The comeback?

[Sirius Glass]

I doubt if many digital shooters here at Photrio shoot and work with RAW before conversion.

Even I would dispute that.

 

[faberryman]

Even I would dispute that.

You've got to have some narrative.

 

[Sirius Glass]

You've got to have some narrative.

OMG!!! We are being monitored by the thought police! Look at my posts before Photrio sonny.

 

[jtk]

Imagining that there's a "global photo community" is identical to imaging that there's a global stainless steel cutlery community. Zero difference.

 

[faberryman]

OMG!!! We are being monitored by the thought police! Look at my posts before Photrio sonny.

I was referring to the narrative that digital shooters at Photrio don't work with RAW.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I was referring to the narrative that digital shooters at Photrio don't work with RAW.

So was I.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

Imagining that there's a "global photo community" is identical to imaging that there's a global stainless steel cutlery community. Zero difference.

Stainless steel? Are you nuts. Nothing but iron forged from ore in my smithy. Anything else is for poseurs.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

I perceive a film comeback, but that comeback is more about acceptability and interest and viability than it is about market share and market penetration.
When I started on APUG, the continued existence of a market for film products was in doubt. Now, while that market has its problems, it also has shown surprising capacity for flexibility and endurance.
The biggest film comeback for me? Hope.

And THIS is a fundamental fruit of this discussion. Even seen as a stasis, Film 2.0 has arrived. This awareness, with the redefined market supported by a downsized production and enriched by passion, is what will keep film alive. It is a tangible event of volumes met by supply in a sustainable fashion that brings faith in a future based on what we love now.

 

[markjwyatt]

I watched a documentary (Time Zero) on Amazon about Polaroid film and its demise last night. Polaroid shut down with a 5 year plan, and purchased raw materials to support the five year plan (ending around 2009/2010). The slow down did not proceed as expected, and they exceeded plan sales every year and maintained their margin throughout the plan. We have moved on from there, but that was not that long ago either.

 

[George Mann]

Stainless steel? Are you nuts. Nothing but iron forged from ore in my smithy. Anything else is for poseurs.

Bronze isn't good enough?

 

[removed account4]

It's simple. Exposure and white balance errors can be fixed in RAW before converting to jpeg. If they are not fixed they can result in degradation, e.g. blown highlights or color errors when converted. But if shooters are diligent and careful with their white balance and exposure to begin with, they can be converted in-camera to jpeg with little or no degradation therefore the RAW step would be unneccessary.

why would you want to shoot something in jpg which is a compressed format? the whole point about shooting in raw and then converting it to TIFF is so you have
a file that isn't compressed, not because you can get ir right with jpg... its like writing a note to someone and half the note is in invisible ink .. kind of useless from
the person who is reading it POV ... or writing the note not in invisible ink but in acronyms ...
INSWTPI BIGTIAR

 

[RPC]

why would you want to shoot something in jpg which is a compressed format? the whole point about shooting in raw and then converting it to TIFF is so you have
a file that isn't compressed, not because you can get ir right with jpg... its like writing a note to someone and half the note is in invisible ink .. kind of useless from
the person who is reading it POV ... or writing the note not in invisible ink but in acronyms ...
INSWTPI BIGTIAR

The whole idea of my post was that if you are careful you can get good results without having to shoot RAW and this may be important to many as jpeg is a commonly shot format for convenience reasons, which is what digital is really all about, in my opinion, not about quality.

Everyone has their way of dealing with the situation. Some have their way, which is shoot jpeg. You have your way, which is don't shoot jpeg.

And I have my way, which is don't shoot digital.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

jpeg is a commonly shot format for convenience reasons, which is what digital is really all about, in my opinion, not about quality.
And I have my way, which is don't shoot digital.

Wow...digital is about convenience and not quality? Each successive medium was more convenient than its predecessor. Did that end with silver nitrate? No, it continued to evolve. Eastman produced roll film because glass plates and the darkroom wagon kit were a drag. Okay, convenience, but did it stop there? No, it continued to expand its' sensitivities and processing. Did quality peak with silver nitrate. No; it is simply the medium du jour, but so ubiquitous that users fail to see its transitory nature in the greater continuum of photography into the future.
I'll leave the debate over film vs. digital quality to other threads but quality photography continues past film.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

Bronze isn't good enough?

Actually, I like a good fire-hardened stick.

 

[RPC]

Wow...digital is about convenience and not quality? Each successive medium was more convenient than its predecessor. Did that end with silver nitrate? No, it continued to evolve. Eastman produced roll film because glass plates and the darkroom wagon kit were a drag. Okay, convenience, but did it stop there? No, it continued to expand its' sensitivities and processing. Did quality peak with silver nitrate. No; it is simply the medium du jour, but so ubiquitous that users fail to see its transitory nature in the greater continuum of photography into the future.
I'll leave the debate over film vs. digital quality to other threads but quality photography continues past film.

Digital quality to me has not proven to be any better than film in all the thousands of images I have seen. If both had equal convenience, I doubt digital would have ever caught on. Convenience made marketing it easy.

Color negative film printed on print film and projected or viewed directly probably gives the highest possible quality from any photographic system. This is how movies are made. I haver never seen any digital image even come close.

 

[removed account4]

snip snip snip snip snip

jpeg is a commonly shot format for convenience reasons, which is what digital is really all about, in my opinion, not about quality.
And I have my way, which is don't shoot digital.

LOL sorry i didn't realize that was the point of the post,
cause it was a bit wrong.
digital image can't be "quality" >> whatever<<
i think that is kind of funny.. cause i dont' really find much "quality" in most \ images i have seen film or digital
glad you have your way, cause in the end none of it really matters anyways ... cause the point is to enjoy oneself..

 

[RPC]

snip snip snip snip snip


LOL sorry i didn't realize that was the point of the post,
cause it was a bit wrong.
digital image can't be "quality" >> whatever<<
i think that is kind of funny.. cause i dont' really find much "quality" in most \ images i have seen film or digital
glad you have your way, cause in the end none of it really matters anyways ... cause the point is to enjoy oneself..

By quality I mean technical quality. You know, resolution, dynamic range, tonality, etc., all those wonderful things which can be measured, and things which a system that, even without compression, producing its images by sensors and algorithms, has a tough time proving itself equal to or better than film.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

"Quality" or "a quality." As judged by film standards, side-by-side, they will be different. Highlights need not be blown-out any more than shadows need to block-up.

Funny, I keep hearing about how easy it is to shoot digital and all of the "repairs" one can make; a clear misunderstanding of digital capabilities. Yet, now I am hearing that film has a greater latitude allowing for more room for interpretation in the lab. That is either safety or value added or it is film that is easy.

 

[removed account4]

By quality I mean technical quality. You know, resolution, dynamic range, tonality, etc., all those wonderful things which can be measured, and things which a system that, even without compression, producing its images by sensors and algorithms, has a tough time proving itself equal to or better than film.

its all smoke and mirrors and propaganda
im not really sure what qualities you are talking about..
and i have been shooting film since IDK 1970 and digital since the 90s ...
i dont' really care about the technical mumbojumbo about how the camera or scanner works
it doesnt' really matter to me, cause i just care about the final image ...
and while i haven't built a sensor i have built an organic sensor ( photo emulsion )..
and its all fun

 

[RPC]

"Quality" or "a quality." As judged by film standards, side-by-side, they will be different. Highlights need not be blown-out any more than shadows need to block-up.

Funny, I keep hearing about how easy it is to shoot digital and all of the "repairs" one can make; a clear misunderstanding of digital capabilities. Yet, now I am hearing that film has a greater latitude allowing for more room for interpretation in the lab. That is either safety or value added or it is film that is easy.

If you are referring to me, I have misunderstood nothing and it is you that are twisting words and meanings. I never said anything you said.

 

[RPC]

its all smoke and mirrors and propaganda
im not really sure what qualities you are talking about..
and i have been shooting film since IDK 1970 and digital since the 90s ...
i dont' really care about the technical mumbojumbo about how the camera or scanner works
it doesnt' really matter to me, cause i just care about the final image ...
and while i haven't built a sense i have built an organic sensor ( photo emulsion )..
and its all fun

I don't care that you don't care.

 

[removed account4]

I don't care that you don't care.

LOL
whew !

sorry to ask such a serious question
but why does it matter if the file was made
with computer programing and computer hardware
instead of an organic emulsion ?

when you look at a digital c print under glass
and a darkroom print under glass
can you really tell the difference ?

ive shown darkroom and lab prints to people who
ranted and raved about how evil digital was and they
weren't able to pick the terrible digital print ...

 

[RPC]

LOL
whew !

sorry to ask such a serious question
but why does it matter if the file was made
with computer programing and computer hardware
instead of an organic emulsion ?

when you look at a digital c print under glass
and a darkroom print under glass
can you really tell the difference ?

ive shown darkroom and lab prints to people who
ranted and raved about how evil digital was and they
weren't able to pick the terrible digital print ...

Gee, I thought you didn't care and hoped I wasn't going to be subjected to your silly posts anymore.

 

[removed account4]

Gee, I thought you didn't care and hoped I wasn't going to be subjected to your silly posts anymore.

not really a silly post because it is the root .. can you really tell the difference because 99% of people most likely can't , unless you
are louping grain .. i'm not talking about a crappy digital photo im talking about one made with love ... like
a film photo ... and your posts about quality are kind of silly too, sorry im a realist not someone who believes in fairy tails ..
unless they have to do with unicorns, and mermaids

 

[jamesaz]

Digital quality to me has not proven to be any better than film in all the thousands of images I have seen. If both had equal convenience, I doubt digital would have ever caught on. Convenience made marketing it easy.

Color negative film printed on print film and projected or viewed directly probably gives the highest possible quality from any photographic system. This is how movies are made. I haver never seen any digital image even come close.

I'd just like to say that the waste stream issues involved with commercial wet labs were a huge issue. For that reason alone the industrial arm of photography would have 'caught on' to the digital way.