...looks like our film Camera is here to stay .....
- Thread starter sulhan
- Start date
- Status
the page says that "Chung Lee, a pro fashion/glamour shooter in NYC posted that he just packed up and sold his Nikon D1x, returning to his Hasselblad and Zeiss lenses. He said that he was unhappy with the color balance and lack of highlight detail. Another pro fashion photog, Christian, of South Florida, is getting set to get rid of his Fuji S1 and go back to film for the same reasons."
without starting another film vs digital debate, and assuming the article is true, it seems that our 2 friends here don't really know how to utilise their digital gear to the fullest and don't really understand this new technology.
If one has been shooting with Hasselblads and Zeiss lenses, which is definitely medium format territory, then he's an idiot to think that a 35mm based digital SLR like the D1x is going to compare favourably in quality with 645 or 67 sized negatives.
the normal 35mm negative isn't going to compare with medium format either! and the digital SLRS are 35mm based equipment, using 35mm based lenses.....
For the more interesting parts....
1) Lack of highlight detail
maybe they should learn to meter for the highlights and take advantage of digital's amazing ability to retain shadow detail. Shooting negatives and shooting digital is definitely different.
Lesson: Different techniques for different mediums!
2) Poor color balance
This must be the biggest joke, if this is really what they claim is a weakness of digital. Shooting film almost always involves dealing with color casts, especially available light shooting.
With digital, this is definitely a no issue! White balance controls are aplenty, even in Photoshop.
Lesson: Exploit the advantages of the medium.
Shooting film is like continuing a rich tradition.
Shooting digital is like having sex wearing 2 condoms........
:rbounce: :rbounce: :devil: :devil:
/me hides in underground Silo and await barrage of nuclear missiles.
Shooting digital is like having sex wearing 2 condoms........
:rbounce: :rbounce: :devil: :devil:
/me hides in underground Silo and await barrage of nuclear missiles.
preference, preference and preference!!! It all depends on YOUR PREFERENCE!!! Don't get into digital just because the pros were into it and don't get out of digital just because some pros are dumping theirs......... That thread means nothing in my opinion.
You know, it's amazing how some people can read a lot into what one or two individuals are doing and assuming that's a world wide trend, and also that these individuals know what they are doing. Let us not forget that Cathay sold a few D1x cameras to pros the other week... I'm sure at least two of them did sell medium format equipment in the process. Does that mean that the pros are deserting medium format?
I agree the points are completely ludicrous. Poor white balance has to be the stupidest argument the world has ever seen. Sure it's not as accurate as using CC filters, but then again, that's like comparing apples with oranges all over again. If you are going to apply CC filters to MF cameras, then you should be applying CC filters to digital SLRs too with a standard daylight white balance. If you argue different cameras have slightly different renditions, well exactly the same goes for different film stock, even different film batches.
I agree the points are completely ludicrous. Poor white balance has to be the stupidest argument the world has ever seen. Sure it's not as accurate as using CC filters, but then again, that's like comparing apples with oranges all over again. If you are going to apply CC filters to MF cameras, then you should be applying CC filters to digital SLRs too with a standard daylight white balance. If you argue different cameras have slightly different renditions, well exactly the same goes for different film stock, even different film batches.
We have to understand that not all of the pros out there are computer literate, especially in digital imaging. They are already familiar with analog processes, not digital. Both are two different world once the image going out of the camera. To handle digital images well in the computer, those pros need to learn new skill on digital imaging, which is not that fast and easy for someone who doesn't have basic on computers.
That's why the ridiculous argument came from.
No, you understand me wrong. I'm not saying that digital white balance, whether on camera, or in Photoshop, is better than conventional CC filters. What I'm saying is, to slate the technology for being not accurate enough (and let's fact it, it's not) is being unfair, simply because if they adopted the same shooting procedure as with their existing film setup, by using CC filters, then they would be able to accomplish exactly the same with digital.
To draw an analogy, car A has a somewhat temperamental traction control system, which can be deactivated, while car B has no traction control system. Now what the argument with white balance is akin to saying is that I am selling car A to go back to car B because the traction control system is temperamental. Now, unless the sole reason for buying car A in the first place was for the traction control, then it's a completely false argument. As with cars, it rarely is the reason, and with digital, you tend to buy for speed, possibly economy, and image quality as the main factors. White balance is but a small part of image quality, and as mentioned digital cameras can be rigged to perfectly emulate film (reverting to no traction control).
To draw an analogy, car A has a somewhat temperamental traction control system, which can be deactivated, while car B has no traction control system. Now what the argument with white balance is akin to saying is that I am selling car A to go back to car B because the traction control system is temperamental. Now, unless the sole reason for buying car A in the first place was for the traction control, then it's a completely false argument. As with cars, it rarely is the reason, and with digital, you tend to buy for speed, possibly economy, and image quality as the main factors. White balance is but a small part of image quality, and as mentioned digital cameras can be rigged to perfectly emulate film (reverting to no traction control).
I agree with you that it is unfair to judge the digital just because of one factor which actually can be adjusted. What I mean is: those pros dump their digital because they are not familiar with digital imaging processes. So in my previous post, I underline the fact that going digital need new skill on top of that analog photography. Otherwise, the result will just unsatisfactorily, and then they simply blaming the technology.
off topic;
by the way, are you sure by adding CC filter without further adjusment (just default automated white-balance), the result would be the same as analog?
I think the bottom line is knowing the characteristic of the digital medium. If you take slides, you shouldn't have any problem with exposure for CCDs 
Slide = exposure for highlights = narrow latitude
CCD/CMOS = exposure for highlights = narrow latitude
Slide = exposure for highlights = narrow latitude
CCD/CMOS = exposure for highlights = narrow latitude
Originally posted by jasonpgc
I think the bottom line is knowing the characteristic of the digital medium. If you take slides, you shouldn't have any problem with exposure for CCDs
Slide = exposure for highlights = narrow latitude
CCD/CMOS = exposure for highlights = narrow latitude
Massive over-simplification. If only it were that easy to master exposure.
No, not automated white balance, I didn't say that, I said daylight white balance, which is of course what most film is balanced for anyway. Film needs balancing as well, and this is done by the film manufacturers. Yes, it should be the same, with the caveat as I said earlier that different films have different palettes so likewise there will be subtle shifts, but in terms of white balance, then yes, setting a digital camera to daylight or tungten should yield the same results as using a daylight or tungsten film respectively.
I would have thought that pretty obvious, so maybe I'm not understanding your question correctly, apologies if that's the case.
Oh and just a point of interest, I'm seeing this all over the place, but just what is analog photography?
As far as I know, in digital, the s/w (inside or outside camera) will do white-balance (or daylight-balance) based on certain calculation from the data. So if the data is shifted (because of filtering the whole image, not partial), then the s/w will realign the data, creating un-natural color. To precisely correcting color, a manual adjustment should be done in the post-processing or RAW conversion. Only our eyes can see what is right, not the s/w.
Analog photography? it is just a term depicting traditional film photography. Become popular after digital photography come into picture. (Just as; digital audio vs analog audio).
rgds.
Originally posted by jasonpgc
I think the bottom line is knowing the characteristic of the digital medium. If you take slides, you shouldn't have any problem with exposure for CCDs
Slide = exposure for highlights = narrow latitude
CCD/CMOS = exposure for highlights = narrow latitude
Slide = narrow latitude, yes. around 3 f-stop.
CCD = narrow latitude, wrong. It is wider than negative film, some hi-end digital sensor can achieve up to 12 f-stop.
No, you are wrong on the digital front.
And go check up the meaning of analog in a dictionary too. Try dictionary.com and then run the same search through the thesaurus on the same site. Another one of the Internet's great many misconceptions.
And no, I didn't say Jason was wrong, just that it was a serious over-simplification. CCDs do have a very narrow latitude. This is a slightly more complicated area of digital photography to grasp than white balance issues so I'd sort that out first.
And go check up the meaning of analog in a dictionary too. Try dictionary.com and then run the same search through the thesaurus on the same site. Another one of the Internet's great many misconceptions.
And no, I didn't say Jason was wrong, just that it was a serious over-simplification. CCDs do have a very narrow latitude. This is a slightly more complicated area of digital photography to grasp than white balance issues so I'd sort that out first.
There is no such thing as "Analog Photography", unlike "Analog Audio".
Audio is inherently an analog thing (infinitely varying sounds levels, in an analog audio, this is infinitely varying voltage levels). Digital audio is simply the varying voltages of analog audio converted into discrete steps in a process known as sampling.
In photography, there isn't so much of a continously varying thing. Though digital has replaced traditional silver halide processes, the old process is NOT known as "analog" photography, just so becoz analog happens to be the opposite of digital.
Call traditional film cameras Film Cameras, not "Analog Cameras". The term "analog cameras" sounds rather silly. ;p
Similarly, off topic, but there isn't such a thing as "developing digital photos". You print them.
Regards
CK
Regarding "analog", I said in my previous post: 'it is a term depicting traditional film photography'. So it is just a term, popular after digital come out. It is true that the traditional film photography suddenly called 'analog' because simply it is the opposite of 'digital', and have less words than saying 'traditional film photography'. Of course you can't find it in the dictionary.
Regarding the latitude of CCD, probably I'm wrong, but do check the Sinarback digital for view camera. It's sensor capture up to 12-stop as they write in the spec. How do they achieve it?
http://www.sinarbron.com/sinarbackintro.htm
Altough I have to agree that not all digicam has a wide latitude, it depends on the sensor and electronic circuit. Nobody actually sure about the actual latitude, probably you may want to test?
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000yw4
rgds.
Quote
"If only it were that easy to master exposure."
That depends on the person behind the viewfinder
"If only it were that easy to master exposure."
That depends on the person behind the viewfinder
- Status
Similar threads
