Want – Need – Afford

[stewarthemley]

Totally OT but just have to say, Schewe, love your direct, say-it-like-you-feel-it style (no sarcasm; really like it). Sometimes I like it a bit less, but if it dried up, I know I'd really miss it. Who cares if you're right or wrong. Thank Christ for individuals in this increasingly bland/frightened time, and good on yer.

[Schewe]

Who cares if you're right or wrong.

Well, _I_ care...golly, imagine my chagrin if proved wrong (it's been known to happen but I try really hard to be the first to confess when I screw up).

I don't know if you can tell, but I'm kinda filled with piss&vinegar at the moment cause my 3rd book is done (and shipping in a couple of weeks) so I have some "free time" to spend playing on the forums. Hum, I guess that's kinda fair warning for idiots and a$$holes huh?

:~)

[Pete JF]

.

[Bill VN]

Uh, maybe you don't understand forum posting since you're a bit new in these parts...but when you say something either stupid or outrageous, other posters will take your post at face value (in the time frame you wrote it) and respond. Going back after the fact and editing (whether you note the edit or not) doesn't erase what you wrote nor invalidate somebody else quoting you.

Fact is, I would have responded to the rather ill-informed view you have of what constitutes digital capture but Mike beat me to it. In the end, digital isn't really any more or less fragile than film...you ever have film get wet in a basement flood and dry before you got the chance to take it out of sleeves? Between fixer stains, scratches or wet damage, I've lost more film photography to the elements over the years than I have lost digital.

Your view of what constitutes a photograph is horribly pedestrian and backwards...really doode, wake up and smell the silicon. Photography is, whatever the f$%#&k somebody says it is...but if you can't afford the new toys that doesn't give you free range to claim it ain't "writing with light", ya know? Whatever the heck you think THAT actually means, really, "writing" with light? That's how you translate "photo" & "graph", really?

I would call it a "pictorial device" made with "light". But hey, that's just me...

:~)

Sorry you had so many mishaps with your darkroom work. Regarding your comments, you obviously don't get it.

As Wikipedia explains, 'The word "photography" comes from the Greek φώς (phos) "light" + γραφίς (graphis) "stylus", "paintbrush" or γραφή (graphê) "representation by means of lines" or "drawing", together meaning "drawing with light."' Implied in the word's definition is a permanent or semi-permanent image formed by light on a light-sensitive medium.

If done properly, an image may last for centuries. Indeed, in theory a well developed platinum print should last over a thousand years. To maintain that image in a digital format for a thousand years would require a heck of a lot of repeated back ups on electronic storage media.

Some food for thought: there is a very good reason why Hollywood studios require a final master copy on film for all movies made, even digitally produced ones.

[stewarthemley]

deleted

[Pete JF]

.

[Schewe]

Implied in the word's definition is a permanent or semi-permanent image formed by light on a light-sensitive medium.

Uh no...there is no implied permanence what so ever...some people bent over backward to TRY to make things more permanent but alas any art where paper is involved takes vastly more effort to conserve it properly than it does to create it. In reality, the current estimate time for carbon black ink jet prints at +300 years (depending on the paper again) that exceeds traditional silver gelatin unless you want to deep freeze it in total darkness.

Heck, we have no friggin' idea how hard it will or won't be to store digital media a 1,000 years but there is very little "paper" left from 1000 years ago.

But seriously, if you hate digital so much why spend time here? Aren't there any place left for analog lovers to hang out together any more?

[stewarthemley]

deleted

[Bill VN]

Uh no...there is no implied permanence what so ever...some people bent over backward to TRY to make things more permanent but alas any art where paper is involved takes vastly more effort to conserve it properly than it does to create it. In reality, the current estimate time for carbon black ink jet prints at +300 years (depending on the paper again) that exceeds traditional silver gelatin unless you want to deep freeze it in total darkness.

Heck, we have no friggin' idea how hard it will or won't be to store digital media 1,000 but there is very little "paper" left from that time.

But seriously, if you hate digital so much why spend time here? Aren't there any place left for analog lovers to hang out together any more?

Actually, my original post was about the obscenely high cost of switching to digital for photographers who have worked with large and medium format cameras in the past. One of the reasons for this, in my view, is the practical monopolization of the market by a few Danish companies, such as Phase One, which now owns Leaf and partially Mamiya, and Hasselblad, which is owned by a Chinese trading company and really operated by ex-Imacon management.

Franke & Heidecke has fallen by the wayside, so Jenoptik is leaving the market, divesting Sinar along the way. There is MegaVision in California, but I am not sure how much of a factor they are in the market.

[Pete JF]

.

[barryfitzgerald]

I gave up on this thread when I read "film is the original digital medium"

Frankly astounding that anyone could post that. Film is an organic substance, it is not binary in nature. It is not "on or off"
We have exposure, and emulsion reacts to that, there are not two simple steps..the graduations of exposure are very many, as the film reacts to the light.

[cmi]

I gave up on this thread when I read "film is the original digital medium"

Frankly astounding that anyone could post that. Film is an organic substance, it is not binary in nature. It is not "on or off"
We have exposure, and emulsion reacts to that, there are not two simple steps..the graduations of exposure are very many, as the film reacts to the light.

The idea is that through the microscopic size of each particle, and the statistical variation introduced by exposure, you end up with with something that appears as gradation on a macroscopic scale while being on/off at the particle level. Not saying anything about the rest of the kitchen table discussion wich seems like a insulting challenge of some sort, but this idea essentially describing a loose analogy between analog / digital personally appeals to me.

[michael]

Mike, thanks for adding back the part of my comment I originally edited out. I am perfectly aware of the analog v. digital irony of digital imaging, but in the end, a traditional photograph is a physical medium, not electrical charges in the ether. Remember that when you back up your files yet again ten years from now on some yet to be invented storage device.

Will do.

But remember to digitize your colour negs and transparencies before they fade away.  

Michael

[michael]

I gave up on this thread when I read "film is the original digital medium"

Frankly astounding that anyone could post that. Film is an organic substance, it is not binary in nature. It is not "on or off"
We have exposure, and emulsion reacts to that, there are not two simple steps..the graduations of exposure are very many, as the film reacts to the light.

The fact that at its fundamental level grains of silver halide are binary in nature has already been explained, so I'll just ask what being "organic" has to do with anything? There are numerous examples of binary behavior in nature, from the atomic level to the macro. Why should being "organic" somehow be considered superior when it comes to photography?

Light itself is both a particle (binary – there's a particle or there isn't a particle) AND a wave. Which one do YOU want it to be?

In the end it all comes down to the displayed image, whatever its manifestation, whatever its origin.

Michael

[squarehead]

Hi Pete

Well, I sort of know him. He's given me free, totally helpful advice a few times, and quite a few other people, so that's a little credit he's built up. And it's the opinion of quite a few others that he knows a bit about PS, printing, etc.  As for kissing... that's something I emphatically don't/won't do, ever, to anyone. I WILL say when I find someone refreshing, amusing, sometimes bloody irritating, but overall worth having around.

As for you taking my comment for "zip", that's fine by me as I don't know you... But, Pete, I don't want to get into a fight with you. Nobody wins those silly contests. Just wanted to say I think Schewe is good to have around and I thought the tone and language of your post was not the sort of thing that belongs in a professional community like this usually is. That's me done on this.

Looks like he doesn't know Stuffit Expander and hence has a hard time comprehending the full meaning of your comment.  

This being my first post (hello everyone!) I can't help but wonder why there's always so much bickering going on in forums, all forums for that matter? (Have people no wives to listen to?)
Anyhow, I enjoy and appreciate the wealth of knowledge the members on this forum share with each other.
Thank you.

Regarding the "painting with light" comment ... Greek words phos ("light"), and graphis ("stylus", "paintbrush") or graphí, together meaning "drawing with light" ... indeed, it is the meaning of the word photography which became the name of a new technology. Yet, it is per se not the definition in which way/style/kind/form this "drawing with light" has to be achieved.

Let's step away from cameras, film or digital, for a moment.
I presume everyone here is familiar with the works of the old Dutch Master Rembrandt van Ryn.
He was the first to develop to perfection a new technique that entailed the concentration of light and the diffusion of luminosity from the deepest shade/darkness. Rembrandt's method became an entirely new direction in art expression and is regarded today as the key feature of the Dutch school (of painting) that followed in his footsteps.
I apologize for the history lesson. The reason why I'm bringing this up is simple. Rembrandt's technique can be summed up nicely as 'painting with light."
So in the widest sense of its meaning, instead of a camera loaded with film or containing a digital sensor, he used oil and canvas for his "photography."

Considering this, digital photography is just a sign of the times. As film was to plates, silver-plated copper, and photosensitive paper. And once a 'new kid on the block' is advanced enough to surpass its predecessors, differences can only be measured in units of taste or personal preference.


PS: By the way, the first Dutch artist of stature to break with the traditions of the Dutch school was Vincent van Gogh 200+ years later. Today he is considered a Dutch Post-Impressionist artist and the predecessor of Expressionism.
Guess, his revolutionary paintings must have caused a similar stir in emotions as digital photography does today. Funny how history tends to repeat itself.  

[Bill VN]

Will do.

But remember to digitize your colour negs and transparencies before they fade away.  

Michael

Real men don't shoot color negs. You know that.

[Pete Ferling]

I thought the "Film vs. Digital" war was over...  

Dude, I get into that battle within my mind almost every day, and digital wins out about 90% of the time... "time" being the key factor here.   For the other 10%, the ones that hit 40" or more on my 9800...  right tool for the job.  Love them both.

Here's one (and btw, I know earlier I wrote that stitching doesn't solve all issues, but I use it when appropriate, and it's not just for crop sensor cameras either):

[attachment=16226:The_Valve_House.jpg]

Love that Mamiya glass and that 3D look.  When the film goes, I'm going to adapt the lenses.

[ckimmerle]

I gave up on this thread when I read "film is the original digital medium"

Frankly astounding that anyone could post that. Film is an organic substance, it is not binary in nature. It is not "on or off"
We have exposure, and emulsion reacts to that, there are not two simple steps..the graduations of exposure are very many, as the film reacts to the light.

Sorry, dude, but it's true. Your mistake in logic is in thinking of the emulsion as a whole as opposed to the individual silver halide molecules which are the actual light sensitive materials in the emulsion. When a photon, or photons, of light strikes one of these molecules, an electron is kicked from the valence band into the conduction band, thereby rendering it "on", meaning it will react with a developer (become solid silver) at a much, much faster rate than non-exposed molecules. There is no half "on" or half "off". It's one or the other. Gradation comes in due to the fact that the emulsion is much thicker than the silver halide molecules, thus the molecules are essentially and randomly stacked atop one another. So, while the film/paper may appear analog, they are in fact the result of a digital process.

Four years of near obsolete photo science, sensitometry, and chemistry finally put to good use!

[BJL]

... each grain of silver is either exposed or unexposed. ...

Thanks Michael. Or as I like to put it: film has billions of horribly low grade 1-bit photosites, with pathetically low S/N ratio and DR from having only two tonal levels. All the fine total gradations, dynamic range, and "low noise" performance of a good print come from "dithering". Larger film formats give better image quality on the same size of print even when using the same quality of individual photosites (same emulsion type), and they do it through using a lower degree of enlargement and thus dithering or smoothing out the imperfections more. In the modern jargon, having more "photosites per mm" and more "photosites per image" improves IQ attributes like dynamic range.

P. S. And as other posts remind us, light is also "digital", as in quantized.

[barryfitzgerald]

I take it all back, I was wrong. I can now see film is in fact digital. In the same way my kettle is digital as well, or course it's either on or off, and the water temperature has nothing to do with it, just two simple states on or off, hot or cold..
Also I note that a car is digital too, yes it's either on or off, if we take it back to basics it's pure binary.
We could apply this interesting "digital slant" to just about everything, I am deeply humbled ;-)