Zaitz
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.8 #7 · To film users, a question | |
altern3 wrote:
I did not read all the posts, but my take on this question is that scanned film is truly digital; however, the only difference is that film grain also scans very well and that grain is what separates scanned film from a digital file.
This especially works in the case of b&w because post-processing digital b&w is not easy - especially adding natural looking grain.
On the other hand, color film scans are pointless because all of them need to have their white balance corrected and color corrected to look "natural" and even then modern digital files will look better because of higher dynamic range and no grain/noise at lower ISOs....Show more →
Truly digital? Yes it's a digital file. That digital file, depending on the scanner, is as accurate a representation of what's on the film as you'll get. Every film has it's own inherent way of representing a given scene. Scanned film looks different than a photo from a digital camera and obviously for more reason than just grain. It sounds like you are trying to say film stops being film when it is scanned. Why would it stop being film when all of the information that is on the negative or slide is scanned in? The negatives/slides attributes are represented on screen and those attributes are intrinsic to each film stock making them each unique and thus giving a unique representation of a scene, no matter how small the difference is. The films fundamental qualities don't suddenly leave when you scan it in. To stop referring to the image as film would be a worthless exercise in semantics. People still call it a film image because it's a representation of such, and damn accurately when done right.
Black and white works well when scanned because of its grain but color negatives/slides look worse because of their grain? Why? Do you want the grain or don't you? Shoot a larger format.
Apparently the only thing that is different between film and digital is the grain:
the only difference is that film grain also scans very well and that grain is what separates scanned film from a digital file.
Yet you follow that by saying color needs to be 'corrected'. If the color needs to be corrected then wouldn't the color also be a difference between film and digital? I see though, the way film represents color is wrong so it 'needs' to be corrected. A films representation is different for no other reason than being flat out incorrect. Thanks for the opinion, again, but I disagree. Color negatives need to be corrected because of their orange mask, that is the only reason. Correcting slides? Not for me... Editing slides? Sure, depends on the scene and exposure.
Latitude? Digital, with a single exposure, can't touch this from divided pyro:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?89702-In-praise-of-Divided-Pyrocat
 - Ken Lee
That is sunlight outside and through the window yet it is retained even with an "8-second exposure." Get someone who knows what they are doing with black and white film and it will be leagues ahead.
Portra 400 as well.
http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/05/kodaks-new-portra-400-film/
^That area around the sun would be gone into a hideous display of blown highlights on a digital camera without sufficient underexposure and pushing. That is what I have to do anytime I shoot into the sun or really anytime there are bright highlights in a scene with my digital camera.
You share a fascinating opinion on what is 'supposed' to be done with film scans. But that is my problem. You are sharing an opinion in a completely broad and general way and it sounds like you are applying your opinion to others...almost as if you think it's not an opinion. No, I am not going to 'correct' my white balance to make it look natural. Natural, in most cases for me, being ridding the photo of any atmosphere adding color casts - however strong they may be. You go for it and take all the warmth out of a sunset photo so it agrees with your gray card. I'll keep my color casts. And when I feel like it I'll change them or even add them. I'm not going to lock myself into some constricted process where there must be a pure black, white, and even gray point.
Check out that lovely bit around the sun. Even here the d300s can't hold the highlights. Go ahead and rip it apart, I am sure the color cast in the highlights, mid-tones, and shadows will be at odds with your 'must be 100% natural' train of thought.
altern3 wrote:
Before the days of digital the question of white balance did not concern the photographer, in fact wrong WB added an aesthetic charm to slide films; however, today a Valvia 50 shot looks over processed (saturated) and having wrong WB to most people - even those who actually did shoot slide film once - for the simple reason that digital ubiquity has changed the standards of what a color photo should look like.
This is nothing against color film, its simply the reality of today. Sadly, when you shoot slide film today you have to make it look "digital" (correct WB and control saturation) in order to present it and that basically kills the whole point of shooting slide film....Show more →
What universal standards are you referring to? You are applying your opinion to everyone again. That is only your opinion. A photo shouldn't look like anything but what the photographer wants it to look like. You apparently have some misguided conception that all photos need to be made in the futile pursuit of a 100% natural looking image or worse, an indefinable digital standard look. I say indefinable because every digital camera is capable of a multitude of looks and there is no standard. Wrong white balance? No such thing. The white balance can be set however the photographer wants.
Velvia may look over-processed to you but it doesn't to me. For one, because there is no set in stone line where processed becomes over-processed, not universally anyway. I don't want a straight out of camera look to my photos and I am not going to limit myself to such narrow boundaries for exploration of the final image values, b&w or color. What does that leave you, the photographer, in the way of artistic interpretation of a given scene as far as how it is rendered? Not much I'd say.
I know which photo I would rather have. The digital photo is blurry because it is my meter. But that sooc digital coloring you seem so enraptured by is still there.
Furthermore, I find the whole idea of color film (or even digital) and over-saturation or unnatural editing hypocritical at best. You are perfectly fine with black and white photos, it would seem, yet any sort of deviation from a bland natural look with color photos is considered wrong? When was the last time you saw a scene in black and white? I doubt ever as only .003% of the population sees in true black and white. Why is it ok for artistic alterations to be done in a black and white environment but not in color? This notion has been brought up by Ansel himself:
"In thinking about the ‘accuracy’ of color photography, we should review the characteristics of photography in general in terms of representation and interpretation. Black-and-white photography is accepted as a stylized medium; values are intentionally accented or subdued in reference to their ‘photometric-equivalent’ value. There is little or no ‘reality’ in the blacks, grays and whites of either the informational or expressive black-and-white image, and yet we have learned to interpret these values as meaningful and ‘real'..... With color photography we are introduced to a more potent 'trap of reality'....If the colors do not distress us by obvious falseness or poor aesthetic relationships, we accept the conventional color picture as a statement, a symbol, or even as a record of the subject. In my experience, no color photograph will convey a truly accurate interpretation of the subject although one color may be more satisfactory than others." -Ansel Adams
The point being people have no problem separating a black and white image from reality no matter how far the alterations are taken but everyone cries foul when colors don't match up to their preconceived notion of what they 'should' be.
The last part of the above Ansel quote I believe still holds true. Digital cameras don't come close to the human eye in terms of dynamic range and the colors at both ends of the subject brightness range get skewed no matter how color accurate the sensor/film is under ideal and flat lighting with a test chart. No photo is a 100% accurate record.
So, as I stated before, what does that leave you in the way of interpretation in color photography if you are going constrict yourself to a limited variety of results in reference to colors and their values? The basis of your posts are opinions you are spouting as facts. Opinions are great. Do whatever you want with photography. I have no problem with people who don't want to edit their photos and would have had no problem with your posts had you represented your opinions as such.
"Many viewers expect a photograph to be the literal simulation of reality; of course, many others are capable of response to an image without concern for the physical realities of the subject." - Ansel Adams
That quote about sums up what photography is for me. My photos are made without concern for the physical realities of the subject. Technical matters aside, film or digital is quite irrelevant so long as it gets you the results you want. We could argue all day the technical details and there will never be a conclusion, but your opinions on aesthetics do not apply to everyone.
|
