[Note, there are significant bits snipped from Stephen's email
below, so please don't think the quoted bits are the sum-total
of his discourse - see his original email for that.
I'm just replying to bits that I felt the need to reply to, and
thus could also, quite rightly, be said to have taken him out of
context to make my point/s.]
> Stephen Troy [mailto:sctroy@xxxxxxxxx] wrote:
> I was expecting responses like this. They somewhat miss my point.
I'm not sure how they miss the point. You said specifically that:
"It would seem that with digital, you're locked into one "look."
..., but the response was that there *were* adjustments to the
"look" that could be made in-camera, thus giving different "film"
availability and a variety of "looks" (note that the white-balance
options can also be used to subtly warm a photo in-camera, or
conversely cool a photo. This thus became more than one "look"
available. The suggestions about post-processing are an addendum
to point out that this aspect of digital photography cannot be
looked at in isolation - post-processing is "built in" in for the
majority that would use different "film" types, regardless of how
big or small that processing is. For many, with the above options,
it's possibly as simple and time-consuming as developing and
printing film.
You say that these variations in "look" are "based on someone
else's pre-defined software algorithms". Are you implying
that this predefinition is a flaw. Wouldn't Velvia be Fujifilm's
pre-defined filmware algorithm for saturated colours, and so
on with other films? How do these digital camera predefined
algorithms for varying saturation up or down (or white balance
adjustment) compare with the different film types? The c5050z,
at least, allows you to vary in quite a few steps both saturation
(up and down) and white balance (and sharpness, and contrast).
I'm not suggesting that the c5050z replaces film, and certainly
not that is covers anywhere near every film type, but that it
has variability far beyond just the one "look" you suggested.
You can obviously use film (& filters) to do these in film...
but then I would lose the pleasures and conveniences and
compatibility with my own personal processing/printing-preferences
I get out of digital (I *love* to spend hours in front of the
computer trying different "looks" on a good photo, particularly
black&white conversion - I daresay, though without complete empathy
thus far, as much as some people quite understandably love to spend
hours in the darkroom).
> So why spend valuable time and effort trying to make something
> sort of look like it came from Velvia instead of just using
> Velvia? (See below).
...so that you can get the "look" of Velvia while retaining
the individually perceived benefits of digital? (see below)
> your choices are still severly limited as compared to the
> choices available in film.
...yes, they are, but perhaps that is because many digital
camera enthusiasts prefer to post-process to obtain whatever
look they are going for, be that a "look" of the many
variations available in film, or just something unique
to their own preferences (after all, there is no reason
why photos must always "look" like particular varieties
of film)
> And if you like to work with RAW files directly, it's a moot
> point.
I agree - it is a moot point about a single "look" of raw
files from digital cameras, because if you like to work with
them directly, you are entering the "digital darkroom" where
you can give these raw files the "look" of a particular film
(or something else) as you wish.
> Another point of digital that many people miss is the hidden
> expense. For example, assume you shot a 36-exposure "roll"
> of film on your digital camera. To vary the "look" you will
> need to download the camera to your computer, open each image
> in Photoshop, do your tweaking, and save the file. If this
> process takes 15 minutes for each photo, it will take you
> nine hours to "process" the digital images to make them look
> like Velvia, Astia, Provia, Whatever-ia.
Yes this is true *"if this process takes 15 minutes for each
photo"*. However, with batch processing (such as applying that
"Velveeta" plugin/filter of Jan's), I would suggest you could
process these pictures in much less time (and if you have even
more, just let your computer chug away while you watch some
neurofilm roll off behind your eyelids overnight). Furthermore, I
could bung the photos in a different directory and process them
with me "Astia" filter or "My personal favourite toned black &
white" filter, and thus try the different "looks" of each "film".
Shouldn't take me nine hours I should think. I daresay, however,
that if one of the photos was an absolute bottler, I'd probably
spend a few hours getting the look just right in the "digital
darkroom".
> I'm serious about this - let's take a real-life example from
> my brother's studio work....
...but this is the problem with a "real-life example" - it's
a sample of just one. Digital doesn't work for him
in the example you have provided. Personally, every shekel I
put into photography is a loss on my balance sheet, so
amortisation is pretty moot for me. My digi-camera cost AUS$1500,
and I already have an OM1 with 3 lenses that cost much less.
It's bloody fun though, printing my photos off on my own
(AUS$400) printer immediately, and trying pictures out in
variations of black and white, or saturating the colours, or
reducing contrast, or taking the sharp edge of portraits, or
removing blemishes from flowers, or just plain buggerising
around with pictures of mates and family with distortion
filters and speech-bubbles and backgrounds and...
Digital cameras and post-processing and printing "inhouse"
quickly and easily is fun! (for me)
People have suggested, based on your comment "It would seem
that with digital, you're locked into one "look.", that
they many DC's do not do so - variation is available -
and post-processing provides an enormous availability for
variability of the same photo. While the post-processing might
not work for you, or your brother, they work well for
some people who might prefer to spend their time in
the digital "darkroom" rather than than the dark darkroom.
"So digital can do it all?" No, possibly/probably not. Does
it replace film? Possibly/probably, for some photographers.
Is film dead? Possibly/probably not in this lifetime. Your
question, like a whole lot of the digital/film camera debate
that crops up cannot be answered in absolutes except for
the individual. No-one suggested that digital could do it
all - that was a question that arose from your interpretation
of our responses to it only providing one "look".
It works for me - I love it. Then, I also love my C*n*n
wonderbrick, my OM1, my 35RC, my MjuII, my.... This
"either/or" business of film/digital is a moot point - I
just play in as many worlds as I want to.
For you, I guess the answer is categorically "No".
If what you were trying to say was "Digital will not replace
film for everyone", well, I absolutely agree with you, 100%
- hell, it hasn't done so even for me, and I'm a digital
fan' (I *do* so like the results I get from my processor of
C41 black & white film, processed on colour paper, from my
OM1 with 50/1.4. This combination is thus far my photographic
number 1 choice of every combination available or preferred
by me).
> And this doesn't even touch the area of creating mural-sized
> prints...
...which is a helluva long way from digital camera photos
only having the one look and into an area that is specific
to sensor/image-size (be that sensor/image film or CMOS/CCD)
rather than "digitalisation", is it not?
Cheers
Marc
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|