The comeback?

[Berkeley Mike]

Film will always look like film because it just is.

Great.

 

[blockend]

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.

I have 10 rolls of colour negative film to process today and 2 rolls of 120 black and white. It would be useful, just for once, to have an objective discussion that looked beyond personal preferences. I should have learnt that hard facts will never be equal to a tide of emotion.

 

[RPC]

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.

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.

 

[blockend]

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.

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.

 

[RPC]

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.

 

[blockend]

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.

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.

 

[Svenedin]

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.

 

[blockend]

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.

You left out professional photography. The look most photographers aspire to emulate (mistakenly, if they're not being paid.)

 

[foc]

I think at this stage there is a good possibility that Goofwin's law will apply ( "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches" )

 

[Nodda Duma]

Nice. I think this thread only needs to check off one more box on the derailing list before it meets classic APUG “in the toilet” standards.

So yeah, Nikon is better than Canon.

 

[RPC]

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.

What looks more real to you, a photograph or a painting? In an image, real or unreal CAN be assessed by the viewer. The way an image is produced can certainly determine its look, whether it is good or bad, real or unreal, to the viewer.

There are differences between the two mediums, and they do affect the look of an image, and that can be important to some. In the case of digital, sensors, algorithms, compression are by no means perfect and take their toll on the accuracy of the image, producing artifacts not seen in film. Not just in detail, but in other parameters as well.

I stand by my statement that the larger formats record more real detail than digital, and I mention them because they are a way to have more detail than digital can produce accurately.

 

[blockend]

There are differences between the two mediums, and they do affect the look of an image, and that can be important to some.

What I think may be going on is this...
People have become used to the look of a 35mm image, and what that represents in terms of clarity, resolution and texture - literally how reality in front of the camera is re-solved or interpreted. Along comes digital and suddenly the same format shows not just the bricks, but the bugs in the cracks in the mortar in the wall. There must be some cheating going on, so they call it unreal or artificial. The camera had no right to see that stuff, and the photographer clicking on a 400% enlargement was just the filling in the gaps with code.

Then there's the tribal thing. It's just digital and you can do that on a phone. Film is Long John's Silver suspended in dead cow. You have to earn your chops, get your hands wet and live in the dark if you want to get a picture. I understand that.

My point was simple and very specific, but it transgressed the points above. At no point did I say larger formats fail to produce more detail than a 35mm full frame sensor. It's always been about format and resolution, and I had to repeat it because no one wanted to hear, even though they knew it was indisputable.
I shot a roll this morning and this evening is all C41. Unless someone wants to strawman me in new ways, I suggest we return to the title of the thread.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The whole digital process is electronic, so demonising "algorithms" is bizarre.

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.

 

[blockend]

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?

 

[Sirius Glass]

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?

Just dealing with facts, many of which you conveniently ignore.

 

[blockend]

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)?

 

[Sirius Glass]

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 electro-optical devices until I retired recently. Please do not bother to impress me with your lack of understanding and knowledge.

 

[Cholentpot]

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.

When the Vorganians attack we'll know who to blame Mr. 'Voyager Camera Man'

Yeah, we know what that camera was REALLY taking photos of...like they had digital cameras in the 70's...

Remember CIA and NASA are once only letter apart. Man.

 

[Nodda Duma]

Sirius is correct. Fundamentally, Silver halides, Silicon, InGaAs, HgCdTe, Rods and Cones, InSb all respond to incident light in the same way: Absorption of a photon causes an electron to be released, which stimulates a recording process. Forgive my gross over-simplification. The materials really only differ in the amount of energy required and how the conversion activity and photon energy values are recorded. Everything else is just subjective interpretation and technology. 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.

To get away from that photoelectron process your only real choice today is a microbolometer, which records irradiance or radiant flux (depending on your preference) and not photons.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The difference in looks between digital and film is more apparent in video. The "soap opera" look of video is horrible and looks artificial to me. Now, that could be because I grew up on film. Or maybe, it's just that the overall sharpness is not a natural look to our brain. Maybe there are also other things going on that our brains see that looks artificial like when HDR is overdone. Whatever the reason, they look different.

 

[blockend]

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.

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.

If digital is inferior to film, format for format, why has the rest of the professional and amateur world embraced it? Are they all as visually inept as I am, completely unable to see that a Nikon with a roll of Portra has more resolution, can be printed larger and has fewer artefacts than 45.7mp Nikon D850? Why has this interesting thread once again been diverted into a set of criteria that has nothing to do with the topic or any point I've made?

 

[blockend]

Whatever the reason, they look different

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.

 

[blockend]

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.

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.

 

[Nodda Duma]

Lughten up, Francis. You killed this thread.

 

[blockend]

Lughten up, Francis

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.