Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Great Idea - but not today

Subject: Re: [OM] Great Idea - but not today
From: Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 15:20:08 -0500
> Damn! The bear didn't bite the stick. Rats! <g>

He did gnaw on it a little bit, but decided that he'd rather taste flesh.


> Would be nice to see a real blind (snicker) test using all-wet materials
and all-digital
> materials, to see if folks really can tell the difference. It's always
easier when you know
> going in what you're looking at.

The most carefully produced digital B&W prints may have "arrived" as you
have stated. There is some seriously good stuff out there. I've seen some.
But the seriously good stuff is very rare. I've seen "excellent" work from
"excellent" professional photographers. But overall, even what people are
considering top-dog stuff just doesn't seem to have the natural world-order
quite right. It's like TMax. Some people figured out how to make it look
like classic films, but otherwise it has that artificial, Borg-like look.

Same with digital. Digital and TMax are pretty much two peas in a pod.
Either you like the look or you don't. There are reasons why Tri-X is still
around and TMax wasn't universally adopted.

Can you fake Tri-X? Yup, you can. In fact, I'd suggest that the E-3 has one
of the best pretend Tri-X modes around! Also, I really like the way my lowly
A1 does in-camera B&W. Another classic look. But we're not just talking
about the initial conversion from RAW, nor the tonal profiling to mimick
various films under "ideal" conditions. Even the output itself is pretty
good!

It's the overall package. This is not as much a technical issue as it is an
overall aesthetic issue. It's actually related to the "Velvia Look". People
claim they can mimick the "Velvia Look" but the reality is that the film
sees differently than digital sensors see. You can profile till the cows
come home, but you'll still not recover what was lost during the capture.
Also, we have an impression in our mind of what these various "Looks" are,
but rarely, if ever, are we correct.

Two summers ago, out in Colorado, I did a test where I shot the same scene
with both Velvia and Digital. Without looking at the slide, I tried to make
the digital image look like what I thought Velvia would have done with the
scene. I thought I did a pretty good job. Then I looked at the slide. NOT
EVEN CLOSE! So, I tried bending the digital file to match the slide (scanned
by this point). The amount of twisting and turning of the bits was so severe
that the file was pretty well damaged beyond printability. Even 16-bit,
there wasn't enough bits to hold things together. Therefore, I just
processed the digital image to where it seemed to want to go and even though
the image was still good, it wasn't the same as Velvia.

Just maybe it doesn't matter? Does it matter that we achieve a "Velvia Look"
or a "Tri-X Look?" to our images? Or should we embrace the "Digital Look"
which I think Moose has indicated in the past might not be that bad of a
thing to do. Well, is this form-follows-function? Do we embrace this new
look because it really is the way we want to go or because that is the way
we're essentially forced to go? When Kodak came out with TMax, it was
technically superior to Plus-X and Tri-X in almost every way. But except for
technical and product photography, it wasn't universally embraced because it
didn't look quite right.

So, now we are well down the road to "Digital B&W". Can it be made to fake
out the viewer into thinking it's something it is not? Sure! But not
naturally. There is a way the files want to be processed and printed and
unless you actually are shooting film side-by-side with the digital you may
not be aware of how the film nuanced the scene differently than your own
mind thinks it is going to. A good case in point is where we deliberately
over or under-expose film. Film treats the toe and shoulder completely
differently than digital. With digital, we "expose to the right" as a
general rule. But with film, I might expose three stops PAST the right. The
resulting digital image is blown out, while the film image might be high-key
or lyrical. Can you expose the digital correctly and then shove the exposure
three stops over in post? Sure you can. But then you are leaning into the
lower bits which are anything but wanting to be lifted three stops. HDR to
the rescue? Not quite, because HDR induces it's own set of issues.


> And, from a purely personal perspective, I am utterly captivated by the
different ways I can,
> as they say, "express my vision" using digital tools. Maybe I could do it
all wet, but I don't
> have the time or the energy or the inclination to learn.

An analog world, for you, would definitely not be the right choice. I would
never suggest that you should build a darkroom. Especially since you've
managed to do pretty well with the technology you have embraced. It works
for you.

I agree with you very much about how it is amazing how we can "express my
vision" with digital. It really is incredible what can be accomplished in
seconds. I use digital for experimentation, learning and personal
development. All things which are "free" with digital, but sometimes quite
costly with a film-based system. With extremely rare exception, these works
of current fancy are rarely long-term relationships. Although they are vital
for my growth as a photographer, almost without exception they don't have
legs. In the end, it's the mainstream stuff that continues to sell, which
brings us to your last point:


> And if someone else buys it, I'm _really_ happy. <g>

Amen! Bro!

AG
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz