fair enough... it is just that when most people talk about "God" they talk about an entity that they think actually is involved and cares about their lives (and what they do with their genitals and all)... whereas the vast potential of the universe is something to view with amazement... but not to put expectations on (and certainly no one's genitals matter when compared to the universe).
I don't really like "bad" lenses... but I am probably way more accepting of what is "good" than most people around here...
cogitech wrote:
As I said; "the vast potential of the universe" = "God".
There's nothing complicated or magical about it. It is just another word.
But probably the same could be said about the 35/2 vs. 35L, any Canon 50 vs. any other Canon 50, the 85/1.8 vs. the 85L and the 135SF vs. the 135L... doesn't ever stop discussion and argument. No one around here really worries about if something makes a "significant" difference...
>>I make them, and I sure cannot see a consistent difference of significance corresponding to which looks more like film.
"eerrr.....so.......can someone please show some samples what these organic shiznit looks like? 5 pages and still nothing to reference to?"
I don't know about the rest of you, but I've been away from this thread for a while. I'm actually working - y'know, taking pictures - three CD cover shoots, in the middle of a major brochure for UCLA and shooting some live music on the side just for fun. When I get a chance, I'll gladly post images, but it's not exactly a high priority at the moment.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Darn. I really wish you lived near me. It would wonderful to watch how you distinguish prints made from photographs captured on the 5D and the 5D2. I make them, and I sure cannot see a consistent difference of significance corresponding to which looks more like film. (Which is, to repeat, not a claim that there are no differences between the cameras.)
(And, yes, I can already see the follow-up post: "Well, if you really knew how to print..." )
Dan
As I've already said (about my personal view on this subject); at "normal" print sizes, I don't think I can tell. At 100% on the monitor is where it shows up for me. This obviously reduces the relevance of the entire argument but the difference is still there and the word "organic" still makes as much sense to me in this context.
mh2000 wrote:
EEGADS! Is this an example of how digital you can make digital look?
Very funny.
You do realize that you have your nose up in what corresponds to a print size of 15x10 meters from an APS-C camera?
Have a look at the original pixels at 5x5 size. Which one is more digital?
"Peter: I didn't know you used RD. So do I. I've been working with it for several years. I first used it when I owned a Kodak SLR/c and have been using it ever since, upgrading along the way."
Steve - I typically use CaptureOne but have RawDeveloper for specific images that can benefit from what it has to offer. I ran in to Brian while hiking in Monterey a couple of years ago. It turns out he lives about fifty yards from my dad's house there.
"I agree 100% with the proposition that the post processing technique is what makes or breaks a digital file. Though I've never seen or read a survey on the subject, I'm going to guess that more than half of all digital photographers use poor technique when post-processing or use post-processing to "make up for" poor technique at the moment of capture ... a very common mistake, I imagine."
The processing and post processing of digital files makes ALL the difference to me, and I see far too much bad post processing and by people who should know better. As it pertains to this thread, the comment I get from more people than I can count is how filmlike they think my digital images are. This is important to me because the longer I look at an image on the wall, the less I want it to look digital. There's a reason that we tend to gravitate towards that organic look that has been so hotly debated here in recent days. Well at least I do and I know there are more than a few participating here do too. It's entirely possible that there are people here who have never shot film or have enough first hand experience with it to make an informed opinion.
"Regarding "organic vs. digital:" the first time I ever heard the term "organic" in relation to digital photography was from you when you tried to tell me about the differences between the 1Ds II and 1Ds III. Well, I'm not really sure what that term means, but I do know that my 5D II files are about as close to medium format film as I've ever gotten ... really exceeding the Mk 1 in this respect and easily exceeding the Mk 1 in terms of "looking digital" vs "not looking digital." If that makes the 5D II "more organic" than the Mk I, so be it."
Where I see the difference is in a large print, say a 30x45 inch print compared to a similar print scanned from a transparency or neg. I see less of a difference in smaller prints. It might be that because I'm "old school" I guess, that I expect to see a certain amount of "organic" film grain and when it's not there it just feels like there's something missing from the image. There must also be a reason that in order to make a greatly enlarged digital image look better after it's been uprezzed enough, we usually dirty it up with some simulated film grain to make it more palatable to our eyes.
And, yes, btw, Art Center still requires 4x5 black and white film for at least the first couple of trimesters although even they can't tell you why they still do that.
I only got involved in this thread because one of the early posted images clearly showed typical digital-ness, which some folks had either a hard time seeing or believing. It's all a trade-off but you have to know what your options are and know what you're giving up. Well, you don't have to know, but if you've crossed from film to digital then you already know. For most commercial work today, we accept the limitations of digital for the immediacy and cost effectiveness of digital. There have been more than one instance where I shot a personal shot digitally but was less than satisfied with the tonality and went back to shoot it again on film. The image of Overland Liquors on my website is one example.
alundeb wrote:
Very funny.
You do realize that you have your nose up in what corresponds to a print size of 15x10 meters from an APS-C camera?
Have a look at the original pixels at 5x5 size. Which one is more digital?
Looking at these two images, the 1st one is more pixelated and not as smooth as the 2nd (film-like i suppose?), but 5D2 has smaller pixel size so if anything the 5D is going to look even more "digital" in close examination, due to its larger pixels. Unless the 5D have different anti aliasing filter that could better handle this type of choppiness...
Peter Figen wrote:
"Peter: I didn't know you used RD. So do I. I've been working with it for several years. I first used it when I owned a Kodak SLR/c and have been using it ever since, upgrading along the way."
Steve - I typically use CaptureOne but have RawDeveloper for specific images that can benefit from what it has to offer. I ran in to Brian while hiking in Monterey a couple of years ago. It turns out he lives about fifty yards from my dad's house there.
"I agree 100% with the proposition that the post processing technique is what makes or breaks a digital file. Though I've never seen or read a survey on the subject, I'm going to guess that more than half of all digital photographers use poor technique when post-processing or use post-processing to "make up for" poor technique at the moment of capture ... a very common mistake, I imagine."
The processing and post processing of digital files makes ALL the difference to me, and I see far too much bad post processing and by people who should know better. As it pertains to this thread, the comment I get from more people than I can count is how filmlike they think my digital images are. This is important to me because the longer I look at an image on the wall, the less I want it to look digital. There's a reason that we tend to gravitate towards that organic look that has been so hotly debated here in recent days. Well at least I do and I know there are more than a few participating here do too. It's entirely possible that there are people here who have never shot film or have enough first hand experience with it to make an informed opinion.
"Regarding "organic vs. digital:" the first time I ever heard the term "organic" in relation to digital photography was from you when you tried to tell me about the differences between the 1Ds II and 1Ds III. Well, I'm not really sure what that term means, but I do know that my 5D II files are about as close to medium format film as I've ever gotten ... really exceeding the Mk 1 in this respect and easily exceeding the Mk 1 in terms of "looking digital" vs "not looking digital." If that makes the 5D II "more organic" than the Mk I, so be it."
Where I see the difference is in a large print, say a 30x45 inch print compared to a similar print scanned from a transparency or neg. I see less of a difference in smaller prints. It might be that because I'm "old school" I guess, that I expect to see a certain amount of "organic" film grain and when it's not there it just feels like there's something missing from the image. There must also be a reason that in order to make a greatly enlarged digital image look better after it's been uprezzed enough, we usually dirty it up with some simulated film grain to make it more palatable to our eyes.
And, yes, btw, Art Center still requires 4x5 black and white film for at least the first couple of trimesters although even they can't tell you why they still do that.
I only got involved in this thread because one of the early posted images clearly showed typical digital-ness, which some folks had either a hard time seeing or believing. It's all a trade-off but you have to know what your options are and know what you're giving up. Well, you don't have to know, but if you've crossed from film to digital then you already know. For most commercial work today, we accept the limitations of digital for the immediacy and cost effectiveness of digital. There have been more than one instance where I shot a personal shot digitally but was less than satisfied with the tonality and went back to shoot it again on film. The image of Overland Liquors on my website is one example....Show more →
thanks a bunch for the explanation.
Any film or slide that goes through a scanner is still going to be pixelated and they all display the same kind of digitalness, only show more in larger print right?
"Any film or slide that goes through a scanner is still going to be pixelated and they all display the same kind of digitalness, only show more in larger print right?"
Well, not really. Of course, you have pixel when scanning, but if you are scanning down to the film grain with a high res drum scanner, what you get is film grain resolved by pixels, but more importantly, you are scanning the gradation of the film, which is what separates it from digital, and you are scanning it with analog tubes, which are very good at recording the finest of gradations in the film. Of course, nothing is perfect, but in the real world, very large prints look amazingly good. I have in my office, a portrait of Townes Van Zandt, the famous Texas songwriter, shot on 35mm T-Max100 film and a Nikon 105mm lens, that is roughly 36 x 54 inches and standing inches away with reading glasses on, you see film grain and no pixels. This was drum scanned at 8000 pixels per inch and printed on a large format Epson. There's also a difference in how film looks when it hits it's limit of resolving detail compared to digital, which is harder to describe than to see, but the film goes to mush much smoother than the digital.
gdanmitchell wrote:
...Any time someone resorts to terms like "organic" or "film-like" to describe the "magical qualities" of some piece of gear, be skeptical. Very skeptical.
Peter Figen wrote:
"eerrr.....so.......can someone please show some samples what these organic shiznit looks like? 5 pages and still nothing to reference to?"
I don't know about the rest of you, but I've been away from this thread for a while. I'm actually working - y'know, taking pictures - three CD cover shoots, in the middle of a major brochure for UCLA and shooting some live music on the side just for fun. When I get a chance, I'll gladly post images, but it's not exactly a high priority at the moment.
As always, Veroman, you are very astute.
Thanks Peter. In terms of this thread, it doesn't seem to have made much of a difference, though. Glad to hear you're busy in this downturn economy.
BubbaJon wrote:
I've been waiting for someone to bring up Kodachrome. No grain at all - yet a revered film - legendary... So lets just drop the whole grain thing - not applicable to this conversation.
I don't know if I understand this. I scanned some Kodachrome 64 and 25 slides and I was amazed about the amount of grain, especially in the skies.
Well... I didn't see the point of the unexplained post... hence my reply... yes the second will make a better billboard, but neither looks "organic" or even "film-like" to me... at best the second looks like a really bad film scan...
(yes, I recognize that it is a huge enlargement... but that was what I was given to look at)
yauyi wrote:
Looking at these two images, the 1st one is more pixelated and not as smooth as the 2nd (film-like i suppose?), but 5D2 has smaller pixel size so if anything the 5D is going to look even more "digital" in close examination, due to its larger pixels. Unless the 5D have different anti aliasing filter that could better handle this type of choppiness...
I think I would consider those events more as "awesome" and they make me release how vulterable we all are... so we should feel lucky that we have this tenuous fluke of an existence.
Ixania wrote:
uhhh, you mean: tsunami-beauty? earthquake-lucky? or asteroids killing 99% of species beauty?
what you were probably seeing is more digital aliasing than "grain," Kodachrome is made up of "dye clouds."
lexvo wrote:
I don't know if I understand this. I scanned some Kodachrome 64 and 25 slides and I was amazed about the amount of grain, especially in the skies.
