Peter Figen
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.2 #13 · 5D2 looks "digital" compare to 5D? | |
"First of all, define what it means for an image to look "organic." Describe in specific terms what qualities such an image has, and how those qualities distinguish it from an image that purportedly lacks it."
It's kinda like pornography - you know it when you see it.
"Second, the people who claim film gives a different "look" compared to a digital sensor are speaking in trivialities. Of course they are different. At what point did the film get represented as a RGB data set for you to make a valid comparison? For those of you who think that a digitally scanned transparency yields more fidelity, you're full of s*** because once you use a analog-to-digital device to rasterize the source, you are basically doing the same thing that you did with a digital sensor. Yes, you could fine-tune the scanner to pick up certain characteristics present in the film. But you could do the same thing with the sensor. The basic principles of the recording technology are the same, be they CCD or CMOS."
Maybe if you're using a piece of crap CCD scanner that can't record the entire range of the scanned film, but use a good old fashioned analog photomultiplier tube and you'll see a huge difference. A high end scanner does a pretty damned good job of recording the subtleties of film gradations, particularly at the high end of the tonal scale.
"If you maintain that the film scan looks better--not because it is more faithful, but because it possesses those undefined characteristics that were given the label "organic"--it's because you are picking up the imperfections intrinsic to the film exposure. What you are liking are the artifacts from using film (e.g., grain, saturation)."
The above statement only says to me that you've never seen a really great film scan. What I've been referring to specifically is the way film transitions from highlight detail into specular highlight vs. the digital does. And yes, you certainly can see that on a good scan from someone who knows how to get the most out of their drum scanner. It's the same difference between how a digital amplifier clips the sine wave when pushed too far vs. a tube amp which is much much smoother. Musicians ands audiophiles can hear the difference just as easily as someone with trained eyes can see the difference.
"As for comparing sensors-to-sensors, the only real difference you will see is from various implementations of the sensor in terms of color fidelity, dynamic range, noise control, pixel density, etc. If the combination of these factors leads to a more "organic" look, whatever that means, then buy that sensor. Nobody is stopping you."
There's no arguing with that.
"I mean, really...buy whatever the hell floats your boat. Buy a freaking Lensbaby or a Holga or a Leica M9 + Noctilux or a Rebel or a P&S. 99.9% of an image has more to do with your choice of subject, exposure, composition, and aesthetics--in other words, who you are as a photographer, what it means to engage in the process of taking pictures, and what energy you bring to it--and that last 0.1% might have to do with these technical minutiae and navel-gazing discussions over "organic" vs. "digital" or "3D" vs. "everything else." Frankly, that last 0.1% is not worth arguing over. And it is most certainly not anything worth boasting about or exalting as if such things were the very definition of a superior photograph."
You're coming across angry because there are people who can see things that perhaps you can't at this moment. That's fine. There are people who can see the differences and those differences do affect how they perceive their images.
"These kinds of debates are a convenient way for a certain segment of enthusiasts to talk about photography without having to actually possess any creativity."
Dude, I don't see a web site under your name with your images out there to see. Mine is out there in the open for anyone to look at. Judge for yourself.
"The surest sign of an insecure photographer is someone who thinks that it is somehow important--or even relevant--that an image should look "film-like" or "3D" or some other nebulous quality, in order to be a good photo."
Statements like this are, well, I won't even go there...
|
Personally I have not use the classic 5D before so I have no idea what it means about not being organic. Can someone please explain(or show me) about these digital and organic look and what causes it? Is such claim for real or was it just an imagination and a side effect from drinking too much Coolaid??
