If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
The last days of analog
In article , PeterN
wrote: Seeing 8x10 images in the flesh is an experience. Will be a while before digital really matches it and yet it will never look the same. it's already surpassed it. Expected response. because it's true. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
The last days of analog
In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote: Seeing 8x10 images in the flesh is an experience. Will be a while before digital really matches it and yet it will never look the same. it's already surpassed it. Care to point a link to a digital camera with a sensor that big, and that can be "twisted" as his? it doesn't need to be anywhere near that big and tilt/shift lenses, what you call 'twisted' are both available and also not needed. he is stuck in the past and more than likely doesn't realize that what he's doing in the *eight* *hours* per photo can be done digitally in a tiny fraction of that time, with much better and more consistent results. the fact that he claims a 2d print has depth tells all. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
The last days of analog
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: Seeing 8x10 images in the flesh is an experience. Will be a while before digital really matches it and yet it will never look the same. it's already surpassed it. Care to point a link to a digital camera with a sensor that big, and that can be "twisted" as his? it doesn't need to be anywhere near that big and tilt/shift lenses, what you call 'twisted' are both available and also not needed. That's where you are extremely wrong. nope. it's exactly correct. Simply because they lack a full range of adjustments, no tilt/shift lens will enable you to make all the corrections which can be made in a technical camera. See there's no need for all of the movements since the corrections can be done digitally in a lot less time and a lot more accurately. *some* camera movements *may* be required in certain situations, but not as many as you might think. Your claim "that what he's doing .... can be done digitally" is not correct. not only is it correct, but what he's doing can be done *better* with digital. or, if someone prefers 'the film look' (a vague completely meaningless term), the quality can be downgraded to match. the same holds true for digital audio, which is better than vinyl and cassette, yet there are those who like the 'warmth' (aka distortion), which can be added back (i.e., downgrade the quality). Any attempt to correct perspective digitally will result in the image being cropped. This may result in important pats of the image being cropped. The image will be cropped also if you make corrections with a technical camera but an important difference is that you can see what is being lost at the time you take the photograph and make the necessary adjustments before you trigger the shutter. Who knows, you might even change the lens. Only a few very rare digital cameras will enable you to do the same thing. Here is an example where I got into trouble https://www.dropbox.com/s/dku87csvth...00941.jpg?dl=0 don't blame the technology because you got yourself into trouble. learn from your mistakes, and more importantly, learn new techniques. Not everybody wants to do this kind of thing but you cannot do it with any ordinary digital camera. Nor can you do it with software. nobody said 'any ordinary digital camera' and an 8x10 view camera isn't 'an ordinary film camera' either, nor is cibachrome processing. he claims to spend *eight* *hours *per* *photo*. and if you want a second copy, that's *another* *eight* *hours*. the fact remains that anything that can be done with film, including from an 8x10 film camera, can be done digitally and with a lot less fuss and far more consistently. the best part is not having to deal with the stench of cibachrome chemistry. it's *awful*. the fact that he claims a 2d print has depth tells all. There is something to that. not in the way you think. Otherwise one-eyed people would lack any form of depth perception. In particular see 'occultation', 'Texture gradient', 'lighting and shading' and 'defocus blur' in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_perception that is not specific to film or any other medium. it's an effect which can be done with digital, film or even canvas paintings. anyone who thinks it's unique to cibachrome (his claim) is horribly misinformed. he probably thinks vinyl records sound better than cds. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
The last days of analog
On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 23:47:35 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: Seeing 8x10 images in the flesh is an experience. Will be a while before digital really matches it and yet it will never look the same. it's already surpassed it. Care to point a link to a digital camera with a sensor that big, and that can be "twisted" as his? it doesn't need to be anywhere near that big and tilt/shift lenses, what you call 'twisted' are both available and also not needed. That's where you are extremely wrong. nope. it's exactly correct. Simply because they lack a full range of adjustments, no tilt/shift lens will enable you to make all the corrections which can be made in a technical camera. See there's no need for all of the movements since the corrections can be done digitally in a lot less time and a lot more accurately. *some* camera movements *may* be required in certain situations, but not as many as you might think. Your claim "that what he's doing .... can be done digitally" is not correct. not only is it correct, but what he's doing can be done *better* with digital. or, if someone prefers 'the film look' (a vague completely meaningless term), the quality can be downgraded to match. the same holds true for digital audio, which is better than vinyl and cassette, yet there are those who like the 'warmth' (aka distortion), which can be added back (i.e., downgrade the quality). Any attempt to correct perspective digitally will result in the image being cropped. This may result in important pats of the image being cropped. The image will be cropped also if you make corrections with a technical camera but an important difference is that you can see what is being lost at the time you take the photograph and make the necessary adjustments before you trigger the shutter. Who knows, you might even change the lens. Only a few very rare digital cameras will enable you to do the same thing. Here is an example where I got into trouble https://www.dropbox.com/s/dku87csvth...00941.jpg?dl=0 don't blame the technology because you got yourself into trouble. learn from your mistakes, and more importantly, learn new techniques. Not everybody wants to do this kind of thing but you cannot do it with any ordinary digital camera. Nor can you do it with software. nobody said 'any ordinary digital camera' and an 8x10 view camera isn't 'an ordinary film camera' either, nor is cibachrome processing. he claims to spend *eight* *hours *per* *photo*. and if you want a second copy, that's *another* *eight* *hours*. the fact remains that anything that can be done with film, including from an 8x10 film camera, can be done digitally and with a lot less fuss and far more consistently. the best part is not having to deal with the stench of cibachrome chemistry. it's *awful*. the fact that he claims a 2d print has depth tells all. There is something to that. not in the way you think. Otherwise one-eyed people would lack any form of depth perception. In particular see 'occultation', 'Texture gradient', 'lighting and shading' and 'defocus blur' in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_perception that is not specific to film or any other medium. it's an effect which can be done with digital, film or even canvas paintings. anyone who thinks it's unique to cibachrome (his claim) is horribly misinformed. he probably thinks vinyl records sound better than cds. Youi are truly disgusting. You have distorted what I said by selective snipping and ignored an important point for which I submitted a personal example. Commencing at this point in the thread you are a liar. Are you so stupid as to think that no one will have noticed? -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
The last days of analog
On 2018-04-22 11:49, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 23:47:35 -0400, nospam wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: Seeing 8x10 images in the flesh is an experience. Will be a while before digital really matches it and yet it will never look the same. it's already surpassed it. Care to point a link to a digital camera with a sensor that big, and that can be "twisted" as his? it doesn't need to be anywhere near that big and tilt/shift lenses, what you call 'twisted' are both available and also not needed. That's where you are extremely wrong. nope. it's exactly correct. Simply because they lack a full range of adjustments, no tilt/shift lens will enable you to make all the corrections which can be made in a technical camera. See there's no need for all of the movements since the corrections can be done digitally in a lot less time and a lot more accurately. *some* camera movements *may* be required in certain situations, but not as many as you might think. Your claim "that what he's doing .... can be done digitally" is not correct. not only is it correct, but what he's doing can be done *better* with digital. or, if someone prefers 'the film look' (a vague completely meaningless term), the quality can be downgraded to match. the same holds true for digital audio, which is better than vinyl and cassette, yet there are those who like the 'warmth' (aka distortion), which can be added back (i.e., downgrade the quality). Any attempt to correct perspective digitally will result in the image being cropped. This may result in important pats of the image being cropped. The image will be cropped also if you make corrections with a technical camera but an important difference is that you can see what is being lost at the time you take the photograph and make the necessary adjustments before you trigger the shutter. Who knows, you might even change the lens. Only a few very rare digital cameras will enable you to do the same thing. Here is an example where I got into trouble https://www.dropbox.com/s/dku87csvth...00941.jpg?dl=0 don't blame the technology because you got yourself into trouble. learn from your mistakes, and more importantly, learn new techniques. Not everybody wants to do this kind of thing but you cannot do it with any ordinary digital camera. Nor can you do it with software. nobody said 'any ordinary digital camera' and an 8x10 view camera isn't 'an ordinary film camera' either, nor is cibachrome processing. he claims to spend *eight* *hours *per* *photo*. and if you want a second copy, that's *another* *eight* *hours*. the fact remains that anything that can be done with film, including from an 8x10 film camera, can be done digitally and with a lot less fuss and far more consistently. the best part is not having to deal with the stench of cibachrome chemistry. it's *awful*. the fact that he claims a 2d print has depth tells all. There is something to that. not in the way you think. Otherwise one-eyed people would lack any form of depth perception. In particular see 'occultation', 'Texture gradient', 'lighting and shading' and 'defocus blur' in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_perception that is not specific to film or any other medium. it's an effect which can be done with digital, film or even canvas paintings. anyone who thinks it's unique to cibachrome (his claim) is horribly misinformed. he probably thinks vinyl records sound better than cds. Youi are truly disgusting. You have distorted what I said by selective snipping and ignored an important point for which I submitted a personal example. Commencing at this point in the thread you are a liar. Are you so stupid as to think that no one will have noticed? Yes, we have. He is known for assuming he knows everything in every subject and everybody else is wrong. When proven beyond doubt wrong, he still claims to be right, or disappears. Specially when asked to provide supportive links of his claims such as "every body knows that...". So anything he vehemently says is suspect of being false. Which is a pity, because sometimes he is right. No software can emulate a lens and body that can tilt in any direction and distance. Not in all the aspects, because the focus changes. And then that chap is using a huge negative; there are no sensors that big at same pixels per centimetre, the digital resolution would be humongous. Technical cameras, I didn't remember the name, English is not my first language. Then assuming we could have the equipment, the knowhow of that chap takes years to achieve. -- Cheers, Carlos. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
The last days of analog
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: Youi are truly disgusting. You have distorted what I said by selective snipping and ignored an important point for which I submitted a personal example. false. in fact, i specifically referenced your personal example. here it is again: Here is an example where I got into trouble https://www.dropbox.com/s/dku87csvth...00941.jpg?dl=0 don't blame the technology because you got yourself into trouble. learn from your mistakes, and more importantly, learn new techniques. see my other post for more. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
The last days of analog
In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote: No software can emulate a lens and body that can tilt in any direction and distance. Not in all the aspects, because the focus changes. almost all, but for the ones that it can't, there are tilt/shift lenses and/or bellows. however, they're rarely, if ever needed. there are *other* options available to replace the outdated primitive methods and equipment. And then that chap is using a huge negative; there are no sensors that big at same pixels per centimetre, the digital resolution would be humongous. Technical cameras, I didn't remember the name, English is not my first language. there doesn't need to be a single sensor that big. your mistake is assuming it has to be an exact duplicate. it doesn't. here's a 20 *gigapixel* panorama, with a resolution of 203200 x 101600 pixels, roughly one *thousand* times as many pixels as a typical camera today. there is *so* much detail in this photo that you can see into some windows and read the ads on the sides of city busses. one of the commenters found naked sunbathers. http://360gigapixels.com/nyc-skyline-photo-panorama/ The largest photo ever made of NYC. 360º New York City gigapixel. If you printed this image at a standard photo resolution of 300DPI, it would be 18 meters or 57 feet wide, and 9 meters / 28 feet tall. That's a big photo! For more information about this panorama, please contact us. an 8x10 view camera is a toy in comparison. the reality is that what he's doing with his primitive 8x10 camera and cibachrome can be done much, much better with digital. or, it can be downgraded to match the 'look' of cibachrome, which is not very accurate. cibachrome is very saturated, which can easily be done in software. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
The last days of analog
On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 10:20:13 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Carlos E.R. wrote: No software can emulate a lens and body that can tilt in any direction and distance. Not in all the aspects, because the focus changes. almost all, but for the ones that it can't, there are tilt/shift lenses and/or bellows. however, they're rarely, if ever needed. Nor do they have the full range of adjustments available in a technical camera. there are *other* options available to replace the outdated primitive methods and equipment. Do tell. And then that chap is using a huge negative; there are no sensors that big at same pixels per centimetre, the digital resolution would be humongous. Technical cameras, I didn't remember the name, English is not my first language. there doesn't need to be a single sensor that big. your mistake is assuming it has to be an exact duplicate. it doesn't. here's a 20 *gigapixel* panorama, with a resolution of 203200 x 101600 pixels, roughly one *thousand* times as many pixels as a typical camera today. there is *so* much detail in this photo that you can see into some windows and read the ads on the sides of city busses. one of the commenters found naked sunbathers. http://360gigapixels.com/nyc-skyline-photo-panorama/ The largest photo ever made of NYC. 360º New York City gigapixel. If you printed this image at a standard photo resolution of 300DPI, it would be 18 meters or 57 feet wide, and 9 meters / 28 feet tall. That's a big photo! For more information about this panorama, please contact us. an 8x10 view camera is a toy in comparison. But so it should be. An enormous number of images went into the construction of the one you have just cited. the reality is that what he's doing with his primitive 8x10 camera and cibachrome can be done much, much better with digital. And who is actually doing it? or, it can be downgraded to match the 'look' of cibachrome, which is not very accurate. cibachrome is very saturated, which can easily be done in software. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
The last days of analog
On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 10:20:12 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: Youi are truly disgusting. You have distorted what I said by selective snipping and ignored an important point for which I submitted a personal example. false. in fact, i specifically referenced your personal example. here it is again: Here is an example where I got into trouble https://www.dropbox.com/s/dku87csvth...00941.jpg?dl=0 don't blame the technology because you got yourself into trouble. learn from your mistakes, and more importantly, learn new techniques. see my other post for more. I originally wrote: "Any attempt to correct perspective digitally will result in the image being cropped. This may result in important pats of the image being cropped. The image will be cropped also if you make corrections with a technical camera but an important difference is that you can see what is being lost at the time you take the photograph and make the necessary adjustments before you trigger the shutter. Who knows, you might even change the lens. Only a few very rare digital cameras will enable you to do the same thing." You have completely ignored the point I made in that paragraph. Of course with a digital camera you can know in advance roughly how much image is going to be lost in the perspective corrections but you can never know exactly. You have to estimate the allowance to be made and sometimes your estimate will be wrong. But if you can make the adjustments in the camera you can see the result before you take the photograph and this is an advantage that a suitable film camera has over almost any digital on the market. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
The last days of analog
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: Youi are truly disgusting. You have distorted what I said by selective snipping and ignored an important point for which I submitted a personal example. false. in fact, i specifically referenced your personal example. here it is again: Here is an example where I got into trouble https://www.dropbox.com/s/dku87csvth...00941.jpg?dl=0 don't blame the technology because you got yourself into trouble. learn from your mistakes, and more importantly, learn new techniques. see my other post for more. I originally wrote: "Any attempt to correct perspective digitally will result in the image being cropped. This may result in important pats of the image being cropped. The image will be cropped also if you make corrections with a technical camera but an important difference is that you can see what is being lost at the time you take the photograph and make the necessary adjustments before you trigger the shutter. Who knows, you might even change the lens. Only a few very rare digital cameras will enable you to do the same thing." You have completely ignored the point I made in that paragraph. nope. i haven't ignored anything. as i said: don't blame the technology because you got yourself into trouble. learn from your mistakes, and more importantly, learn new techniques. in other words, *you* screwed up and are blaming everything *other* than yourself. just because you don't know how to do something doesn't mean it can't be done. it simply means *you* personally can't do it and for some reason, you don't want to learn. Of course with a digital camera you can know in advance roughly how much image is going to be lost in the perspective corrections but you can never know exactly. You have to estimate the allowance to be made and sometimes your estimate will be wrong. that's the fault of the photographer, not the technology. But if you can make the adjustments in the camera you can see the result before you take the photograph and this is an advantage that a suitable film camera has over almost any digital on the market. except that with digital, the adjustments can be done afterwards (and in many cases automatically), rather than spend time on site fiddling with the camera, hoping to get it right. if you get it wrong with a film camera (which *will* happen, nothing is immune to mistakes), you have to *go* *back* to the site to *retake* the photo, which may not be possible, or at best, a pain in the ass to lug the 8x10 camera, set it up again and redo all of the adjustments. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
My first analog photos! | Russell D. | Digital Photography | 0 | May 29th 12 08:50 PM |
My first analog photos! | George Kerby | Digital Photography | 0 | May 28th 12 07:47 PM |
My first analog photos! | Andrew Reilly[_2_] | Digital Photography | 1 | May 28th 12 12:01 PM |
Analog Black Dial | [email protected] | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | May 21st 09 10:42 AM |
Old Analog Meter: Any Value ?? | Magnusfarce | Digital Photography | 14 | July 3rd 07 06:53 PM |