Great.
Great.Film will always look like film because it just is.
You've moved the goalposts completely. You are basically saying you prefer the look of film. We are in agreement but that's a completely different conversation that has nothing to do with format resolution.But we don't even have to do that, the larger film formats do that for us, superior sharpness with no artificial look.
You've moved the goalposts completely. You are basically saying you prefer the look of film. We are in agreement but that's a completely different conversation that has nothing to do with format resolution.
Real detail? I give up. Most of what you're looking at is silver artefacts. The dream of professional photographers was speed without grain. New cameras are marketed almost exclusively on their ability to offer high ISOs without noise. I used to shoot 25 ASA film to mitigate its effects. Above 400 was for emergencies. The digital range of the latest cameras is huge. You can extract details from skies blown out by numerous stops. That's why people use digital.No, that is not what I mean. I am mean the larger formats give us better real detail and tonality without involving algorithms because they simply record a larger amount of information per image.
The whole digital process is electronic, so demonising "algorithms" is bizarre. Turning light sensitive cells into a picture electronically is what digital photography is about. Sharpening is heightening two areas of contrast. Saturation is turning up the intensity of colours individually or as a whole. Dynamic range is emphasising specific digital information from the available data. There is no real or unreal, just what the eye sees on screen or in the print, and I can tell you the eye sees more information from a similarly sized sensor, no question. To insinuate that it's artificial because it lack silver grain artefacts doesn't hold up. It's form, shadow and colour on a printed piece of paper, just like a silver image.Algorithms give the impression detail is there when it is not. That is their purpose. The fact is that the large formats record more information and are more detailed with real (yes, real) detail by default. What is so hard to see about that?
The large formats also offer extremely low grain and superb tonality. The common compressed digital files lose dynamic range and tonality. Film never does.
You left out professional photography. The look most photographers aspire to emulate (mistakenly, if they're not being paid.)I think we all know that digital photography is basically cheating and utterly worthless. Pictures like that don’t mean anything if you can take nine million of them. They are useful though for snaps on the phone to remember where we’ve parked for example.
The whole digital process is electronic, so demonising "algorithms" is bizarre. Turning light sensitive cells into a picture electronically is what digital photography is about. Sharpening is heightening two areas of contrast. Saturation is turning up the intensity of colours individually or as a whole. Dynamic range is emphasising specific digital information from the available data. There is no real or unreal, just what the eye sees on screen or in the print, and I can tell you the eye sees more information from a similarly sized sensor, no question. To insinuate that it's artificial because it lack silver grain artefacts doesn't hold up. It's form, shadow and colour on a printed piece of paper, just like a silver image.
You're swapping between formats again to make the point. I shoot 5 x 4, medium format, 35mm, two digital formats and a smart phone camera, so I know exactly how their output looks.
There are differences between the two mediums, and they do affect the look of an image, and that can be important to some.
The whole digital process is electronic, so demonising "algorithms" is bizarre.
Sirius Glass rushing to judgement? Surely not? Go back to your slide rule. Care to tell us what the digital medium consists of if it's not electronic image processing?Thank you for proving that you know nothing about the filtering and smoothing algorithm, the use of the cosine function, or anything else about digital processing. By the way repeating your arguments does not make your case stronger.
Sirius Glass rushing to judgement? Surely not? Go back to your slide rule. Care to tell us what the digital medium consists of if it's not electronic image processing?
No answer then? I'll try again. What is the core substance of digital photography if it isn't electronic image processing (sensors, processors, algorithms)?Just dealing with facts, many of which you conveniently ignore.
No answer then? I'll try again. What is the core substance of digital photography if it isn't electronic image processing (sensors, processors, algorithms)?
I know more than you will even know about digital photography. I designed the digital cameras on Voyager I and II. I programmed many of the photographs on the Jupiter approach including the Jupiter rotation movies and the Red Spot movies back in the 1977s. I continued designing and building digital cameras and instruments until I retired recently. Please do not bother to impress me with your lack of understanding and knowledge.
You're saying that without an understanding of mathematics people cannot judge whether a photograph is any good or not. I bet you're the kind of person who says anyone who hasn't used a Summicron isn't fit to call themselves a photographer. People who don't understand Scheimpflug can't judge a shot. The dead hand of authority sucking creativity out of a room with their absurd proclamations and appeals to their own authority.I know more than you will even know about digital photography. I designed the digital cameras on Voyager I and II. I programmed many of the photographs on the Jupiter approach including the Jupiter rotation movies and the Red Spot movies back in the 1977s. I continued designing and building digital cameras and electro-optical devices until I retired recently. Please do not bother to impress me with your lack of understanding and knowledge.
I completely agree. Why else would we take the time to shoot an analogue medium and discuss and post on a digital one? Certainly not for its resolution on a digital screen.Whatever the reason, they look different
More strawmen? Where have I said digital photography is not a physical process? I said between the sensor and the computer file the image is created by electrical impulses working through an image processor. That isn't heresy or ignorance. Apart from lenses which have been optimised for light to hit the sensor at right angles rather than deflecting angles, the only thing that has changed since film days is processing hardware and its associated software. People are denying that digital has progressed to render more information apparent on the print, with fewer visual artefacts like grain, for the same sized format, since film days. That's manifestly not the case. Challenge my point by all means, but don't put words in my mouth or claim the evidence of my eyes is unreliable.If you don’t realize this is a physical process — the *same* process — and not “just software”, then you can’t really carry on any kind of credible discussion at this level.
The angels are on my side. You're the one claiming I lack credibility for not invoking R Matrix theory of Cohen and the Binet-Cauchy formula before invoicing a client.Lughten up, Francis
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?