You could turn that around and say that “because of necessary edge detection, and contrast enhancement digital shows selective sharpness and smudge elsewhere.
And because of aliasing from various sources in the matrix and digitization, digital shows harshness and artificial sharpness where there isn’t any”.
Film shows resolution in a different kind of way. A way I personally find much more pleasing and in a way that leans into and parallels what psycho acoustics tells us that our ear like.
A frequency response with a slightly down slanted curve toward the highs.
Generally there are more overlaps than not with the very general way in which we respond between the two senses of sight and hearing.
I agree. I too see those artifacts added on over sharpening done by software. Unfortunately there are some who now think that the artifacts are supposed to be there, sadly.
You could turn that around and say that “because of necessary edge detection, and contrast enhancement digital shows selective sharpness and smudge elsewhere.
And because of aliasing from various sources in the matrix and digitization, digital shows harshness and artificial sharpness where there isn’t any”.
This thread reminds me of audiophools arguing over whether vinyl LPs sound better than CDs.
Yes, but that's not a new debate either. I have long used Hasselblad and their razor-like optics. A lot of people don't care for that when, say, trying to shoot a more atmospheric scene or portrait, and declare that the Hassy is just "too sharp".
On this particular matter, I am conflicted, because they do have a point. I don't want to see every pore on a portrait. Of course, working pros used all manner of diffusion and softening techniques from soft filtering on the camera to diffusion screen under the enlarger.
When CDs first came out, the results were abysmal more often than not. Recording engineers hadn't yet figured out how to mic and mix for a medium that reproduced nearly everything flawlessly. (The analog amplifier manufacturers also had to catch up.) They implicitly had been protected by the limitations of vinyl and tape to hide their mistakes. It took a fair bit of time for the industry to start getting it right. (Where it mattered, with acoustic and classical music. Most of what has been popular since hasn't much needed recording subtlety...)
The point is that messing with sharpness isn't new. What's new is digital itself, which brings its own sensibility to image production. I would suggest that it hasn't been mature long enough for a good body of practice around post production to exist yet. Most of what I see is over produced, heavy handed, bordering on garish. This is just a growing up thing that will remedy itself with time. I do think that many advertising art directors are the villains in this, insofar as digital plays right into their natural instincts to tinker images to death.
Unfortunately, film photographers oversharpen their scans, so virtue is a scarce commodity.
Overshapening is done with both film and digital as I posted in post # 77.
That is an inherent issue with just having too many cool apps and methods of control at your fingertips - the temptation to go hog wild with them. It's an adolescent technology ethos overtly apparent by all the uncomely zits in the prints themselves. No restraint. It's even worse with respect to the let-it-all-hang-out mentality of hyper color saturation one sees everywhere nowadays.
Eventually new and cool options inevitably become routine and boring, and self-extinguish as far as fad status goes. Then something else emerges to replace it, and has a similar cycle.
The value of this thread is it helps people explore how the different technologies achieve what they achieve.
It rarely hurts to have a better understanding how and why.
That is an inherent issue with just having too many cool apps and methods of control at your fingertips - the temptation to go hog wild with them. It's an adolescent technology ethos overtly apparent by all the uncomely zits in the prints themselves. No restraint. It's even worse with respect to the let-it-all-hang-out mentality of hyper color saturation one sees everywhere nowadays.
Eventually new and cool options inevitably become routine and boring, and self-extinguish as far as fad status goes. Then something else emerges to replace it, and has a similar cycle.
That is an inherent issue with just having too many cool apps and methods of control at your fingertips - the temptation to go hog wild with them. It's an adolescent technology ethos overtly apparent by all the uncomely zits in the prints themselves. No restraint. It's even worse with respect to the let-it-all-hang-out mentality of hyper color saturation one sees everywhere nowadays.
How is that any different than the crazy, garish stuff you can do in a darkroom?
That is not the thread subject. Off topic.
Actually, it's IMPOSSIBLE to do any of that crazy garish stuff in my darkroom, specifically because it is MY own darkroom.
I agree. Tools are exactly that - just tools. It all depends on who wields them, and why.
I wonder where this cliché originated?
Tools are not just tools.
They are one of most important parts of humanity, one of the defining traits. We shape them and they shape us in turn.
They are a subset of media or is media a subset of them.
Tools are what is responsible for the characteristic look of all art.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?