I wasn't familiar with these but just watched a short video on them. They're amazing. I would love to have the time to devote to that.
So is a Daguerreotype, and with twice the experience as we had with Kodachrome we ought to have solved most of the technical problems in making them.
Kind of. A digital camera creates a file when you press the shutter, made up of binary code. It's pure information which is then decoded in camera, or retrospectively by file conversion software, into a photograph. Editing software allows you to do the stuff traditionally associated with a darkroom, alter contrast, change colours, soften or sharpen and burn in over-exposed areas, plus a few new tricks. Files are certainly large and getting bigger all the time, but memory and storage become cheaper, so professional cameras and the equipment to make pictures from them costs roughly what it always did.I am no expert on the matter, but my understanding is that one can let the RAW file conversion to JPEG or other format take place in the camera, or save the RAW file to a computer, and with the proper software, perform the conversion there, which allows one, by taking advantage of the larger dynamic range of the RAW file, to make corrections to improve the converted quality, before sending to the lab. In some cases the RAW file may be sent to a lab to let them do the correction and conversion before printing. Workflow slows so it is best if the photographer just endeavors to shoot it right to begin with. Does this make sense to you?
As I said in an earlier post, I work at a lab and do color correction (color balance, density, contrast, and saturation adjustments) to digital images before printing. We have hundreds of clients from around the country that do mostly youth sports and can be considered professionals. Skin tones are used to judge and correct color.
They send in digital images that generally require lots of correction. A few clients do request no correction. I have never seen any they send in that didn't need any--some are way off. Despite this, they accept their results! I have never seen any that would be what I consider to be the quality level that a slide would give. Getting proper exposure is important with both slides and digital (due to limited dynamic range), but with digital one must also be diligent with white balancing the camera, and be sure that contrast and saturation are set correctly. All this is critical to record an image that does not require any correction, or is not overexposed. With slide film, image parameters are built into the film in manufacture, by people who know what they are doing. With digital, it is the user who must know what he is doing, which, at least with our clients, is a rare occurance.
Some have said that film has a greater color gamut than digital. I think that may be true and one of the reasons film was easier to color correct than digital, and why some think slides, and film in general, looks more "real".
Excuse me Marcelo Paniagua
Digital cameras have only one ISO (the "native" ISO, and not always corresponds to the "lowest" in the camera, and not always is available to the user) because there is a limit in the number of the photons for each cell, the rest is signal amplification. The size of each cell is what makes that limit (that ISO) for each sensor. The biggest the sensor, the biggest are (or can be) its cells, and the bigger the cells the more amount of photons he gets. Because is not the energy of the photons (that doesn't change) what marks the ISO, it's the number of them. When you increase (push) that signal (S) native number (and the ISO with it), you're creating/inventing a gain (taking new data) ... affecting the final result with electronic noise (S/N), lower colour quality, reducing the contrast range, bla, bla, bla those are the "extreme" digital ISO numbers. With that being said, you should know what are you doing when you select 102.400 ISO on your 6D.
Now, to answer your second question, my top film ISO so far was 25.000 (pushed from K. p3200) where 3200 was EI / and 1000 was the "native speed as starting point". That's why my "False" answer.
You fail to account for the fact that both pixels and participles are employed in polymer chains of pure BS.
i'm sorry to ask this but why are slides more real than a digital file that is not manipulated or cropped in any way whatsoever?
As I said in an earlier post, I work at a lab and do color correction (color balance, density, contrast, and saturation adjustments) to digital images before printing. We have hundreds of clients from around the country that do mostly youth sports and can be considered professionals. Skin tones are used to judge and correct color.
They send in digital images that generally require lots of correction. A few clients do request no correction. I have never seen any they send in that didn't need any--some are way off. Despite this, they accept their results! I have never seen any that would be what I consider to be the quality level that a slide would give.
...but with digital one must also be diligent with white balancing the camera, and be sure that contrast and saturation are set correctly. All this is critical to record an image that does not require any correction, or is not overexposed. With slide film, image parameters are built into the film in manufacture, by people who know what they are doing. With digital, it is the user who must know what he is doing, which, at least with our clients, is a rare occurance.
Some have said that film has a greater color gamut than digital. I think that may be true and one of the reasons film was easier to color correct than digital, and why some think slides, and film in general, looks more "real".
White balance is something a photographer does (or sadly, often doesn't do) with a digital camera before shooting to adjust the camera to the color temperature of the light used to shoot with...
Hi, Alan. We don't make a big deal out of Christmas. Even when it involved big family gatherings, I'd sneak out early with a view camera, and return
hours later when everyone else was exhausted from the inevitable political and sociological arguments. My family has some pretty highly placed govt
experts, phD's, lawyers, etc in such topics, which means they all expertly raise their voices. Rocks and trees don't talk back. My Phillips is still rock
solid, though I shoot color film in it less often due to its sheer expense. I got rid of all the megapixels, and even the little remaining pixels scurrying
around, with roach bait and D-Con. Works every time. And all the gamut was used up on toast, just like the marmalade.
Our clients generally send us uncorrected images, copied from files straight out of their camera, in JPEG. Our system is geared to deal with clients' profiles and color spaces and it is rarely a problem. We do the color correction with calibrated equipment. As for those that ask for no corrections, problems could be introduced that could very well be a reason they are off if they correct or convert their own, but few do this.Not everybody has a calibrated monitor (or even know how to), not everybody has the same colour profile (or even know about it), not everybody knows which is the correct file format (or even how to convert), not everybody knows how to treat the colour space or the colour mode to send to a Lab., not everybody knows how to interpret a chromaticity diagram ... even some Labs. neglect some of those aspects as well.
A slide can also give accurate color, or very close to accurate, and usually does, without any color adjustment, by design.No. With slide film you can do colour corrections at the time of the exposure and after
Yes, I saw where it was explained, after my post, what was meant by "real". A slide's color is generally very close without additional correction by design. Digital requires more careful camera setting and almost always correction. My point was digital must be manipulated more than slide film, therefore a slide can be thought of as more "real".... Anyway, in my opinion, the correction step has nothing to do with "the real" reason asked.
I'm sure the eye does, but you don't say what the limit is or how that relates to seeing or not seeing the gamut of film or digital.Greater colour gamut may remain in a nonsense race between them both, it makes little here, the human eye has its own "gamut" limit.
That takes time. Our clients generally want a fast turnaround so they just set WB in the camera if they think about it at all. Our lab seldom if ever works with RAW images from clients.... Or after! if working with RAW format.
Our clients generally send us uncorrected images, copied from files straight out of their camera, in JPEG. Our system is geared to deal with clients' profiles and color spaces and it is rarely a problem. We do the color correction with calibrated equipment. As for those that ask for no corrections, problems could be introduced that could very well be a reason they are off if they correct or convert their own, but few do this.
they accept their results!
A slide can also give accurate color, or very close to accurate, and usually does, without any color adjustment, by design.
With slide film, image parameters are built into the film in manufacture, by people who know what they are doing. With digital, it is the user who must know what he is doing, which, at least with our clients, is a rare occurance
... it is difficult to compare the quality of images until a correction step has taken place. A slide's color is generally very close without additional correction. Digital requires more careful camera setting and almost always correction. Once corrected, then you can better assess perceived "realness". Some here have explained what "real" is to them, but others may see it differently.
I'm sure the eye does, but you don't say what the limit is or how that relates to seeing or not seeing the gamut of film or digital.
That takes time. Our clients generally want a fast turnaround so they just set WB in the camera if they think about it at all. Our lab seldom if ever works with RAW images from clients.
Short answer: Light is closer to light in the side of the slide.
I agree. Chemical dyes in a suspension of dead pig vs. a grid of tiny lenses. Who's going to call that one as a suitable index of reality?sorry, not really wanting to argue with you but i'm not drinking the koolaid.
i'll go along with an artifact from a chemical experiment, but that's it
I live in gt Yarmouth our last proper family run photography shop closed few years back and the other does not do film anymore , I have historically found said supermarkets quality poor , I use snapfish for digital .i would love to. Use a darkroom facility if one existed close to me . It would be silly to go bk to college just for the darkroom and do the same course again even if they still teach film techniques??
sorry, not really wanting to argue with you but i'm not drinking the koolaid.
i'll go along with an artifact from a chemical experiment, but that's it
4k (8k, 16k et al) may kill the decisive moment as the defining character of candid photography, but only for those with the time to re-examine reality at 30 fps.Another elephant in the room. Ask anyone who shoots digital whom asks this question about analog photography why they bother to shoot stills? These days with 4k becoming more common and the ability to pull stills from bursts of 4k footage there is increasingly no point in shooting digital stills, might as well shoot bursts of video or just shoot video.
Well, there is the storage problem ...Another elephant in the room. Ask anyone who shoots digital whom asks this question about analog photography why they bother to shoot stills? These days with 4k becoming more common and the ability to pull stills from bursts of 4k footage there is increasingly no point in shooting digital stills, might as well shoot bursts of video or just shoot video.
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?