Good news for photographers who yearn for film like images

[dslang]

i think the creative discussion is slightly off topic, and personally my opinion on creativity is no different than what the dictionary states... "relating to or involving the imagination or original ideas in the production of artistic work."

Littlewolf, you might be mistaken that someone arriving at a novel idea by accident is not creative. After all, there are those who believe that works of genius are produced by accidents. It's all about how often you can 'chance' upon these... accidents.

I think this creativity discussion can be brought back on topic. Honestly, how creative are we being by trying to make film-like images out of digital photographs? They are 2 seperate things, and they both have good and bads. It's almost as if we arent contented with with an orange and spend far too much time trying to make it into an apple, when frankly we should be capitalizing on the benefits of the orange instead.

 

[tsdh]

I think this creativity discussion can be brought back on topic. Honestly, how creative are we being by trying to make film-like images out of digital photographs? They are 2 seperate things, and they both have good and bads. It's almost as if we arent contented with with an orange and spend far too much time trying to make it into an apple, when frankly we should be capitalizing on the benefits of the orange instead.

The case is: some people still prefer an apple, but he found out that it is much easier and faster to get an orange instead of apple. Therefore they get an orange and squeezing out creativity to make it tastes like an apple.
Very much the same situation in hi-end audio arena, where people found out that digital is much more convenient than analog LP, but they still prefer the analog sound. Therefore many creative measures had been devised to make the digital CD sounds like an analog.

Capitalizing on the benefits of digital does not always applicable. What is the benefits of digital? faster workflow and convenience. Are there any benefits of digital on the image properties? well, I would say, it is not benefits, but rather a different properties.
I have outlined two of those properties in my previous posts: the lower highlight tolerance, and the absense of grains. There are two more differences: digital has better shadows (as compared to color film, not B&W), and digital has noise.
Those differences, obviously can not be capitalized for all types of photography.

 

[lsisaxon]

For me creative is going around to the other side to see if there's anything worth capturing. Or capturing what most people will not even give a second look. Composition makes a great difference. It's about experimentation and not having the fear of being laughed at. Being creative is not about right or wrong, it's about an alternative point of view. Using metallic paper is creative. Kodak is creative in coming out with metallic paper.

But the culture here in SG seems to penalise those who make mistakes. This is what stifles creativity. You have to do it right the first time otherwise you're already sentenced to death. Talk about the Yellow Ribbon project, if the general culture here cannot even forgive a child making a mistake by trying to be creative, can this same culture give a second chance to convicts?

 

[doug3fflux]

if the general culture here cannot even forgive a child making a mistake by trying to be creative, can this same culture give a second chance to convicts?

when does a child make a mistake when trying to be creative? :dunno:

 

[LittleWolf]

when does a child make a mistake when trying to be creative? :dunno:

You mean apart from setting the house on fire, poking with conductive objects in electrical outlets, or climbing out of the window of a highrise like some movie/cartoon superhero?

 

[doug3fflux]

You mean apart from setting the house on fire, poking with conductive objects in electrical outlets, or climbing out of the window of a highrise like some movie/cartoon superhero?

curiousity or creativity?

 

[StreetShooter]

As vince123123 alluded to, people have different standards. In photography, in how we practise our profession etc

Yes it is true that if you give an idiot a camera and let him click a thousand times, there is a real possibility that an image or two might turn out to be masterpiece.

So, a "moment" type of imagery equates to sloppy techniques and craft?

And sometimes people make up esoteric excuses for a mental sloppiness.

Unless you are deaf, or tone deaf, I submit you can tell the difference.

This clearly a personal attack on myself that is totally uncalled for. I am really surprised that the Admin and Mods allow such juvenile obnoxious comments in CS.

But that's OK.

 

[student]

This clearly a personal attack on myself that is totally uncalled for. I am really surprised that the Admin and Mods allow such juvenile obnoxious comments in CS.

But that's OK.

You called this "Clearly" a "personal attack"?

1 Do you deny that when one keep on clicking the shutter, there is a possibility that some images may turn out fabulous? No?

2 Did you not suggest in your post that in your "moment" type of imagery, technical perfection is unessential? No?

3 And is it not common that people often give excuses for being sloppy? No?

4 And is it not true that unless one is deaf and tone deaf, one should be able to tell the difference between simple stereo and hi fi? No?

You call this personal attack?
You call this juvenile and obnoxious?

Obviously, you and I have very different ways of reading words. Instead of addressing what I wrote in a direct manner, you chose to give snide remarks which are plagiarised from elsewhere.

I am really sorry. Now, I may be getting personal.

But no! I am not addressing the Person. I am addressing the person's behaviour and understanding. I call this manner of doing things "juvenile"

I hope you know the difference.

 

[student]

Awwww!

Come on!

Have some moral courage to leave what you wrote. Anyway, it is there.

 

[LittleWolf]

curiousity or creativity?

Goes hand in hand. Curiosity is frequently the force that drives one to pursue and express creative ideas.

 

[LittleWolf]

4 And is it not true that unless one is deaf and tone deaf, one should be able to tell the difference between simple stereo and hi fi? No?

I am fairly convinced that the benefits of "audiophile" equipment lie more in the snobbery status and boasting rights.

Incidentally, I recall a blind test involving several "audiophiles", a person with a severe hearing problem, and "audiophile" equipment/recordings vs. MP3 records conducted by a magazine a few years back. Result: the compressed MP3 music came out as the winner among the audiophiles. The exception was the near-deaf person, who could actually hear the artefacts/anomalies of the MP3 recording.

 

[tsdh]

I am fairly convinced that the benefits of "audiophile" equipment lie more in the snobbery status and boasting rights.

Incidentally, I recall a blind test involving several "audiophiles", a person with a severe hearing problem, and "audiophile" equipment/recordings vs. MP3 records conducted by a magazine a few years back. Result: the compressed MP3 music came out as the winner among the audiophiles. The exception was the near-deaf person, who could actually hear the artefacts/anomalies of the MP3 recording.

You should open a new thread in Kopitiam, and start with a phrase: "Audiophiles are snob".:bsmilie:
I have audiophile equipments at home, and playing LPs. What you're saying above has merit, considering the following facts: only a few audiophiles ever heard the real live sound of the recording they played, while almost all of the recording materials available on the market were manipulated (post-processed) on the mixing or mastering stage. Therefore trying to reproduce the original sound in the listening room is almost as impossible as getting a color-photo from a B&W negative.

by the way, as a mod in another forum, StreetShooter need to re-read what he wrote before clicking the submit button.

 

[StreetShooter]

In the interest of transparency, I have undeleted my post above. Please read the entire post.

My original intention of making that post was to highlight the irony that someone who makes personal attacks on others can actually have the gall to accuse others of doing the same.

Judge the post for yourself:
http://forums.clubsnap.org/showpost.php?p=2034353&postcount=171

Note that in my original message:
http://forums.clubsnap.org/showpost.php?p=2033943&postcount=167

there was no reference to student whatsoever. I was just sharing my point of view and did not disparage anyone. In return I got many sly digs at myself (student and I are both in the same profession; this is well known, and I particularly resent the implication that the standard with which I practice my profession is lower than his). I had, however, decided to let it go until I saw his accusation in another thread, and was amused by the rich irony:
http://forums.clubsnap.org/showpost.php?p=2052598&postcount=67

I deleted the post within a minute of posting it because I realized I did not have the time nor inclination to pursue an argument of this nature. As I said in the original post: "But that's OK."

I do not see where moral courage comes into the picture. If anything, discretion is the better part of valour, and I chose discretion (ie to withdraw my post) rather than to slug it out.

I also find it ironic that student posted a digital picture in B&W, after all that ranting about the real thing vs an imitation. If I may coin a new term, a case of pedophagia (foot in mouth syndrome) perhaps?

By the way, I moderate all forums.

 

[LittleWolf]

My original intention of making that post was to highlight the irony that someone who makes personal attacks on others can actually have the gall to accuse others of doing the same.

Calm down lah. Sometimes people attack others on a personal level if they have no arguments to make a point. I think most readers are able to notice this themselves and draw their own conclusions, without the need to discuss in detail who wrote when what.

 

[tsdh]

My original intention of making that post was to highlight the irony that someone who makes personal attacks on others can actually have the gall to accuse others of doing the same.
By the way, I moderate all forums.

StreetShooter, nice to hear that you moderate all forums.
However, as a member, I expect the moderator to be at a level where he/she wisely react toward any flames which either intentionally or not, targeted toward him/her. And should not put himself/herself in the center of the trouble.
This is a virtual forum, a photography forum, if somebody attacks you with words and accusations, what is your damage? reputation? pride?
Then if you fight back, what will the result be? just a thread marred with flames and "war of words", and at the end; the thread will be closed. Nobody win. You will not be better than those attackers.

So please, calm down. The more you fight, the more you'll lose.

 

[hazmee]

So whats the conclusion here? Is Fuji still coming out with a digital sensor that produce film-like images?

 

[Pablo]

Wowwwww

This thread (that moved around a bit) has realy become an (off topic completely) rant.

Without naming names (insert your own if you think it fits) there has become a lot of "my dad's a policeman :sticktong " type of huffing going on.

Mucho as it may be to carry on this ranter untill having the last say; it would be nice if the thread starter were to close the thread about now.

If anyone simply can't let it be and move on. Start a new thread entitled, "I am going to make my point like it or not!"

Could be interesting and a good read if you can't get to see a reality show.

 

[LittleWolf]

So whats the conclusion here? Is Fuji still coming out with a digital sensor that produce film-like images?

I doubt it. Layering the R,G,B sensitive detectors over each other doesn't make a sensor film-like. Besides, some films (including pretty modern ones, e.g. some Polaroid "instant" slide films) have used side-by-side RGB patches/stripes to record/display colour, just like Bayer-patterned sensors do it for recording and CRTs/LCDs do it for display. And autochrome, one of the first commercial colour processes (I think from the late 1800s on) used a mixture of side-by-side and layered colour sites. And Lippmann's colour process, arguably the only process that is fundamentally able to capture colour accurately, works completely differently (essentially it's a holographic process).

The only film-likeness of a sensor based on organic dyes may be an expiry date due to chemical instability.

 

[sharf]

I do agree this was not the reason why this thread was started in the first place and I have been thinking about closing this thread. Having said that I should admit that some of the information provided in this thread was useful.

But now I believe this should be the end of this thread and no more discussions. Sorry for those who wanted to post more, this thread is closed.

Regards

Sharf

Wowwwww

This thread (that moved around a bit) has realy become an (off topic completely) rant.

Without naming names (insert your own if you think it fits) there has become a lot of "my dad's a policeman :sticktong " type of huffing going on.

Mucho as it may be to carry on this ranter untill having the last say; it would be nice if the thread starter were to close the thread about now.

If anyone simply can't let it be and move on. Start a new thread entitled, "I am going to make my point like it or not!"

Could be interesting and a good read if you can't get to see a reality show.