said. Let me refresh your memory:
Guilty as charged! I wasn't clear and again, I was NOT directly this comment towards Roger but instead Ken who does say (in a Quote I posted), he invented some color chip, the internet and mixed I did up the sources.
I've have nothing "against" Roger, I haven't studied his work. I have studied Ken's, its bogus.
Also, your articles are not peer reviewed scientific journals, which require vastly more rigor than trade magazines:
That may be true (well they are reviewed and by peers, some of the magazines have and use technical editors) but to dismiss this outright and on the other hand, say that any and all peer reviewed articles hold water isn't going to wash with many (there are plenty of peer reviews that said climate change was bogus). Now more peers may jump on one or the other bandwagon, especially as time goes on and more "science" is on covered, but that doesn't make a peer reviewed piece necessarily the word of god, or for that matter, agreeable to all scientists let alone readers. I would agree it has more weight than non peer reviewed pieces however. The question becomes, who are the peers.
We've seen studies after studies of so called peer reviews from drug companies that claim their drugs are safe and effective. We all know how well these reviews end up in terms of accuracy.
I'm sure I can find peer review articles that state intelligent design not evolution is the scientifically sound, just as I could probably find peer reviewed articles, of various dates that say film can out resolve digital.
As for Roger, I apologize by mixing him up with Ken in terms of the scientist (although again, Ken seems to claim some such fame).
-
You mean the histogram lies?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205845\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If you're shooting Raw, absolutely. Its the gamma encoded histogram of the JPEG you may or may not be getting.
-
I agree with the first part, but I must take issue with the last point. I browsed KR's site once and found a lot of simplistic and trite stuff, a lot of misinformation, and nothing very amusing.
I get better amusement by reading the reactions to KR on LL.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205412\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
'nothing very amusing' or, 'a bit amusing'. Sorry Eric, what is the difference?
-
In terms of the PBS show, which is dated and I should say I haven't seen, there's a very good article in this month's Wired about the new Chris Nolan Batman sequel. It was actually shot on Imax film! That's roughly 10X the size of a 35mm frame. The article goes on to say:
While conventional films are digitized at 2K resolution (2000 pixels across), or 4K at most, adding visual effects to Imax footage requires digitizing each frame up to 8K.
The input resolution is tied to the output. Conventional work is output back to 35mm stock. In the case of Imax, they need more input resolution because about 100 theaters in the US will show the output on actual Imax screens.
-
Whow! I did think when I wrote that KR was a fruitcake with a massive ego, that that would put an end to it fairly quickly. That was obviously hopelessly naive (and a bit egotistical on my part). So, we have got to seven pages and DWDAllam still does not seem to be satisfied with the answers to a question that for most people was resolved years ago now.
The point that MR made nearly six years ago and the methodology still holds water as far as I am concerned, is that the original 1DS had a resolution comparable to rollfilm. The mark II and mark III versions of this camera have each shown a small, but noticeable improvement in resolution over the original. If we take the simple and not unreasonable premise that the current 1DS produces images of comparable resolution to 6x9 film exposed and scanned under optimal and mostly accessible conditions, then three 1DS frames stitched together are comparable to 5x4 film with the same qualifications. This does not take into account the greater ease with which the 1DS files can obtained and the lower consumable costs and other flexibility factors. This I think answers DWDallam's question.
MR has made the point and I will repeat it, that it is essential to understand the difference between resolution in one step digital capture and final resolution that results from exposing a piece of film and then secondly capturing digital data with a film scanner.
-
Otherwise try catching up on some of the information available from competent photographers...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205893\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Amen!
-
I've have nothing "against" Roger, I haven't studied his work. I have studied Ken's, its bogus.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=205915\")
Andrew, I think that you should take a look at Clark's work. He summarizes it on the link below using a mathematical construct he calls AIQ (apparent image quality). AIQ takes into account both resolution and signal:noise, and the concept is widely accepted in information theory. Norman Koren provides additional information.
[a href=\"http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html]Clark Summary[/url]
Koren Information Theory (http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7A.html)
Exactly how resolution and signal:noise should be weighted has not been determined, but trends are apparent and the ultimate validity of the model depends on how well it correlates with observational data. Until recently film has had better resolution than digital, while digital has a much better signal:noise.
From Roger's data, a 16 MP digital dSLR is better than 35 mm Velvia film and also exceeds medium format Velvia. This has been confirmed by Michael in one of his shootouts and also in this (http://www.ales.litomisky.com/projects/Analog%20versus%20Digital%20Shootout%20(Hasselblad,%2035mm,%20Canon%205D).htm) well done experiment comparing a Canon 5D with 35 mm and medium format film.
Roger predicts that a 39 MP medium format back would approach a 4by5 Velvia scan in AIQ, and this is confirmed in Michael's megapixel shootout, (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/back-testing.shtml) which was very well done and represents more than 100 years of combined experience of professional level photography.
That may be true (well they are reviewed and by peers, some of the magazines have and use technical editors) but to dismiss this outright and on the other hand, say that any and all peer reviewed articles hold water isn't going to wash with many (there are plenty of peer reviews that said climate change was bogus). Now more peers may jump on one or the other bandwagon, especially as time goes on and more "science" is on covered, but that doesn't make a peer reviewed piece necessarily the word of god, or for that matter, agreeable to all scientists let alone readers. I would agree it has more weight than non peer reviewed pieces however. The question becomes, who are the peers.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205915\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The peer review process is not perfect, but it tends to be self correcting when the original observations are confirmed or refuted by additional work. In practical photography we don't have a lot of peer reviewed sources and we have to go with the best information available, and the opinions of our more experienced colleagues such as Chris Sanderson, Michael Reichmann, Charles Cramer, Bill Atkinson are invaluable. Rockwell's methods are obviously deficient and do not deserve additional comment.
-
'nothing very amusing' or, 'a bit amusing'. Sorry Eric, what is the difference?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205918\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
To clarify, what I meant by 'nothing very amusing' was 'nothing sufficiently amusing for me to want to waste time visiting his site again.' It's a completely subjective and personal distinction. I have no quarrel with others who may find his writings more hilarious. From my tiny sample I'd have to say I remain skeptical of anything he says is truly useful or valuable to anyone.
One thing I find amusing in some of these LL threads about KR is the fact that there are so many posts by his supporters of the form "When KR says xxx, what he really means is yyy." If that is true as often as it seems to be asserted, I wonder why KR doesn't say "yyy" in the first place. (A prime example is comments like: "When he says 'your camera doesn't matter', what he really means is 'the photographer is more important than his/her equipment.'")
As for 'a bit amusing', I'll have to admit that I have no interest in studying any of KR's stuff enough to see whether I might find any of it barely perceptably amusing. It is astonishing how much noise his pronouncements do regularly produce on this forum.
-Eric
-
It is astonishing how much noise his pronouncements do regularly produce on this forum.
-Eric
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205984\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ever notice how many people slow down when passing a gory accident site?
-
It's amazing how many people complain about Rockwell's noise on this forum, when Rockwell doesn't post here. And just to show how much they don't like Rockwell, they add hundreds of words that extend and amplify the legend. Rockwell must be right, judging by the evidence here. "Your camera doesn't matter": Partly true. "Film is better than digital": Not necessarily, but it can be in some cases. Good things to think about.
-
It's amazing how many people complain about Rockwell's noise on this forum, when Rockwell doesn't post here. And just to show how much they don't like Rockwell, they add hundreds of words that extend and amplify the legend.
I cannot speak for others, but I have never met Ken, and he might well be a nice chap. I am critical of the nonsense he comes out with. I think you need to distinguish between criticism of the person, and criticism of his 'work'.
However, you ignore the fact that he makes libelous claims about others, and regularly insults goodness knows how many people, many of them highly respected professionals. If he can't take abuse, he should not give it out.
Rockwell must be right, judging by the evidence here. "Your camera doesn't matter": Partly true. "Film is better than digital": Not necessarily, but it can be in some cases. Good things to think about.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205998\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No. "Your camera doesn't matter" is an absolute statement. So it can't be partly true. Just as you can't be partly pregnant. Or partly dead. Oh my God, it's deja vu all over again, please let's not go there ...
-
I think that this thread has now reached its best before date, and therefore is closed.
If anyone feels compelled to start a new Rockwell thread, so be it, but I think that this dead horse is best left unflogged.
Michael