Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7   Go Down

Author Topic: Ken Rockwell knocks Luminous Landscape  (Read 72558 times)

mrleonard

  • Guest
Ken Rockwell knocks Luminous Landscape
« Reply #60 on: July 05, 2008, 01:52:30 am »

Quote
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
Logged

dwdallam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2044
    • http://www.dwdallam.com
Ken Rockwell knocks Luminous Landscape
« Reply #61 on: July 05, 2008, 03:13:48 am »

Quote
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.
Logged

dwdallam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2044
    • http://www.dwdallam.com
Ken Rockwell knocks Luminous Landscape
« Reply #62 on: July 05, 2008, 04:18:49 am »

Quote
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?
« Last Edit: July 05, 2008, 04:24:57 am by dwdallam »
Logged

Morgan_Moore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2356
    • sammorganmoore.com
Ken Rockwell knocks Luminous Landscape
« Reply #63 on: July 05, 2008, 04:21:49 am »

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
« Last Edit: July 05, 2008, 04:34:29 am by Morgan_Moore »
Logged
Sam Morgan Moore Bristol UK

dalethorn

  • Guest
Ken Rockwell knocks Luminous Landscape
« Reply #64 on: July 05, 2008, 06:05:48 am »

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?
Logged

dwdallam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2044
    • http://www.dwdallam.com
Ken Rockwell knocks Luminous Landscape
« Reply #65 on: July 05, 2008, 07:31:53 am »

Quote
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.
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Ken Rockwell knocks Luminous Landscape
« Reply #66 on: July 05, 2008, 09:49:39 am »

Quote
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.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Ken Rockwell knocks Luminous Landscape
« Reply #67 on: July 05, 2008, 09:56:16 am »

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2008, 09:56:39 am by digitaldog »
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Ken Rockwell knocks Luminous Landscape
« Reply #68 on: July 05, 2008, 10:01:17 am »

Quote
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?
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

Slough

  • Guest
Ken Rockwell knocks Luminous Landscape
« Reply #69 on: July 05, 2008, 10:02:29 am »

Quote
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.
Logged

bjanes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3387
Ken Rockwell knocks Luminous Landscape
« Reply #70 on: July 05, 2008, 10:06:11 am »

Quote
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]

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.

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
Logged

Slough

  • Guest
Ken Rockwell knocks Luminous Landscape
« Reply #71 on: July 05, 2008, 10:09:03 am »

Quote
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.
Logged

Slough

  • Guest
Ken Rockwell knocks Luminous Landscape
« Reply #72 on: July 05, 2008, 10:13:37 am »

Quote
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.
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Ken Rockwell knocks Luminous Landscape
« Reply #73 on: July 05, 2008, 10:19:28 am »

Quote
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?
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

bjanes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3387
Ken Rockwell knocks Luminous Landscape
« Reply #74 on: July 05, 2008, 10:54:44 am »

Quote
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]


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.
Logged

skid00skid00

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 53
Ken Rockwell knocks Luminous Landscape
« Reply #75 on: July 05, 2008, 11:15:48 am »

Quote from: Er1kksen,Jul 4 2008, 11:01 PM
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...
Logged

skid00skid00

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 53
Ken Rockwell knocks Luminous Landscape
« Reply #76 on: July 05, 2008, 11:34:36 am »

Quote
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.  
Logged

smthopr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 612
    • Bruce Alan Greene Cinematography
Ken Rockwell knocks Luminous Landscape
« Reply #77 on: July 05, 2008, 11:43:56 am »

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...
Logged
Bruce Alan Greene
www.brucealangreene.com

michael

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5084
Ken Rockwell knocks Luminous Landscape
« Reply #78 on: July 05, 2008, 11:54:41 am »

Quote
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
« Last Edit: July 05, 2008, 11:55:04 am by michael »
Logged

mrleonard

  • Guest
Ken Rockwell knocks Luminous Landscape
« Reply #79 on: July 05, 2008, 12:58:08 pm »

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.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7   Go Up