Top photographers condemn digital age

In article ,
Donald Qualls wrote:


Depends very much on the paper. In the glossy, coated papers that look
most like photo paper, the coating is similar in nature to the baryta
layer underlying the emulsion in some photo papers, and exists for the
same purpose, in part -- to give brightness and uniformity to the
surface. However, that surface is effectively impermeable, and the inks
simply dry on the surface; some inks, in fact, will bead on this surface
almost as they do on transparency film not specifically made for ink jet
printing. Ink jet specific papers are often sized with a layer of
starch over whatever coating they might have, in order to give the ink a
base into which it can absorb, but this coating is probably about a
tenth the thickness of a commercial emulsion layer.

Generally, one would expect pigment inks to outlast dye inks, but
pigments are less able to wick into an uncoated or sized surface than
dyes; the surface acts as a filter and actually draws the moisture away
from the particulates (however fine they might be), leaving the pigments
on the surfce but potentially removing their binder (which would
otherwise harden by evaporation of the water carrier). It's best to
match the paper to the application, of course; more absorbent papers for
dye inks, more impervious surfaces (but still accepting of binder
adhesion) for pigment inks.

By that indication pigments could over time drop off or flake
from the surface.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

Replying on an untrimmed reply, Wogster -- for some reason, your message
below hasn't reach North Carolina yet.

"The Wogster" wrote in message
. ..

Donald Qualls wrote:
I doubt anyone could prove the ground zero claim or the longevity (they
said something similar about CDs when they came out, remember? "Won't
skip like a record, and will last centuries!" and then they found out
the aluminum coating oxidizes between the plastic layers and the things
can become unreadable in a matter of 10-20 years in normal storage; I
heard one skipping on radio within a few months of the stations starting
to play them). The capacity would be wonderful, but it's still not
human readable.

I think the big resistance to digital in photography, is precisely that
the analog format is, to some degree human readable. Other media, like
audio, which always was encoded (either magnetically or as a long line
of vibrations on a disk), hasn't had the same degree of issue.

Exactly -- it's certainly much of my resistance; I can pull out a
negative file sheet, hold it up to the room light, and SEE what's on
those frames. Can't do that with a CD, flash stick, etc. And the same
will be true in 200 years, if they're B&W negatives and were properly
processed to begin with. Look at all the glass negatives that still
look good from 140+ years ago (Civil War, the first big heyday of
transparent negatives), before anyone really knew how to preserve images
and their bases over the long term -- and those are with collodion, a
form of celluloid, for emulsion!

Likewise, albumen prints and embedded silver prints like kallitypes and
salt prints survive well over at least a century, given no particular
care in production or storage. But we already know digital media don't
(yet) have that kind of lasting power -- if I hadn't transferred the
information to my "new" DOS computer seventeen years ago, at 1200 bps
through a laboriously hand wired null modem cable, every word I wrote on
my various Tandy Color Computers would have been long since lost; even
if you had a CoCo that could read the disks (5 1/4" 18-soft-sector,
interleaved, 35 or 40 tracks, 140k or 160k capacity and incompatible
with any format ever used in DOS or CP-M machines AFAIK, though perhaps
readable via TRS-DOS on a Tandy 8080 based system), floppies that old
would most likely be unreadable by any system outside the NSA (and
perhaps inside as well) by this time.

During this whole thread, I have been playing devils advocate, I still
shoot film. Currently I shoot, then get the film processed and scanned,
then process digitally from that point. I see no real reason to go
completely digital other then you can see the results immediately. Heck
a box of film chemistries and a film scanner, and I can see my results
in an hour as well.

That's what I've been doing for the past year, except that I was
scanning and developing the film myself; prior to that, I shot color and
had it lab processed, but that became inconvenient after a move.


Actually I tend to agree with you, at least for now, where technology
will go in 5, 10, 25, 100, 300, 500 years is anyones guess. For all we
know in 20 years the digital photography thing will have run it's
course, and we will all be shooting film again. Just it will be
processed and scanned.

I doubt digital imaging will ever disappear as either a professional
method of producing catalog and advertising images, or for consumer
"point and shoot" vacation and birthday party applications. I hold out
strong hope that in between, there'll be enough people shooting, not
just B&W film, but large format, whether for art's sake or as a craft
hobby like those who make steam engines from bar stock and casting or
those who weave baskets from twigs, that we'll see those products not
only remain in production, but not increase so much in price as to force
me away from the hobby/craft/art that is photography.

There are hopeful signs -- it's easier now to get 127 film (and more
emulsion choices) than it was five years ago; twenty years after the
discontinuation of 620 format, you can buy 120 film that's been resized
precisely to fit, at least in the supply side, at least 99% of 620
cameras (and there were a bunch of pretty good ones, though IMO the film
being so treated isn't the best choice for those cameras; I'd like to
see at least one ISO 100 or 400 B&W included in those ranks), and
centimeter size sheet film is stocked and ready to ship immediately from
multiple dealers in the USA, which was not the case as little as 4-5
years ago (and the fact that none of it is Kodak is just part of the
changing times). And among the films we do still have are some of the
best ever produced in terms of sharpness, contrast control, latitude,
grain, and in the case of color, truth and clarity of rendered colors.

I'm still buying film cameras (or will be again when my budget catches
up after this move -- which has, so far, cost about $2000 more than
anticipated, and was just barely feasible without that increase), albeit
old ones. I still have a bunch of film around, and will continue to buy
it, shoot it, develop it (probably to include C-41 within the next
year), and scan it; I'm also getting set up to print my own.

It's a good time to be a photographer. I'm just hoping that continues
to be true.

--
I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
-- E. J. Fudd, 1954

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.

In article ,
The Wogster wrote:

Given that there is a difference, between the needs of dye based inks
and pigment based inks, why are papers not marked as to the ink-type
they are designed for?

Can anyone recommend a few good paper brands types for dye based inks?
I have an HP printer with PhotoRET.

Some do, try www.inkjetart.com for just about every speciality paper
some quite costly under the sun.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

Donald Qualls wrote:

During this whole thread, I have been playing devils advocate, I still
shoot film. Currently I shoot, then get the film processed and scanned,
then process digitally from that point. I see no real reason to go
completely digital other then you can see the results immediately. Heck
a box of film chemistries and a film scanner, and I can see my results
in an hour as well.


That's what I've been doing for the past year, except that I was
scanning and developing the film myself; prior to that, I shot color and
had it lab processed, but that became inconvenient after a move.


I find it's actually convenient being a cross-over shooter, by shooting
film then processing and scanning, you get the best of both worls, you
have the advantages of film, reasonably cheap equipment, low power
needs, portable media, relatively permanent results. And you have the
advantage of digital, WYSIWYG image editing and manipulation, then print
the results of the few photos you deem worth it.

I doubt digital imaging will ever disappear as either a professional
method of producing catalog and advertising images, or for consumer
"point and shoot" vacation and birthday party applications. I hold out
strong hope that in between, there'll be enough people shooting, not
just B&W film, but large format, whether for art's sake or as a craft
hobby like those who make steam engines from bar stock and casting or
those who weave baskets from twigs, that we'll see those products not
only remain in production, but not increase so much in price as to force
me away from the hobby/craft/art that is photography.

There are hopeful signs -- it's easier now to get 127 film (and more
emulsion choices) than it was five years ago; twenty years after the
discontinuation of 620 format, you can buy 120 film that's been resized
precisely to fit, at least in the supply side, at least 99% of 620
cameras (and there were a bunch of pretty good ones, though IMO the film
being so treated isn't the best choice for those cameras; I'd like to
see at least one ISO 100 or 400 B&W included in those ranks), and
centimeter size sheet film is stocked and ready to ship immediately from
multiple dealers in the USA, which was not the case as little as 4-5
years ago (and the fact that none of it is Kodak is just part of the
changing times). And among the films we do still have are some of the
best ever produced in terms of sharpness, contrast control, latitude,
grain, and in the case of color, truth and clarity of rendered colors.

I'm still buying film cameras (or will be again when my budget catches
up after this move -- which has, so far, cost about $2000 more than
anticipated, and was just barely feasible without that increase), albeit
old ones. I still have a bunch of film around, and will continue to buy
it, shoot it, develop it (probably to include C-41 within the next
year), and scan it; I'm also getting set up to print my own.

I hope to replace my Konica TC, which was built in 1979 with a new Canon
Rebel Ti, yeah I know it probably will not last 25 years, but my
Brother-in-law has one, nice camera. Since Konica isn't building them
anymore, I'll dump the eqipment and go with the Canon. Digital, not for
now, the problems you gave are the reasons why I am holding back, along
with the cost.

W

The Wogster wrote:

Given that there is a difference, between the needs of dye based inks
and pigment based inks, why are papers not marked as to the ink-type
they are designed for?

Can anyone recommend a few good paper brands types for dye based inks? I
have an HP printer with PhotoRET.

HP probably recommends a number of (HP branded) papers for use with that
printer (different ones for different applications, resolutions, or ink
densities, most likely). You can most likely take the list of HP papers
that will do what you want to someplace like Office Depot or Staples and
they can point you to other, probably less costly brands with the same
or similar specs.

However: practically every factory cartridge for every inkjet printer in
existence is dye based, because it's easier and cheaper to make a dye
solution spray through microscopic nozzles than to get pigments fine
enough and keep them from clumping (and clogging) -- if pigment ink,
it'll say so on the advertising, and it'll cost extra, because that's a
selling point in the deep-pockets (compared to the home market for
computers as small appliances, like toasters) photographic market. If
you're using pigment ink aftermarket cartridges in your HP (similarly to
using the four-gray system for Epson), you may need a special printer
driver or color curve for your editor, and you'll need to get paper
recommendations from the ink vendor, rather than the printer manufacturer.

--
I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
-- E. J. Fudd, 1954

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.

Gregory Blank wrote:

In article ,
Donald Qualls wrote:

Generally, one would expect pigment inks to outlast dye inks, but
pigments are less able to wick into an uncoated or sized surface than
dyes; the surface acts as a filter and actually draws the moisture away
from the particulates (however fine they might be), leaving the pigments
on the surfce but potentially removing their binder (which would
otherwise harden by evaporation of the water carrier). It's best to
match the paper to the application, of course; more absorbent papers for
dye inks, more impervious surfaces (but still accepting of binder
adhesion) for pigment inks.


By that indication pigments could over time drop off or flake
from the surface.

And so they can, if the paper surface doesn't offer enough adhesion for
the ink binder. Printers' inks use an oil binder, which cures by
oxidation in a manner similar to the linseed oil in artists' colors; it
will can smear when affected by oils or solvents, but generally stays
stuck otherwise. This material, however, won't spray through an ink
jet; binders in pigment in for ink jets are generally a high dilute glue
of some sort (could be polyvinyl acetate, same as white glue, I'm not
certain) that cure by evaporation of the water carrier; if the paper's
coating is too glossy and too impervious, they can in fact flake (but
that paper is probably only suitable for laser printing, where the toner
is melted by the fuser and bonds to the paper while hot). If you use
papers made for inkjet printing, however, overpenetration is more of a
problem, and inkjet photo papers usually accept both kinds of ink very well.

--
I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
-- E. J. Fudd, 1954

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.

The Wogster wrote:

Cheney, then? He certainly is a wogster if I ever saw one.

Wrong country, I'm in Canada, more of a Brian Mulroney type, except
never thought he was conservative enough.....

W


I would like to state I have never met Brian Mulroney either,
and I go to Canada every tuesday :-)

Robert Feinman wrote:

In article , says...

Image quality wise, silver halides record tonal detail on
a molecular level (i.e., it takes just three photons to
produce an viable exposure in a silver halide crystal and
begin photolysis), whereas with silcon sensors each
photodector site requires a much higher influx of photon
energy to produce a viable signal that is then used to
create an image pixel. Even the smallest photodetector is
much larger than a typical silver halide crystal. For
comparitive purposes, though, photoscientists have used
equivalent pixels based on the number of absorbed photons
per pixel area. In film, this is assumed to be 100 square
micrometers; for a CDD sensor about 50 square micrometers.
Yet film contains vastly greater numbers of 'equivalent

While it is true that film still has much higher resolving power
than image sensors, the differences tend to be masked by the
other limitations in the image making chain. The two most
important are lens resolution and image degradation by camera
shake or misfocusing.

The term "resolution" is defined by the MTF produced by the entire
imaging system. With digital, this system is hamstrung at the
start by the sensors susceptability to the Nyquist Theorem, since
(1) pixels -- photodectectors -- can only get so small plus require
a certain size to collect enough photon energy to produce a good
signal and (2) silicon wafers can only be manufactured so large
thereby limiting the number of photodetectors one can cram onto a
digital camera sensor, Nyquist will always limit digital resolution
and the optical quality of digital lenses. Silver hailde imaging
doesn't have this limitation and one can use the highest quality
optics available on film cameras.

Of course, the larger the piece of film
the less these things tend to matter.
In general, an average photographer, using typical equipment, can
expect to get about an 8x enlargement from a film original with
"excellent" quality. Very careful workers may be able to do slightly
better. I have a couple of examples of what can be achieved with
modern film, lenses and scanners in the tips section of my web site
where an 18x enlargement looks quite sharp.

I can recall going to see an Ansel Adams show before I decided to
become a serious photographer. I walked out of that show stunned
by the imporessive quality of his mural sized enlargements. Took
me days to recover...

As for dynamic range, color negative film is quite good, but I think
image sensors are closing in rapidly. There is an interesting study
by Roger Clark on dynamic range on his web site.

Digital still suffers less latitude, cannot perform low light
exposures, long exposures, or multiple exposures (inherently.)
Digital is great when it comes to many applications. But it
cannot do things film does and cannot replace film. I just
feel a need to correct the misinformation.

For myself, I currently still shoot film and then scan for output.
I find the control over color balance and density range much better
than I was ever able to obtain with conventional color papers.

You're working with a truncated color gamut, however.

My main view and opinion is that if you want your images to last,
put them on film. You can always scan them.

Robert D Feinman
Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
http://robertdfeinman.com
mail:

On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 11:15:37 GMT, Donald Qualls
wrote:

Sometimes, I think the reason I like the darkroom is because my Omega
D2V won't need a software upgrade in my lifetime...

Nor my Elwood !


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Please remove the "_" when replying via email

On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 14:49:02 +0100, "Phil Hobgen"
wrote:

Also using the touchpad on a laptop can
centralise your posture, which is tons better than sitting with one arm
sticking out to the side holding a mouse and making lots of tiny movements
for hours on end.

I just use a wireless trackball. LCDS monitors are nice but
still a luxury. Also most don't seem sharp enough for me.


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Please remove the "_" when replying via email