Peter, you might not be aware but I'm giving myself up for adoption. I'm a cute baby and can be any colour you want.
You large format guys are nasty. Everyone knows that large format is when its too much effort to chase anything faster than a skirt. When a good pair of shoes means you can stand in the one spot for hours (and hours). Also I happen to know that you guys blow a lot of air ...
Peter Figen wrote:
"You have over exposure and under exposure in the same negative and no drum scanner can remedy that."
No negative here. As with most transparency film, you expose for the highlights and let the shadows fall where they may. The skin here is not over exposed, and at the time of the shot, her hair was jet black, so any detail there would be questionable anyway.
"A good example is her hair which looks smudged - but its actually under exposed to the point of being pure blacks -- that's what happens with 5 stops of DR."
The hair isn't smudged, but most likely out of focus due to shooting at f/2, which is something that was done, stylistically, and on purpose.
"And finally that is a very unflattering image of a lady, first of all with a 35mm and that close the distortion is nasty and every pore in her skin shows due to sharpening. "
If all you're out to do is try and tear down an image, then I guess you're good at it. You may not understand the type of image I was making, and that's okay, but let's just say that you're the first out of many many who have seen this image to call it unflattering. That's okay. It's your opinion, but it has nothing at all to do with why it was posted in this thread. In fact, you've help make the point by noticing every pore in her skin. You wouldn't have seen that if it hadn't had been resolved.
Sharpening? No, this image has had zero sharpening. The detail scan that is. The low res jpeg was sharpened for that size viewing on a screen, but the detail had no sharpening either in the scanner or in post processing. Since I'm the one who did it all from soup to nuts, I would know. Not seeing the halos you're referring to either, but thanks for contributing to the discussion.
Not to forget the halo around edges - once again thanks to sharpening. ...Show more →
I wouldn't have bothered responding to him, clearly a troll of some sort. What you posted as an example of the possibilities of film is wonderful. Hopefully I'll have some negatives or slides that would deserve that level of scanning someday. Cheers!!
zalmyb wrote:
P67 has a gnarly set of long fast telephotos... it's not large format, but probably the largest set of useful long lenses around.
Considering the P67's mirror slap and the issues its lenses have that have been revealed by the S2, the usefulness of a P67 setup for my work is not debatable. As in not useful.
Look, I shoot both film and digital and from 35mm to 4x5 although I have shot 8x10 in the past. It's never been about film vs digital for me. It's about the right tool for the job at hand. I posted what I posted to show what the possibilities can be if everything is working together and to illustrate how when most people compare film to digital, they're really comparing their particular scanner to digital.
Film is certainly viable for a lot of things but for most commercial jobs - and I'm primarily a commercial photographer - it's no longer practical, with art directors wanting immediate feedback. That being said, I started with film and I still love it, but mostly shoot it for my personal projects. Unlike a lot of people, I actually love scanning, but it does take time and effort.
One of the things I think you could see even in an online forum was the difference in 100 percent crops between the drum and the CCD scanner, and how crisply the grain was rendered in the drum vs. the relative softness of the CCD, even though it had plenty of pixels.
Oscar Wilde (stop giggling Bif) said if someone doesn't like it then its not art.
He also wrote this ....
My dear Sir
Art is useless because its aim is simply to create a mood. It is not meant to instruct, or to influence action in any way. It is superbly sterile, and the note of its pleasure is sterility. If the contemplation of a work of art is followed by activity of any kind, the work is either of a very second-rate order, or the spectator has failed to realise the complete artistic impression.
A work of art is useless as a flower is useless. A flower blossoms for its own joy. We gain a moment of joy by looking at it. That is all that is to be said about our relations to flowers. Of course man may sell the flower, and so make it useful to him, but this has nothing to do with the flower. It is not part of its essence. It is accidental. It is a misuse. All this is I fear very obscure. But the subject is a long one.
Truly yours,
Oscar Wilde
me thinks he doesn't like digital ....
Now just to recover myself and make it clear that I'm a guy that likes (Oh crap I nearly said togas and swords, instead ...lets just say that I'm a guy that doesn't like wrestling) and my own influence is a Roman Emperor that said ...
we ought to observe also that even the things which follow after the things which are produced according to nature contain something pleasing and attractive. For instance, when bread is baked some parts are split at the surface, and these parts which thus open, and have certain fashion contrary to the purpose of the baker's art, are beautiful in a manner, and in a peculiar way excite a desire for eating.
(The thoughts of Marcus Aurelius. Book III)
You guys that cannot look at a picture need to get out a bit more, read a book even. Every picture tells a thousand words but you guys can only spell sharp, bokeh and dof.
so I'm curious, are you on the side of or against the digital people who have to post in every related thread (barring the 'post your recent film shots here' thread, thank goodness) how bad film is?
I mean, I'm starting to think that we have some people around here who are insecure with their gear and need to feel like their equipment choices were definitely not wrong when they chose to move to digital.
"I evaluated K25 and it sucked compared to a DMR" Ok, fine. Well the thing is someone just posted a sample that makes your claim look idiotic. but rather than admit that maybe, just maybe you came in to do expressly the opposite of what the OP asked it's better to just post more vitriol.
redisburning wrote:
"I evaluated K25 and it sucked compared to a DMR" Ok, fine. Well the thing is someone just posted a sample that makes your claim look idiotic..
Actually, the posted sample confirmed my evaluation. But that shouldn't matter to anyone else. It's a test under my working conditions, with my subjects, using my criteria for evaluation. YMMV.
Peter Figen wrote:
"You have over exposure and under exposure in the same negative and no drum scanner can remedy that."
No negative here. As with most transparency film, you expose for the highlights and let the shadows fall where they may. The skin here is not over exposed, and at the time of the shot, her hair was jet black, so any detail there would be questionable anyway.
"A good example is her hair which looks smudged - but its actually under exposed to the point of being pure blacks -- that's what happens with 5 stops of DR."
The hair isn't smudged, but most likely out of focus due to shooting at f/2, which is something that was done, stylistically, and on purpose.
"And finally that is a very unflattering image of a lady, first of all with a 35mm and that close the distortion is nasty and every pore in her skin shows due to sharpening. "
If all you're out to do is try and tear down an image, then I guess you're good at it. You may not understand the type of image I was making, and that's okay, but let's just say that you're the first out of many many who have seen this image to call it unflattering. That's okay. It's your opinion, but it has nothing at all to do with why it was posted in this thread. In fact, you've help make the point by noticing every pore in her skin. You wouldn't have seen that if it hadn't had been resolved.
Sharpening? No, this image has had zero sharpening. The detail scan that is. The low res jpeg was sharpened for that size viewing on a screen, but the detail had no sharpening either in the scanner or in post processing. Since I'm the one who did it all from soup to nuts, I would know. Not seeing the halos you're referring to either, but thanks for contributing to the discussion.
Not to forget the halo around edges - once again thanks to sharpening. ...Show more →
Most amateur photographers live in a world of mutual appreciation and complete disconnect from the real world of photography and its harsh reality. Most people who replied to you said that was a great image but I told you otherwise because I don't know you and I don't wish to lie to you -- I told you what another honest photographer who knows what his talking about will tell you. Don't take my word, send this image to a photographer whom you respect and ask for their feedback... Forums are great for gear stuff, and for most amateurs the thrill does not go beyond the gear so its understandable but when you try to use an image as an example of technical superiority of film, at least you should know what technical superiority means in regards to what an image should look.
I did not tear your image, in fact its irrelevant what I said, if you care about your photography what you should be thinking about is how could someone else have such a different opinion of one of your images that you regard very highly --- people actually pay to have their images 'torn' so they learn but when that critique comes for free, its tearing an image and trolling...
The bottom line today as far as color photography is concerned:
1-The image must have correct white balance
2-It must look balanced and not too saturated
3-It must be sharp where it matters, not every nook and cranny
4-no blocked shadows and blown highlights
5-detail in the shadows and soft highlights
6-smooth out of focus areas
7-no halos around high contrast edges due to sharpening
And your image fails in all of those seven basic categories.
telyt wrote:
Actually, the posted sample confirmed my evaluation. But that shouldn't matter to anyone else. It's a test under my working conditions, with my subjects, using my criteria for evaluation. YMMV.
you know what, you're right.
you actually put forward your opinion as such and in an adult way; it was the most recent in memory so I just put it down and that was not right of me. especially since you weren't guilt of my general point.
sorry, I messed up by using a generalization of your post implying that your post was part of the problem.
Hey Altern3 - or whatever your name is. Do you know who I am? Have you looked at the decades of my images? I rarely say this in public, but you're a complete idiot who has no clue not only about photography, but what this entire thread has been about. Please crawl back wherever you came from and stop wasting bandwidth and precious oxygen.
Peter Figen wrote:
Hey Altern3 - or whatever your name is. Do you know who I am? Have you looked at the decades of my images? I rarely say this in public, but you're a complete idiot who has no clue not only about photography, but what this entire thread has been about. Please crawl back wherever you came from and stop wasting bandwidth and precious oxygen.
Ooooo, I think that's the 1st and only time I've ever read Peter going off like that... It seems kinda deserved tho... <shrug>
I don't wanna get in too deep myself but I know for sure that most of the posters here at FM don't really fit into the "amateur photographer" category altern3. Maybe you're thinking of "The PhotoForum"? On the other hand your list of 7 and your above stated POV on photography kinda does fit. I hear those exact things or very near, from people right at about the point where they stop shooting everything that moves or shines and decide they need to apply rules to themselves. So like one step above total beginner. I'm not saying you are or anything but the sentences you wrote most often come from there.
Mr Figen OTOH, is quite an established figure in the industry at large. He's worthy IMO just for his work with George Harrison (The only Beatle not to sell out) who I dig quite a lot. I don't wanna suck up to Peter tho because I know I could do just as good... IF I DEVOTED MY LIFE CAREER TO PHOTOGRAPHY TOO!
So I guess you see the mistake you're making? Critiquing a professional photographer's image unsolicited in a non critique thread when the image was only meant as a sample of scanner and film quality in the first place? Oops!
-- -- -- -- -- --
Also, and in general, I don't think anyone here is saying "how bad film is" in an overgeneralizing way or that it's not worthy of use. The thread as I understand Saty (the OP), seems to be a request for information so they can get to grips with normalized expectations after probably seeing some MF/LF gallery prints displayed. A good way to explain that to a stated Ricoh A12 shooter IMO, is to compare film's upsides and downsides to digital's qualities - which are already known to the OP. When someone flies off the handle when one of film's known downsides is stated that is what creates division and causes these kinds of discussions to devolve into mud-slinging fests IMO. Take a breath, relax, reread the sentences before freaking out and jumping to wrong conclusions.
There are no "sides". Some of use use and like digital, some of us use and like film, and some of us use and like both. If someone is asking what to expect from one or the other we should be able to cover that with examples and opinions without anyone getting upset or incorrectly accusing us of dogging one or the other every chance we get.
Right? I mean it's an old subject here now. Most of us have seen the technicals demonstrated many times already. I know I have.
OneAnt wrote:
Oscar Wilde (stop giggling Bif) said if someone doesn't like it then its not art.
Tee-hee-hee. Actually I agree with him in many circumstances! Sometimes it's just really a great sign of impactfulslness to hear someone say: Oh Gawd! I really hate that!
Page 5 ...hmmm not bad Saty.
It should be obvious to you that film is prized for the way its fills eyes and hearts.
There are a number of places you can get the negs developed in Melbourne, Michaels of course but I think they are expensive. Our friends here wouldn't know it but they try to sell TX400(36) to us for $12 (I buy it OS for 2.89 ex freight) and I'll know how much HP5 is next time I go in but I wont buy it here.
it's not large format, but probably the largest set of useful long lenses around.
